HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 21 1991 PC MinutesMay 21, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Richard Tarbell, 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 May
7, 1991 were approved as submitted.
ZTA-91-03 - Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to Implement
Comprehensive Plan as to Non -Residential "Service Areas"
Con^ cat
Mr. Keeler explained that the proposed amendments had
originated with the Planning Division Work Program and the
purpose of the amendments were "to broaden uses permitted
within the various commercial and industrial zoning
districts and to provide a new section 9.0 GUIDELINES FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS for the purpose of
implementing the nonresidential land use guidelines as
outlined by the "service areas" concept of the Comprehensive
Plan."
Mr. Keeler noted that staff was recommending the following
changes in the proposed amendments (i.e. changes made after
Commission work sessions):
--A footnote to be added to table titled
"Non -Residential Land Use Guidelines" related to Regional
Service uses stating 1115% is exclusive of motel, hotel and
conference center uses."
--Substitute the following sentence for the second
sentence under section 9.4: "In phase development the
secondary uses could be permitted on a pro rata basis with
the primary uses."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Andrew Drucopoli, representing the owner of the Pantops
property, addressed the Commission. He expressed his
support for the two changes suggested by staff. He felt
these two changes brought the Office/Regional Service
designation into line with what was discussed by the Board
of Supervisors.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle,
addressed the Commission. She expressed the following
concerns:
4A
May 21, 1991 page 2
--How will the need for service areas be determined in
order to prevent spot zoning?
--How will negotiation and review of mixed -use
applications proceed?
--Who will make the final decision on rezoning requests
and who will decide what is pro rata development when a
large complex is proposed?
She also stated: "The group would like it to be emphasized
that guidelines for service areas consider services such as
clean air, transportation with limited congestion,
protection of groundwater, etc."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse addressed one of Ms. Santic's questions and
explained that the Board of Supervisors makes the final
decision on rezoning applications.
Mr. Keeler added that service areas are already shown in the
Comprehensive Plan and "in order to realize those service
areas we had to amend the Ordinance." He explained that
staff would continue to be the "primary negotiator" on these
plans.
The Commission expressed no concerns about the proposed
amendment.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-91-03, to Amend the Zoning
Ordinance as it relates to Non -Residential Service Areas, be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. (See
Attachment A for text of amendment.)
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-103 Orchard Acres Inc. - The applicant petitions for
a special use permit to construct a road crossing in the
floodplain of Powells Creek [Section 30.3] on a 40.64 acre
parcel zoned R-6, Residential. Property, described as Tax
Map 55C, Parcel A is located at the end of Cling Lane and is
bounded by the C & O Railroad tracks on the north and
Orchard Acres subdivision on the west. It is in the White
Hall Magisterial District and within a designated growth
area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson noted some discrepancy about the name of Cling
Lane. Mr. Tarbell explained that the plat designation is
"Cling Lane."
67
May 21, 1991 page 3
Mr. Johnson asked if the conditions of approval included the
approval of all the appropriate environmental agencies. Mr.
Charlie Steinman (Acting County Engineer) responded that he
did not think the VMRC (Virginia Marine Recource Commission)
had to be notified in this case.
Mr. Johnson asked if the word "crossing" should be added to
condition 1(c). It was ultimately decided this would be
changed to read: "Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of crossing, road and drainage plans and
calculations."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Tarbell explained
that the crossing would be "double 10 x 8 concrete box
culverts."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He offered
no additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Paul Burke asked for identification of the applicant.
(Mr. Tarbell explained the applicant was "Orchard Acres,
Incorporated.") Mr. Burke stated: "I propose that these
people are not authorized to do business in the State of
Virginia. Orchard Acres is not a current corporation
recognized by the State (as) it has been a defunct
corporation since 1986." (Mr. Bowling advised that this was
not an issue which called for a determination by the
Commission. He stated that it is policy to take an
applicant at face value and assume he can legitimately make
an application.) Mr. Burke also questioned the definition
of a "bridge." He understood that VDOT, "at one point in
the process," had indicated that a category 2 road was not
sufficient, and that is apparently what is being proposed.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle wondered if elevating the road (to accommodate
the height of the culverts) would cause any backup of water
during heavy rains. Mr. Steinman explained that the
applicant will not be allowed to increase the level of the
floodplain by more than one foot and "has demonstrated that
the proposed culverts will not do that." He explained that
there would be some backwater, but it would be less than 1
foot. He also confirmed that there were no other buildings
which would be flooded by the backwater.
