HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 08 1992 PC Minutes12-8-92
1
DECEMBER 8, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, December 8, 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; and Ms. Ellen Andersen. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr.
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Huckle.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
November 24, 1992 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the December
2nd Board of Supervisors meeting.
ZMA-92-09 University Real Estate Foundation - Proposal to
amend the agreements of ZMA-78-15 to permit the use of
private roads. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels
6, 19 (part), is located on the east side of Dickerson Road
(Rt. 606) approximately 3/4 mile northeast of the airport.
This site also has frontage on Airport Road (Rt. 649). The
property is zoned PD-IP, Planned Development -Industrial Park
and RA, Rural Areas and consists of approximately 228 acres
in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located
in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and
designated Industrial Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to one amended agreement (to No. 16 of
those agreements attached to ZMA-78-15).
The applicant was represented by Mr. Sam Hemenway
(McKee/Carson). He offered no additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed support for the proposal, noting the
number of jobs which will be created by this development.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson moved that ZMA-92-09 for University Real Estate
Foundation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
12-8-92 2
approval subject to the same agreements attached to
ZMA-78-15 with No. 16 amended as follows:
16. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road
plans for internal roads; internal roads are to be
constructed to Category V pavement strength. Nothing
contained in this condition will preclude the applicant from
requesting private roads in the future.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Keeler explained
that the matter is back before the Commission because at the
time of the original rezoning and Comp Plan amendment VDOT
had indicated that "they may not take the roads into the
system if it remains in one ownership." The amendment in
No. 16 simply puts the applicant in a position of "being
able to ask for public roads in the future if they run into
design problems or if VDOT says 'as long it's one owner
we're not going to take the road."'
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
ZMA-92-10 Virginia Department of Forest - Resolution of
Intent to rezone 33.2 acres from R-1, Residential to CO,
Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 76,
Parcel 17A is located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue
east of the U.S. Roue 29 Bypass in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated
growth area (Neighborhood 6) and designated Office Service.
(Noting a potential conflict of interest, Mr. Grimm excused
himself from participating in this item and left the
meeting.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. The report
explained: "The Resolution of Intent proposes to rezone the
property to CO, Commercial Office to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation and remove setback
requirements for the adjacent UREF development." Staff
recommended approval.
Mr. Johnson asked if there was any difference in a
Resolution of Intent and a regular rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that there was no difference. He explained that
an item initiated by the Board of Supervisors takes the form
of a Resolution of Intent.
Because this proposal originated with the Board of
Supervisors, no "applicant" was involved.
The Chairman invited public comment.
12-8-92 3
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-92-10 for the Virginia Department
of Forestry be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as presented.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(Mr. Grimm returned to the meeting.)
SDP-92-066 - Centel Cellular Monopole Preliminary Site
Plan - Proposal to construct a 130 foot monopole tower and
equipment building for cellular telephone service.
Property, described as Tax Map 39, Parcels 12 and 17A,
consists of 20.6 acres and is on Bucks Elbow Mountain. This
site is zoned RA, Rural Areas in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated
growth area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Fritz called attention to a letter from Mr. Robert
Anderson (See Attachment A). Mr. Andersen expressed
concerns about the proposed tower and also about the
notification process.
Mr. Jenkins asked if this was the same tower that was
originally going to be placed on the Acme property in
Crozet. Mr. Fritz responded: "Does this cover the same
service area? Yes."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. He stated
that the land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the applicant has endeavored to meet the concerns of
staff and neighbors. He stated the tower will not be
visible from any adjacent property and will not be lighted.
He noted that the "radio magnetic waves imminating from the
tower are less than 5% of the minimum amount allowed by
law... in a worse case scenario," and therefore they present
no danger to plants or animals. The tower meets the
County's goal of avoiding a proliferation of towers. He
indicated the applicant will be willing to share space on
the tower with other users.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
1113
12-8-92 4
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Centel Cellular Monopole
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 130 feet.
2. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required
by a federal agency.
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support
for or approval of, the location of additional tower
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network
or system as any antennae administratively approved under
this section.
