HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 17 1992 PC Minutes�=VARF
1
MARCH 17, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 1992 Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr.
Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner;
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March
3, 1992 were approved as amended.
Consent Agenda Preview -
Keswick - Mr. Baker presented the preview. Staff was
recommending that the line be found in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. No action was required of the
Commission at this time.
Keswick Acquistions Corporation was represented by Mr. Pete
Bradshaw, Development Manager. Answers to various Commission
questions included the following:
--Several options for energy had been explored
and it was determined that natural gas would be the most
economical.
--The line will be paid for by the consumer (Keswick
Acquisitions) by the posting of a bond for the extension of
the line and the bond will not be released until after the
user (Keswick Acquisitions) has expended an agreed upon
amount. Mr. Bradshaw explained: "A public utility is in
the business of providing service and recoups its cost and
the capitalization of providing that service by fees and
that is a contractual relationship which exists between the
user and/or users (using the utility)."
Mr. Johnson felt approval was being sought for a service
that would serve only one particular entity through the
expenditure of public funds. Mr. Bowling and staff
explained that that was incorrect because no County funds
would be involved whatsoever. Mr. Bowling compared the
proposal to the extension of a power line by VEPCO or
CENTEL. Though he the acknowledged that no public funds
would be expended, Mr. Johnson stated: "...but we are
3-17-92 2
putting public concern into it if we're approving it from a
public standpoint."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commission's review was
simply to determine if the proposed line is, or is not, in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Funding of the
utility's installation is not an issue. He explained that
utilities make their own business decisions in relation to
providing service when there exists a regional line such as
this, and State Code (15.1-456) requires Commission review.
He stated that the proposal is not dissimilar to the
consideration of a water or sewer line "which in those cases
are many times taken to specific locations because of a
developer who needs that water or sewer service."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Cilimberg
explained that a gas line is not considered as a growth
management tool in the same way as water and sewer services
because there are other sources of energy and gas, as a
utility, is not essential.
Commission discussion centered upon the proposed routing of
the line. Mr. Blue noted that the Comprehensive Plan
recommends that utilities be placed in the same corridors
when possible. [NOTE: Mr. Baker later pointed out that this
is a "guideline" suggested for roads with Virginia Byway
designations and is not required in any County Ordinance.]
Mr. Blue stated that if the line shared the same corridor as
the Glenmore waterline ("down 250, under the Interstate,
across the railroad, coming in through the back entrance
along the public road") part of it would be in the same
corridor as the water line and it could potentially provide
service to more houses. He asked if this possibility had
been considered.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated this had been considered by the Gas
Division, but it had been decided that the proposed route,
from their standpoint, was a more feasible route. It was
determined that the proposed route involved far fewer
property owners and thus the need for less easements than
the route described by Mr. Blue.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that staff could get with the City
Gas Company to see if the route described by Mr. Blue was a
possibility. He noted, however, that staff could find no
reason to find that the current alignment was not in
compliance with the plan. He noted later that if the Gas
Company "felt they could go the other route, it would have
an equal finding in terms of compliance with the Plan." The
Commission was in favor of Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion. Mr.
Bowling pointed out that if the Commission wanted to change
the route it would need to state reasons why the proposed
route was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
(based on the factors outlined in the staff report).
/4.3
3-17-92 3
Mr. Blue asked: "Even though the other way would have more
of the utility within the growth area?" Mr. Cilimberg
responded: "None of that area is within the growth area."
Mr. Blue noted: "It would be on the edge of it if it went
down 250." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It would be
immediately to the northwest of the Rivanna growth area."
Though Mr. Bradshaw asked the Commission to more
specifically describe the alternative alignment that was
being discussed, a more specific description was not
offered.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would talk with the Gas
Company about the Commission's recommendations.
SDP-92-007 - C.J. Reeder Site Plan Waiver Request - Request
to waive the requirement of a site plan (Section 32.2.1) for
the addition of a third dwelling unit on a property. The
applicant is proposing to locate a mobile home for an
agricultural employee on the 30 acre property which contains
two existing houses. Property, described as Tax Map 34,
Parcel 39A, is located on the south side of Rt. 641
approximately 4/10 of a mile west of Rt. 20 North. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This
site is not located in a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval of the request.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Fritz explained
that this item was before the Commission because it is a
request for a third dwelling and the fact that it is a
mobile home is not a factor. He added that "a mobile home
for an agricultural employee is by -right."