Ms. Huckle also asked if the increased impervious surface
(after development) was factored into the runoff
calculations. Mr. Steinman explained that the "watershed
model was done at current conditions." Mr. Johnson noted:
"But this particular subdivision is all downstream and will
have no effect on what you do at this individual bridge."
Mr. Steinman responded: "Yes."
1-5
May 21, 1991 Page 4
Mr. Wilkerson noted that the applicant had addressed staff's
concerns.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-103 be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following
approvals have been obtained:
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
b. Department of Engineering approval of crossing
design to insure compliance with Section 30.3;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of crossing, road and drainage plans and calculations.
2. This stream crossing shall be constructed to provide
access to the 30 lots in the Crozet Crossing subdivision.
No development of residue property or access to adjacent
properties is allowed until second access is provided to
Orchard Drive.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SUB-91-036 - Crozet crossing Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 30 lots averaging 12,370 square feet with 3.4 acres
of open space and a 26.64 acre residue tract. Property,
consisting of a total of 40.64 acres is described as Tax Map
55C, Parcel A and is located at the end of Cling Lane and
bounded by the C & O Railroad and Route 788 to the north and
the Orchard Acres subdivision to the south. Zoned R-61
Residential in the White Hall Magisterial district. This
property is located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle asked if recreational areas were proposed. Mr.
Tarbell responded that recreational facilities were not
required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He offered no
additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Paul Burke, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission.
He expressed concerns about increased traffic. He also
expressed opposition to the proposal based on the density
(30 dwellings on 8.5 acres). He noted that this was more
dense than was originally contemplated. He pointed out that
there is not sufficient space for recreational areas. He
67
May 21, 1991 Page 5
also noted the danger of the railroad track. He stated:
"My point is that 60% of the original proposed houses are
being built on just 21% of the available land. ... In my
opinion, what I feel the Charlottesville Housing Foundation
is doing is pulling a 'bait -and -switch'. . In closure, I
submit to you that Albemarle County, the City of
Charlottesville and the State of Virginia, through the use
of public taxes, has voted to subsidize these low and
moderate income homeowners and not the Charlottesville
Housing Foundation."
Mr. Bill Edgerton, architect and representative of the
Charlottesville Housing Foundation, took exception to Mr.
Burke's comments. He noted that the Housing Foundation is a
non-profit organization who will not be profitting from the
project. Mr. Edgerton presented and explained drawings of
the proposed dwellings.
Mr. Roy Patterson, a Crozet resident, spoke in favor of the
application.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle expressed support for the proposal; however, she
again expressed concern about the lack of recreational area.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted the positive aspects of the
application:
--The Board has made clear its feelings about
affordable housing.
--The proposal is to be located within a designated
growth area.
--A reputable, viable organization is driving the
application.
--A proven architect has assumed the responsibility for
the site design.
He concluded he would support the preliminary plat.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Crozet Crossing 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 fo grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
70
May 21, 1991
Page 6
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and calculations to include
a rural cross-section with seven foot shoulders;
f. Issuance of a special use permit in compliance
with Section 30.3 - FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT of
the Zoning Ordinance;
g. Compliance with the County policy governing
calculation and collection of fees for development of
land that lies in the drainage basin of regional
stormwater management facilities as administered by the
Engineering Department;
h. Note on the final plat stating any increase of
traffic over 400 vehicle trips per day may require the
upgrading of the extension of Cling Lane;
i. Staff approval of homeowners' association
documents to include the provision of maintenance for
the open space.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle: "When you approve the final plat, please make
sure that they have included recreational area." Mr.
Tarbell responded: "I think they have alluded to that about
as well as we can require. But they have stated they intend
to do that."