5. Staff approval of final site plan.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson noted that the Police Department has expressed
an interest in using the tower. He thanked the applicant
for its cooperation.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
(SUB-92-149) - Barrsden Hills Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create eight lots averaging 17.7 acres from a 145.87 acre
property. The lots are proposed to be served by a public
road. Property, described as Tax Map 63, Parcel 30, is
located on the north side of Lonesome Mountain Road (Route
610) approximately 3/4 of a mile east of Stony Point Road
(Route 20 North). Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This property is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Kirk Hughes. He offered to
answer to questions. He noted that the plan was approved
previously, but the preliminary approval had expired before
final approval was sought.
Regarding the proposed 50-foot dedicated public
right-of-way, Mr. Johnson encouraged the applicant to "do
everything reasonable to review that dimension with the
Department of Transportation from the standpoint that the
Department of Transportation has approved, or is in the
%�
12-8--92
E
process of approving, lesser rights -of -way and by doing so
it would be to the advantage of, at least, the buyers
because the seller will be able to charge less because of
the decreased cost of the road. It has the advantage of
less effect on the ecology, less maintenance, and less
problems with runoff."
Mr. Hughes explained that "the width of the typical section
of the road meets what was the current review at site plan
by the Highway Department." He added, however, that he felt
"the applicant would be all for reducing the typical road
section, but I think we are at the minimum now." It was
determined that the width of pavement is 18 feet and the
right-of-way is at 50 feet, partially, because of additional
needs for cut and fill sections.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue moved that the Barrsden Hills Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road plans
and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of erosion
control plan;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
f. Zoning Department approval of revised front setback
on Lot 6.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was adequate sight distrance at
the intersection with Rt. 610. Mr. Tarbell responded:
"Yes. They just recently approved the road."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
WORD SESSION - Factors in the Development Process Affecting
Cost and Fees
12-8-92 6
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that
staff has not yet studied the possibility of determining
fees based on an applicant's ability to pay or the
profitability, or non -profitability, of a particular
project. This involves a more complex review and also
requires the resolution of some legal questions.
His report described current initiatives which have been
implemented in an attempt to streamline and improve the
review process, and also initiatives which are under
consideration.
Mr. Keeler stated that staff feels that "Administrative
Approval of Site Development Plans and Subdivision Plats" is
the one single action which could be taken to significantly
reduce applicants' costs while at the same time freeing up
Planning Commission time for major undertakings, e.g.
revisions to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bob Brandenburger, Deputy County Executive, offered the
following additional comments:
--"As a governmental service provider, we need to
provide those services in as quality a manner as we can."
--A number of the initiatives listed in the staff
report are still in the preliminary stage.
--The County Executive's Office supports "very
strongly" the intent of these initiatives.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about anticipated completion date. Mr.
Brandenburger was unable to confirm a definitive date.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about a date for the implementation of a
Development Information Desk. Mr. Brandenburger responded:
"We haven't finalized anything close to recommendations
along that line. We are playing with a couple of ideas in
that area and have to do some more work on it. We don't
have a date set to make recommendations, even internally to
the County Executive, as to what we might want to do. It is
on our internal work plan to try to address in the next six
to seven months. ... Maybe something could be put in place
next summer."
Mr. Nitchmann asked what percentage of staff time is spent
dealing with large developers vs. smaller developers, "that
we would like to see maybe become more active in the
community in order to get more involved with building lower
income housing and to reduce their costs, as well as dealing
with the individual?" Mr. Brandenburger deferred the
question to Mr. Cilimberg.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that one staff member (Jan Sprinkle)
deals exclusively with small subdivision activity, i.e. with
individuals who have probably never been to the County
before, or with their surveyors. He explained that position
/41�0
12-8-92 7
had been created about four years ago. (Mr. Blue noted that
that process is working very well.) Mr. Cilimberg explained
that the remaining staff deals with a "variety of different
interests and perspective types of applicants." He stated
that a lot of time is spent with persons who are either
getting ready to apply or are applying and are going through
the process.
Mr. Blue noted that staff work load changes with the state
of the economy.
In addition to Ms. Sprinkle's position, which deals 100%
with small subdivision activity, Mr. Cilimberg estimated
that for other staff members it might be 60/40 or 70/30.
Mr. Keeler added that it is difficult to determine because
large scale projects may continue for 1 - 2 years before an
application is made. He felt that more time is probably
devoted to smaller scale projects (e.g. Centel requesting
one radio tower).