Mr. Blue expressed a concern (not about this particular
proposal), but about site plan requirements in general which
are never completed, i.e. "there is no follow up so there is
no way of knowing if they are ever done." Mr. Fritz stated
he was not aware of any problems with this site.
The applicant, Mr. Reeder, was present but offered no
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the C.J.
Reeder Site Plan Waiver Request be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
3-17-92
4
a. Construction of a private road commercial entrance;
b. Health Department approval. The motion passed
unanimously.
Whitewood Forest Park 15.1-456 Review Review for
Compliance with the Com rehensive Plan - The Whitewood Park
Committee has completed the development plan for proposed
improvements to the Whitewood Forest Park. The site
(approximately 25 acres) is located on Whitewood Road in
Neighborhood 1. Tax Map 61, Parcel 28. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending that the park be found to be in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish was assisted by Mr. Pat
Mullaney, Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation.
Mr. Mullaney described the makeup of the Whitewood Road
Committee and also the history of the property. He stressed
that safety concerns had been a major concern of the
committee and that an an effort was made to balance the
safety issue with the need to maintain greenspace.
Though Mr. Blue expressed no problems with the park, he made
the following comment: "The history says the property was
purchased in 1919 and was held and reserved for a school
site. I'd like to point out it was a school site for many,
many years and then when that school was abandoned, it was
held by the School Board. The School Board... recommended
that that be used for a school site and it was a perfect
site for it. In my opinion, the jogging trails could have
been incorporated in the school site and could have served
both purposes. I think it was probably one of the worst
decisions the Board of Supervisors has ever made to overrule
the School Board on that and ... to go and spend over a
million dollars to buy land in an area that is not as well
suited as this. ... I hope we never make that kind of
mistake again particularly since it seems so obvious that
the jogging trails could have been easily worked into the
school site and would have saved the County $1,000,000. It
didn't make sense."
Ms. Huckle asked about the bike policy in the park. Mr.
Mullaney responded that bikes will not be allowed, though it
will be difficult to enforce this restriction.
Regarding fencing around the detention basin, Mr. Mullaney
explained that he was very concerned about the attraction of
the basin to children and that fencing was being
investigated. (Regarding the issue of liability, Mr.
Bowling stated that, under the Doctrine of Sovereign
Immunity, the County did not have any liability.)
3-17-92 5
Mr. Johnson commended Mr. Mullaney for his presentation,
particularly for his concerns in realtion to safety and
security. He, too, felt security of the park was a very
important issue. He noted that Charlottesville is not immune
from crime problems that are often present in this type of
park. He also expressed concern about the park in terms of
cost effectiveness. He noted the high value (possibly
half -a -million or a million dollars/acre) of the property
which makes it a "tremendous investment on the part of the
citizens on that piece of land, so that has to be considered
in the utilization." He felt that more than jogging trails
and a few benches was appropriate. He suggested that some
tot lots be included in the plans. He concluded: "Sooner
or later this community cannot support a $20,000,000
investment to (serve) 100 people."
Ms. Huckle wondered if lighting had been considered. Mr.
Mullaney stated that the park is supposed to be closed at
dark and lighting has not been considered. Mr. Blue noted
that neighbors would probably object to lighting.
Mr. Mullaney stated that playgrounds had been considered but
it had been determined that the best location (along
Whitewood Road) would invite children to cross a very busy
street.
Mr. Grimm stated that the Commission agreed with the
Committee's "slow and cautious development of the property
to see how it can be best used in the future."
Mr. Johnson suggested that the Committee consult with the
Police Department. Mr. Mullaney explained that a member of
the Police Department had served on the Committee.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the
Whitewood Forest Park be found to be in Compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
community Facilities Plan - County Government Administration
- Mr. Baker presented the staff report. He briefly reviewed
revisions which had been made since the Commission's
previous work session on February 4, 1992.
As at the previous work session on this topic, discussion
centered primarily on the 250 sq.ft./employee figure which
144
3-17-92 6
was referred to in the plan. Mr. M. Kirk Train (an
architect retained by the County to analyze space needs and
possible expansion alternatives) explained the process which
had been followed in the preparation of his report and, in
particular, the meaning of the 250 figure which had been
used. He pointed out that it is difficult to find
additional space in the existing building because there is
no consistency in the building module. This is because the
building was designed as a school and not as an office
building. He explained that the figure was a "guide," a
"target."