Mr. Johnson noted his support for Ms. Huckle's comments. He
felt that considerable thought should be given, upon any
proposal for expansion, to providing recreation areas based
on the Commission's responsibility to protect the general
welfare. He cited Section 18-54 as a basis for such a
requirement.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SUB-91-057 Rustling Oaks Final Plat - Proposal to create
nine lots to be served by a public road from a 111.6 acre
parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 31H is
located on the east side of Rt. 601 approximately six -tenths
of a mile south of its intersection with Rt. 658. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This
property is not located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. He explained that the
Commission's concern, at the time of the preliminary plat
review, had been related to the recommendations of the
Watershed Management official_ While staff recognized the
7/
May 21, 1991 Page 7
merits of the recommendations, they could not be required
under current Ordinance provisions. He stated: "The
applicant has, again, stated his intent to incorporate these
recommendations into his plans, but he is not prepared to
accept them as conditions of approval at this time due to
problems '...in the timing of plat recordation, scheduling
of road construction, procurement of project financining,
and in the execution of legal work which would normally
occur after the final plat has been recorded.""
Ms. Huckle questioned why the erosion control plan was not
"ready." Mr. Tarbell explained that the plan is currently
under review but part of the delay is caused by the
Engineering Department's attempt to wait for further comment
from the Commission before giving final approval.
Mr. Tarbell confirmed that there have been no changes to the
plat since the preliminary review.
The applicant was represented by Mr. James Gercke. His
comments included the following:
--"The applicant has established, through my letter and
through the committment that has been made, a willingness to
go well beyond the legal requirements of the subdivision
ordinance in response to the urgings of the Watershed
Management Official and the concerns expressed by the
Commissioners, and indicate that the subdivision will
include provisions incorporating the recommendations of the
Watershed Management Official."
--The applicant has endeavored to follow the two
primary recommendations of the Watershed Management
Official:
(1) To filter as much of the runoff as possible
through the 2 existing ponds located on lots 8 and 5; and
(2) To impose use restrictions in the 100 foot setback
area to prohibit uses which can be harmful to the water
quality in the ponds and streams. (He noted that it was not
legally practical to address just this restriction prior to
the delineation of all restrictive covenants.) He stated:
"It is our intent, upon recordation of the plat, and as
indicated in my letter, to refer to our attorney the issues
that I've addressed in our memo and to incorporate them to
the extent possible in the final covenants and restrictions
which will run with the land." Mr. Gercke continued: "I
think it is not appropriate to characterize this applicant
as having done nothing since the earlier reading --that is
certainly not the case. I have written a clear memo
indicating what we will and won't do in response to the
Watershed Official and I believe that when accomplished it
will incorporate substantially all of the officials'
recommendations. I will also say that I believe that to the
extent that it is believed by County Staff, Commissioners,
Board, or anyone else in authority, that ordinances do not
rV
May 21, 1991
Page 8
contain adequate provisions for
ordinances should be changed. I
attempting to extract additional
is really very viable." He also
Erosion Control Plan is governed
submitted prior to construction.
to delay the plan.
watershed protection,
don't think this process of
agreements from applicants
pointed out that the
by Ordinance and is usually
No attempt had been made
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle,
addressed the Commission. She agreed that the County
Ordinances are not in place to require protection of
watersheds and buffer areas and agreed that the Ordinances
need to be amended so that "these requirements are not left
to the good intentions and conscientiousness of developers
to protect our watersheds and water supply areas."
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Gercke briefly
explained the drainage plan. He also noted that there would
be very little grading required and the road construction
should take less than 30 days.
Mr. Johnson noted that the applicant has not committed
himself in writing to follow the recommendations of the
Watershed Management Official. He stated it is very
difficult to enforce "intentions." He questioned the
position that the Commission did not have the authority to
require the recommendations of the Watershed Management
Official. He stated: "In the absence, unless there is a
direct judicial opinion that is applicable to this, I submit
that in the Subdivision Ordinance, under paragraph 18-54(b),
page 201.... (He quoted from the Ordinance: 'Nothing
herein shall require approval of any subdivision, or any
part of feature thereof, which shall be found to consitute a
nuisance, or to constitute a danger to the public health,
safety or general welfare, of which shall be determined by
the Commission, the Board of Supervisors or its agent, to be
a departure from or violation from sound engineering design
or standards.') I submit that effecting our water supply
is a matter of 'general welfare' and in accordance with that
authority (we) can go ahead and place a condition on this
approval which would effect the recommendations of the
Watershed Management Official." He also noted that the
areas of concern were in areas of critical slopes and the
Zoning Ordinance grants certain authority in that respect.