Mr. Johnson wondered if some consideration should be given
to the amount of information that we are requiring in terms
of whether or not it is all necessary.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the LURC Study (which had
represented a wide cross-section of the private sector and
others) had decided that the preliminary plan process was
more advantageous for everyone because "it requires less up
front." He also noted that the County compares very
favorably to other local governments in terms of submittal
requirements. He stated that the process differs from other
localities not in submittal requirements, but rather in the
processing time and that is what administrative approvals
vs. Planning Commission approvals will address. He stated
that most Planning Commissions in the state do not act on
site plans and subdivisions.
Mr. Blue felt all five initiatives being considered were
good, but he cautioned against the "generic plan approach"
which he felt could possibly "result in more handbook
engineering than we ought to do." He again expressed the
hope that further thought would be given to a variable fee
schedule.
There was a discussion about the basic philosophy behind the
current fee schedule. Mr. Grimm stated it was his
understanding that they were an attempt to reflect the true
costs involved. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board had
decided that the fees should reflect 100% recovery of costs.
Mr. Blue asked what percentage of the Planning Department's
budget was represented by collected fees. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the fees were spread out over several
//7
12-8-92 8
departments. Mr. Cilimberg guessed that no more than 54% of
staff costs (Planning Division) would be recovered by fees.
Mr. Johnson questioned how much Commission time would
actually be saved by administrative approvals. He did not
think the Commission spends an excessive amount of time on
these items.
Mr. Johnson felt by -right uses should be looked at again to
make sure "we want to leave them by -right and not by special
use permit." He also felt that the R15 zone should be
looked at in terms of "by -right utilization of detached
single family houses." He concluded that he felt all
by -right uses should be looked at and not just those noted
in No. 3, page 4, of the staff report.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission has spent less time
on site plans and subdivision in the past few years because
of the downturn in the economy. However, the potential for
much greater activity exists when the economy begins to
improve.
Mr. Grimm expressed support for all five proposed
initiatives.
Mr. Johnson asked to see a list of items which can be
addressed through the Consent Agenda. He also noted that he
was impressed with the Executive Summary (Attachment F to
the staff report).
Mr. Blue expressed support for a County Engineering
Standards Handbook (Initiative 5).
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kirk Hughes addressed the Commission. He felt the
Planning Commission should return its focus to that of a
"visionary" instead of more technical issues which are
better addressed by the Engineering Department, VDOT,
Planning staff, etc. He suggested that this would be a
good time, during a slow economy, to improve the process.
He felt the Engineering Handbook was very much needed. He
praised the creation of Ms. sprinkle's position and the job
she has been doing. He agreed with Mr. Blue's concern about
generic -type plans because he felt that a plan needs to be
approved by the engineer or surveyor involved who will take
responsibility for the plan.
Mr. Kevin Cox felt that many legislative approvals create
situations that are counter -productive to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan "because, a lot of the time, by -right
builders who build small, inexpensive homes scattered about
in the rural areas of the County, are able to do it at a
greatly reduced cost compared to developers who are building
%V$
12-8-92 9
what, ostensibly, the County wants, and that is clustered
houses close in to town." In response to Mr. Johnson's
question, Mr. Cox confirmed that he felt many delays were
caused by the requirement for Commission review. He also
felt that some of the governing bodies are not qualified to
discuss technical issues. He clarified that he felt the
delays are caused by "governing bodies sending things back
when in actuality the technical issues are straightforward
and should be accepted as they are."
Mr. Johnson was skeptical that a 30-day period would cause
any significant increase in costs to the applicant. Mr. Cox
disagreed, noting that interest on a piece of property might
be as much as $2,000 to $3,000/week and also noting that
deferrals often increase the approval process beyond 30
days. Mr. Johnson could not recall many instances of the
types of deferrals suggested by Mr. Cox.
Mr. Johnson wondered if the concern about the length of time
it takes to process an application was related to the
difference between administrative approval and Commission
approval or "are there are some other delays?" It was Mr.
Cox's feeling that some of the overall requirements result
in unnecessary delays.
Mr. Cox felt the HUD document related to ways to reduce the
cost of development should be used by the Planning
Commission. He noted that some of these suggestions reduce
not only time and costs, but they also reduce negative
environmental impact.
Mr. Keeler explained that the time period for processing an
application with a Commission approval, "if everything goes
right," is 73 days; for the Consent Agenda, the period is 31
days. He concluded: "So whatever the cost is, it's
doubled." He noted that time is often very important to
developers who are interested in keeping their crews
working; they don't want to lay off workers for periods
because of delays.