Significant Commission comments included the following:
--Mr. Nitchmann was opposed to the inclusion of the 250
figure in the plan. He explained: "If you establish a
'rule of thumb' of 250 square feet, that rule of thumb will
be carried through the initial planning project of any
building that we build." He suggested: "Why can't it just
say 'Before additional office space is deemed appropriate, a
space justification project will go into effect to see what
is actually needed."' Based on personal research, Mr.
Nitchmann felt the figure was too high. [Later in the
meeting Mr. Nitchmann asked for a clearer definition of the
"development community" and also an explanation of what is
included in the term "net square feet."]
--Mr. Johnson agreed that if the figure were included
in the plan it "was pretty much etched in stone for all
practical purposes." [Mr. Benish stressed that it was not
intended that the 250 be "etched in stone." He quoted the
following from the plan: "Before we do any actual
construction, we will do a detailed analysis of the space
needs we are going to provide." He pointed out that one of
the uses of the Community Facilities Plan is to "project"
potential future needs. He stated that if no number is used
"we are just going to have to build it somehow... and each
time we do a physical impact assessment that requires this
type of information, we will have to get it re -confirmed."
Staff felt it was important to include the number so that
"the Planning Commission and the Board can at least
establish that initial review number."]
--Mr. Blue concluded from Mr. Train's explanation that
"even if we do put it in there ... we are going to come back
to pretty close to the 250 anyway." He did not feel
strongly as to whether it should remain or be deleted from
the document. He felt Mr. Train had satisfactorily
demonstrated that 250 was a reasonable estimate. Mr. Blue
also interpreted that some of the Commissioners' concern
with the number could be related to the possibility that it
would be tied to some future bond issue in securing funds
for a project.
--Ms. Huckle felt that the number was unnecessay if an
analysis must be performed for each project in any case:
She concluded: "These things are usually self-fulfilling
prophecies."
Pl
3-17-92 7
--Mr. Grimm stated: "If we take it out there will
still be a figure used ... but it won't be published. If we
start out using a figure, it will give a certain credibility
to the furtherance of the development process in terms of
where we stand initially and how we progress from there in
terms of how we stated it in the plan." He was in favor of
a figure being included. He also noted that the 250 would
provide a starting point for looking at siting requirements
for a building.
--Mr. Jenkins indicated he had no problem with
including the 250 figure because the plan explains that "the
actual space needs will, in fact, be measured." He stated
he had no problem with sending the proposed plan on to the
Board as presented by staff, with a note attached saying
"that it concerns us that this 250 builds some sort of a
monument." [Mr. Grimm, Mr. Blue and Mr. Johnson stated they
could support Mr. Jenkins' suggestion.]
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Bowling stated
that the inclusion of the 250 figure had no legal standing
whatsoever.
Mr. Johnson suggested the following general revisions to the
plan:
--Page 3, paragraph 1: Add the following: "...cases.
Before actual construction, purchasing or leasing decisions
are made...."
--Page 5, paragraph 2: Add the following: "...costs
vs. benefits of leasing, or purchasing, nearby office
space...."
--Page 8, paragraph 2: He felt this paragraph should
be amended so as not to be so definitive. He suggested the
possible inclusion of the words "subject to review" or
something similar.
Mr. Blue questioned why the Personnel Department was
projected to grow by 2/3 when only a 25% increase was
projected overall. Mr. Huff explained that the Personnel
Department also covers the Education Department and their
projected increase was not included in the overall
projection because the vast majority of their employees are
not housed in the County Office Building.
Mr. Nitchmann questioned why pages 6, 7, and 8 were a part
of this plan, i.e. why are the first 5 pages, dealing with
procedures for implementation of a plan, combined with the
last three pages which are an actual assessment of needs and
recommendations?
It was determined the next step in the process was to
schedule a public hearing before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the County
Government Administration section of the Community
He
3-17-92
8
Facilities Plan be scheduled for public hearing, as
presented by staff.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Jenkins again asked staff to present a "brief overview"
of the Board's actions at each meeting, i.e. those items
which impact the Commission. He asked that it be made a
regular agenda item, placed at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Johnson added that the Commission was interested in the
Board's dialogue and rationale for their action.
Proposed Zoning Text Amendments - Mr. Johnson expressed
concern about the amendments currently under consideration
in relation to proposed fees for a zoning text amendment.
He felt that consideration be given to handling amendment
proposals "on a no cost basis" when made by individuals who
have nothing to gain by such an amendment, but it would
result in an improvement to the ordinance. He felt there
should be no charge for "performing a public service."
In response to Mr. Blue's question, it was ascertained that
amendments which are initiated by other County departments
do not involve any fees.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:30 p.m.
DS