Mr. Jenkins drew two conclusions from the discussion: (1)
Developers who are familiar with the process, but get hung
up in it because of their own negligence, "that's their own
problem"; and (2) The process for small subdivisions is
working well. He concluded: "So, now, we're just looking
at the overall regulations with the idea of taking the
curves out of the road as much as we can. I don't think we
can sit here and address any kind of special situation in a
meeting such as we have tonight."
Mr. Keeler noted that staff feels that costs could be "cut
in half" with administrative approvals.
/#q
12-8-92 10
Mr. Johnson again wondered if the 30 days is "the
significant factor, is that an appreciable percentage of
cost incurred by a developer or an applicant or are we just
looking at some bits and pieces, or if we're talking about
cost, get into it and see what is the real cost."
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission. (Mr. Nitchmann
later asked that his comments be transcribed verbatim.)
BLAKE HURT:
"I have a number of points. I'd like to start with the
variable fees. My feeling about variable fees is that
variable fees are fine with the exception that the fees
should vary according to the amount of work and not to the
political sentiment of those imposing the fees. I'll give
you one situation we ran into where the Building Inspections
Department decided to raise the building fees, which was
fine. But, there wasn't any apparent relationship to what
they wanted to charge and what services they were going to
provide. As a matter of fact, at least at that time, the
fees that were contributed by builders did not stay in the
Building Inspections Department to improve services, but
somehow leaked off to General Revenues. So my feeling is,
if the fees are going to be charged for work, that the work
product should somehow be reflected with the fees. So if
you're going to charge a lot more for an industrial project,
I guess that assumes that all industrial projects are larger
than other kinds of projects. I'm not necessarily convinced
that that is the case. I'm not so sure that it shouldn't be
developed, a little bit more finely tuned, be it by square
footage or by the size. I can think of relatively large
commercial projects and relatively small industrial
projects, yet the fees are not necessarily --(unclear). So
if it's going to take a lot of staff time, and if it's a big
job, I think the applicant has to be prepared to spend that.
If it's not going to take much staff time, the report's
going to be relatively short, I think the fees should also
reflect that."
Mr. Blue asked: "Do you believe that there is no
justification for charging a lower fee, for instance a site
plan review that involves a very minor thing that an
individual might be doing to his property, which sometimes
in the past the staff has accepted a sketch plan, as opposed
to, it might be the same square footage, but something that
involves an industrial use or a profit use? it's your
feeling that the fee charged ought to be the same."
MR. HURT: "No, no. I'm happy that that fee's variable. I
want the fees to be reflected by the amount of work the
County has to do in evaluating my application. So if a
fellow says 'Look, I just have this little project and it
involves an enormously complicated set of issues because
12-8-92 11
it's in a floodplain, and so on,' just because he's a farmer
and living in the country, if it takes a lot of staff time
and work on that, I think the fellow has to be prepared to
pay that. If it's something that is very straighforward,
the guy's done all his homework and it can go through easily
without much consideration because of the work he's
prepared, then the fee should be less because you want the
county to come in well prepared."
Mr. Blue asked: "So I understand you to say, you don't
think there's any place for welfare in the fee charged?"
MR. HURT: "I think you should make a distinction. If you
want to have welfare, you need to have a program where we
provide $35 for those who can't afford it and that's fine."
Mr. Blue noted specifically church applications which often
vary in size, some being very prosperous and some very
small. He agreed that staff time is reflected in the size
of the project, but he wondered if consideration should be
given to the the issue of "moral contribution to the
community," and should there be a lower fee, if that is to
be encouraged. He interpreted that it was Mr. Blake's
position that fees should be based strictly on staff time.
MR. HURT: "My feeling is that you should charge according
to the product which you produce. If you're going to play
politics, I think you should call it that and say 'We prefer
churches over industrial uses and we're going to charge
accordingly' and take the heat when it comes."
MR. HURT.: continued:
"For the Engineering Manual, I think if you're going to ask
people to come up with detailed drawings, you should give
them some idea of what you want. Currently I don't think we
have this situation, but at one time we had a County
Engineer, you'd come in and he'd look at the drawings and
say 'That's not right.' We'd say 'What's wrong?' He'd say:
'That's not my job. You come back with another drawing.'
That was fine so we said we need an Engineering Manual. He
said: "That's not in my job description.' So you stumble
around in the dark and eventually you figure out what he
wants and the rumor runs through the street 'Well, this is
what he's approving today.' So everybody tried to change
the drawings. You'd use brown ink instead of blue and hope
they go through. Maybe the idea is if you don't have a
manual you don't have to live up to this standard, so let's
not have a manual then we can change the standard without
letting anybody know. I don't think that's good planning.
If you don't know how to do a manual and it's really
expensive, go spend five bucks and buy Culpeper's manual.
Ask them if you can try it out. Use it as a guideline.
Find out what's wrong with it. Just say, "We're not
/a6-/
12-8-92 12
approving it if it goes by the Culpeper book, but we're
certainly familiar with the Culpeper guideline book and if
you bring it in and it looks like the Culpeper guideline
book, we're more than likely to pass it than if you just
come up with something new.' Or, if that's too far
stretched, just take all the plans that you like, Xerox
those sections of them, put them in a book and hand it out
and say 'This is our guideline.' But you should have a set
of guidelines and it doesn't take a lot of engineering time,
it takes some effort to cut and paste some other people's
work together. The Romans came up with crowned highways.
We don't have to do much more improvements and borrow from
the local highway department. We don't have to re -invent
it. So I'm for an Engineering Manual. I think it's way
over due and I think it should be done right away and I
don't think it takes a big effort. The next item is
Administrative Approval. I'm all for Administrative
Approval. I think part of your job, in one sense, is to
take care of a lot of paperwork. To the extent that you can
delegate those authorities on things that do not require a
great deal of judgment, I think you should seek to do those
things. Yes, what it means is you're going to have mistakes
made. I know this body probably hasn't made any mistakes in
judgment, but past Planning Commissions have and I think
basically what you have to do is say 'What is the error -rate
we are going to put up with?' and by doing that can we do
other things that will bring that judgment on important
problems and, no doubt, if you make mistakes, you will hear
about them and they will get appealed to Supervisors and
they will overrule you and then you'll stand up and not let
that go through again. But I think Administrative Approval,
according to certain guidelines which you think about
carefully, is a very good idea. You've got an excellent
staff. They see lots of problems. They have a judgment
field with the County after numerous discussions that you
can't get necessarily very quickly. [NOTE: Mr. Hurt . was
speaking so quickly this sentence was difficult to
understand.] If you lay out the guidelines 'This is the kind
of thing we want to approve; this is the kind of thing we
want to hear about.' Try it and see how it works; I think
you'll be well served. If you don't even want to take that
step, say 'These are the kinds of things we are thinking
about.' Tell us how many would fall into that category and
what projects as we come up. Just say, look, I'm presenting
this to you tonight but it would have been administratively
approved under our guidelines of December 92. Let me go
through with it. You can say, "Gee, that was a a dumb
guideline or that was a good guideline, we shouldn't approve
that.' Then after six months say "Those guidelines are
good.' The armor -plating problem. This is the idea that
we've got many regulations that cover the same problem but
from a different angle. The Open Space Plan I've spoken
against. The way the Open Space Plan was arranged, it
basically re-covered items that are already present, in one
f��
12-8-92 13
form or another, in 14 other sets of regulations. Rather
than a plan that coordinated into a well -knit document all
these other things and show how you've got the whole
Albemarle County covered with Open Space Plan regulations,
drawing from each of these existing ordinances, you just
slap on another one. So after a while there's no way you
can do anything without being fully aware of every single
document because you don't know where everything's buried
and what covers which. That's a mistake. That makes it
very difficult to understand what you're supposed to do. It
requires us to come and say 'Explain what part of the
ordinance covers this issue.' The guru will say 'Well, all
these 14 cover it and this one now covers it. This is how
you look for it.' So, if you're going to spend time working
on issues I think you need to go through and say 'Look, how
can we bring some order to the many regulations we have so
that they are systemitized so that someone other than our
staff can interpret them.' That doesn't mean reducing the
number of regulations, necessarily, that means arranging the
regulations so that they are consistent and working to an
integrated goal. How would you do that? One way to do that
is to make sure there is a very clear cross index when you
have an ordinance put before you. 'How does this relate to
these other things and, specifically, how can you reduce
this ordinance, or what gap does this ordinance cover
between other ordinances?' rather than just lay on a thick
coat of more regulations and hope that you catch everything
that you had expected to catch."
In response to Mr. Blue's question as to "who start's the
armor -plating --Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors,
staff, community interest groups?" Mr. Hurt responded:
"That's a good list. Again, I think the Open Space Plan, in
concept, is good. I just think that it says in here that
there are 14 other sets of regulations that cover these
issues. Next sentence: How do they cover it? How could we
reduce that document so that it did the same thing but more
clearly? Where did it come from? It was a tremendous
effort by the Planning Commission, staff and the Board of
Supervisors, its (unclear) all those individual
efforts. The architectural review, again, was something
that was (unclear). Again, they tried to get a Historic
Preservation Ordinance through and that didn't quite work so
it got (unclearL as an architectural review."
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Hurt responded:
"We're all guilty. All we're trying to do is raise
ourselves out of being sinners to a secret life. (Unclear)
I don't know who's largely responsible. I'm sure that I'm
part of the problem. But I think we should seek to
eliminate. You've got to constantly fight back the thicket
of regulations as part of your job. When a hot topic comes
on, lots of regulations grows up out of that and then it
12-8-92
14
gets cold, but it doesn't come down. So there should be
review on some of these things as they come down."
Mr. Johnson noted that the State is in the process of
combining all regulations related to water protection into
one document. Mr. Cilimberg added that the County
Engineering Department is currently working with the Water
Resources Committee on this task.
MR. HURT continued:
"Some of those things have to be seperate. You can't make a
document that reads continuously without referencing
different sections. But if you have to refer to other
sections, where it might naturally occur is the Subdivision
Ordinance, you need to have some method so that someone can
figure that out without asking Ron Keeler, which is the
traditional way of solving problems in the County. That
leads me to what I think is a good job for you all, which is
elaborating on this idea that part of your job is to process
paper. That is not the important part, but effectively, I
think you do a lot of that. I think one of the things that
you should think about is you should monitor how well you
and the staff does. Just like in a business where you want
to know how much backlog is there, how much (unclear),
is business slow, or is business brisk and how well are we
doing? I don't think you have those tools, and I think you
should look at those tools. And what would they include? I
think they should include, for example, the average amount
of time through your committees. How long does it take for
something to go through? I heard some ideal figures, but
that's not the figures that we're working with in the
industry. There's no one in his right mind that thinks he's
going to get a project through in 73 days. We say six
months, nine months, even if you got the year you shouldn't
feel comfortable. We may be talking through our hat, maybe
the size of the project, maybe the way we approach it, but I
can see that you all don't know those figures either and yet
they should be available. We know when the applicant comes
in and we know that the applicant either goes dead, is
approved, or withdraws. It seems to me that you should try
to say 'What's our current backlog and how have we done?' A
second idea would be to look at the Committees by project
time. How many projects are before the Architectural Review
Board of a commercial nature, residential nature, or an
industrial nature. Where are they? And just have some
figures on one piece of paper. 'Here's our current backlog.
We're looking at 55 jobs, average length of time in the
process 25 1/2 days.' Just so you know what's going on and
that shouldn't be hard to complile and it would give you
some idea. So if you suddenly see that the number of jobs
is going up dramatically you don't have to wonder down the
road why people are screaming about it taking so long when
you feel like you've been working very hard and the staff
12-8-92 15
hasn't eaten for three days. You say 'Well, look, we got 65
jobs in the hopper now and it used to be only 30.' Those
are just standard operating procedures and they shouldn't be
difficult to do. And like Payables, 'Look, after a year we
don't care about those things. We think that guy's gone
quiet (?) on us.' Take that out of the hopper. But what's
been applied for and is still hoppin' (?) in the last year
and where are they? Are they all piled up in architectural
review, are they all stuck in staff reporting, what's going
on?' And I think you could compile the statistics and have
some idea of how you are doing. I think you should look at
active areas, that is, when you spend time on revising the
ordinance one of the things you might want to look at is
where is the activity --is it in residential, is it in
multi -family, is it commercial, is it retail? Maybe you
should be spending your time trying to revise or improve the
planning process in those areas where the activity is just
so that if it's a choice between working on one important
project or another you have some gauge of what one is giing
to have more impact on people and you should consider first.
I think the same goes for looking at how many ordinance
issues come up. How much controversy is there on signs, how
many applications have you got, how many rezoning
applications have you got, how many special use permits have
you got and what are those categories and try to look for
patterns like 'Gee, we keep getting these signage problems,
maybe we need to look at this new ordinance we put in and
refine it.' So just look at some of the numbers that come
through rather than have this experience with people where
you seem to be worn down all the time. You're not looking
at the forest because you have to look at some of the
individual trees. I think that would help everybody
involved. So you know how long it takes to get through the
processs because every week you get a little report that
says 'we've now slipped to an average of being 90 days in
the process or we're hovering at 73, we couldn't be doing
much better.' The final thing I'd like to encourage you to
do is to ask the people that you serve. In the City, when
you go through and do something, they send you a little card
that says 'Did you enjoy this process?' Yes, No, Maybe,
Why, What Happened? I think you should do that too. I
think you should just send a postcard out; 'Was this fun?
How can it be improved?' When you get them back you can
just throw them away, but if most of them come back in black
ink and a few come back in red ink, then you can look at the
proportion and find out where the problem is. Maybe the
questions that you ask the people are a little more cleverly
done so that its not just good or bad, because I can
probably guesss what the statistics would be. But they can
be 'Are there any specific things that were particularly
confusing --check a box? Did you find the staff responsive?
Did they get back to you in one week; two weeks, have not
gotten back to you yet --check a box?' And then come back
and say, 'OK, here's some numbers about how we're doing. Do
12-8-92 16
you find the Planning Commission friendly, not friendly,
openingly hostile?' And then you could say, 'This is the
impression we're giving to the people we are serving. Let's
say, look, it's a planning process; you may not like the
policy; we're setting the policy but we're going to try to
officially tell you yes or no,' rather than making a guy
stumble around in the dark until he either gives up in
frustration or he preservers and he either gets what he
wants or tries again. I think that would be a good idea to
know. You would, normally, in a business, ask your
customers 'How are we doing?' I think you all could do that
and it would not cost much money and might give you some
interesting results that would improve the process. Thank
YOU."
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a survey, much like the one
referred to by Mr. Hurt, is currently being tested.
Mr. Keeler added that the Zoning Department is currently
completing a Key Word Index for the Zoning Ordinance.
Commission discussion continued.
Mr. Grimm felt there was a consensus of support for the five
contemplated initiatives outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Andersen stated she agreed the five recommendations were
"worthwhile, worth looking into, and a step in the right
direction."
Mr. Grimm noted that there had been some reservations
expressed about numbers 3 and 4 (i.e. To allow certain uses
by right which currently require special use permits; and To
allow usage of "generic" plans for engineering reviews of
some matters.) He agreed that these two recommendations
needed further study. He also stated that he supported the
idea of an Engineering Handbook.
Mr. Jenkins felt Mr. Hurt's suggestion regarding using the
Culpeper handbook as a starting point was a good one which
could be pursued quickly.
Ms. Andersen added to Mr. Jenkins' comments and suggested
that a "cut and paste" approach might be beneficial.
Mr. Blue felt that the Engineering Department, when apprised
of the Commission's comments, would "get the gist of it" and
would realize that we're not in favor of spending a great
deal of money on this if they can do it cheaper. He
conceded that there might be "certain things about this that
we don't understand and I suggest that we let them know we
thank it's important."
f-6-/p
12-8-92 17
Referring to his comments earlier in the meeting regarding
No. 4 (related to "generic plans"), Mr. Blue stated: "I'm
satisfied, now that I've made my comment and know it's in
staff's mind and will get back to people, I have no
hesitation to proceed with 4 with just the caution that I
have mentioned."
In an attempt to summarize the discussion which had just
taken place, Mr. Cilimberg stated that items 4 and 5 would
be taken up at the next meeting of the Development
departments to see if they can move forward. Number 3 will
need to be addressed through a zoning text amendment.
Administrative approval of site development plans and
subdivison plats (No. 1) will involve some zoning text
amendments and discussions with the County Attorney and
Zoning Administrator. Regarding the tracking of activity,
as mentioned by Mr. Hurt, he noted that the Annual Report
covers what has been done in the last year. (Ms. Andersen
interjected that this report does not reflect the number of
days that each project was involved in the process.)
Mr. Blue asked if the addition of the ARB review has added
to the length of processing applications. Mr. Cilimberg
reponded that "it has smoothed out some and the big thing
which has helped has been the addition of a staff person to
the ARB." Mr. Blue expressed an interest in knowing how
applicants, over the past year, have viewed the Certificate
of Appropriatness.
Mr. Johnson felt a "customer comment sheet," as described by
Mr. Hurt, could be very helpful.
Mr. Nitchmann did not think it would take much effort to
poll those applicants who have been before the Board during
the past six months. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that is currently
being done, as he mentioned earlier.) Mr. Nitchmann felt a
main issue is "where is a lot of (staff) time being spent?"
Mr. Keeler suggested that in order to get a good picture of
the way the ARB is working, more recent applicants should be
contacted. He noted that the ARB had been working without
guidelines in the beginning. Guidelines are now being
finalized and will be taken to public hearing.
Mr. Johnson felt it was important for the Commission and the
Board to develop a "realistic priority assignment of tasks".
He felt this should be a high priority because it involves
"cost to the community."
Mr. Jenkins asked how staff envisioned proceeding with the
five initiatives described in the staff report.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that Nos. 4 and 5 would be handled
by Mr. Brandenburger and the Engineering Department. No. 3
%5 7
12-8-92 18
is probably "further out" because of existing projects which
already have a high priority (e.g. the subdivision
Ordinance). He explained: "If you say go forward with
this, the next time you see it will be as an amendment to
your ordinances to allow for it."
Mr. Keeler estimated a time frame of approximately 5 weeks
for getting necessary ordinance changes back to the
Commission.
Mr. Blue asked if there is a "down side" to an
administrative approval process. Mr. Keeler responded:
"Absolutely not.tt
Mr. Nitchmann asked for further explanation of the term
"deemed to warrant review." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "If
any of your Consent Agenda items don't get a motion by the
Commission for approval or if there is public opposition, it
automatically gets on your schedule as a regular item."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the public notification
process will still be in effect for administrative
approvals.
Mr. Johnson noted that the advertisement which had appeared
in the paper for this meeting had listed only public hearing
items and had not listed regular items nor the work session.
(Mr. Cilimberg explained that this ad had not been placed by
the Planning Department. He stated that Planning only sends
the legal notice ads.) Mr. Keeler explained that the ad
referred to by Mr. Johnson is placed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors who is responsible for whatever editing
might be done. He added that the ad referred to is not a
legal ad. (Mr. Cox interjectd that he thought the Daily
Progress initiates the ad in question. He did not think it
was from the County Office Building.) Mr. Johnson felt
something should be done because the ad is misleading.
Mr. Jenkins asked if a motion was anticipated. Mr.
Cilimberg felt a motion would be helpful.
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the 5
initiatives described in the staff report be implemented.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Johnson noted that with the emphasis that is expected to
be placed on this matter, some other activities may be
delayed.
Mr. Jenkins called attention to a letter received from Great
Eastern Management. Mr. Grimm noted that the letter
supported the 5 initiatives.
159
12-8-92
19
Mr. Grimm noted that nothing had really been done to change
the fee schedule. Mr. Jenkins felt that would be the next
step, i.e. implement these initiatives and wait to see if
time is saved, then adjust the fees accordingly.
Mr. Nitchmann asked that staff get more clarification on
comments regarding deadlines found in Mr. Wagner's letter.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the the applicant referred to
in Mr. Wagner's letter was aware of the process, submittal
dates, hearing dates, etc.
Mr. Blue asked if Board of Supervisors action was required
on initiative No. 1 (Administrative Approvals). Mr. Keeler
was unsure, at this point, of whether or not an ordinance
amendment is necessary. Staff will need to consult with the
County Attorney on this matter.
Mr. Nitchmann raised another question about the notification
process (as referred to in a letter from Mr. Anderson). Mr.
Keeler explained that the County provides significantly more
advertisement than is required by Code.
Ms. Andersen asked if current fees accurately reflect staff
time. Mr. Cilimberg strongly believed that they do.
Ms. Eleanor Santic noted that the County government exists
to serve the public as a whole. She expressed concern about
developers who threaten to "move the company if we don't get
action fast" as alluded to by Mr. Nitchmann when referring
to Mr. Wagner's letter. She noted: "It's still the public
that has to live with the decisions you make in the County.
It's an important body, even though they're not always
here."
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Johnson offered a sample charter for an Ad Hoc Committee
to evaluate the impact of historic preservation. (It was
one which had been used for the committee which studied the
affordable housing issue.)
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Johnson called attention to an article describing the
approach taken by Loudon County in its review of the
Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the utilization of an
advisory group.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:30 p.m.
/6,191
12-8-92
gr+7
DB
&.10