7.3
May 21, 1991
Page 9
Mr. Johnson proposed an additional condition (1-b) as
follows:
"Prior to the conveyance of any portion of this plat to
another party, permanent use restrictions and covenants,
acceptable to the Agent, will be devised and recorded which
will (1) protect and preserve the natural vegetation within
the 100-foot building and septic setbacks and (2) provide
for total maintenance of the ponds."
Mr. Johnson made a motion that the Rustling Oaks Final Plat
be approved subject to the conditions proposed by staff and
the addition of the condition (stated above).
(It was determined the "Agent" referred to in the condition
was the Director of Planning and Community Development.)
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion so that it could be
discussed.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowling commented: "You can certainly make a finding
that something constitutes a nuisance or a danger to the
public health, safety or welfare and therefore you don't
have to follow your subdivision rules and regulations or you
can require additional rules and regulations that you deem
fit. But when you make such a finding, especially when you
find that something is a danger to the public health, safety
and welfare and therefore you need additional regulations
above and beyond your duly established printed regulations,
you should back that finding up with empirical facts to
justify the finding and the reason for that is that your law
assumes that your present rules and regulations are
reasonable. The law also sets out a procedure for adopting
new rules and regulations and that basically involves
notice, public comment, etc. When you do something that is
beyond your normal rules and regulations as far as requiring
an applicant to do something that is more than what is
established through the normal processes you raise the
specter of violating that applicant's due process rights and
to overcome that concern you need some pretty good empirical
facts." He noted that the law is not as clear as to what
constitutes a danger to health, safety and welfare, as it is
on what constitutes a nuisance. He concluded: "You can
make that finding --that's within your perogative, but my
advice would be to back that finding up with empirical
data...."
Mr. Johnson responded: "In this case I submit that we have
a semblance of empirical data available from the Watershed
Manager's Office to make this recommendation."
711/
May 21, 1991 Page 10
At this point Mr. Keeler interjected an explanation of the
functions of the site review committee. He stated: "We
don't see anything in the Subdivision Ordinance which allows
the incorporation of (the Watershed Management Official's)
recommendations." He cautioned the Commission against
putting their actions ahead of pending ordinance changes.
He concluded: "To single out one application to impose this
one --and tomorrow I may administratively approve another
plat in the watershed without this regulation ---is not an
even application of the regulations, in my viewpoint."
Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official,
addressed the Commission. He explained the basis for his
comments and some of the benefits of the proposal and
concluded: "My recommendations and comments were not in the
form of recommending conditions of approval, but were in
fact suggesting that to the degree that the applicant was
willing to incorporate these practices, the benefits would
be enhanced even further.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he could not support the motion (with
the additional condition). He noted that the applicant has
done everything that has been asked of him and has even
indicated by letter that he will attempt to incorporate
those recommendations which cannot be required.
Mr. Grimm agreed.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted the dual role of the Commission: (1)
To review applications in light of the existing ordinances;
and (2) At the same time to consider improvements to the
ordinances. He did not think an individual application
could be used as a "case to make a spot change to the
ordinance." He concluded he would not support the motion as
stated.
Ms. Huckle continued to express concern about runoff from
the cul-de-sac area which will not drain into the detention
ponds. She hoped the applicant would attempt to "make a
temporary pond which would at least last until the grass
comes up."
Ms. Andersen stated she applauded Mr. Johnson's efforts "to
find support for action from our Board in/ interim of an amended
ordinance."
The previously stated motion for approval failed to pass
(1:6) with only Commissioner Johnson voting for the motion.
The Chairman called for an alternate motion.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Rustling Oaks Final Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
7s
May 21, 1991 Page it
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 an
erosion control plan.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
WORK SESSION
Stormwater Management Report - Mr. Robertson presented this
report to the Commission.
Ms. Huckle suggested that some interim changes to the
Ordinance might be considered which would provide some
protection for the reservoir, in the interim, while the
recommendations in the report are being put into place.
She pointed out that prevention of some of the possible
problems would save money in the long run. (Ms. Huckle also
presented some recent photographs of the reservoir taken
after heavy rains.)
The Commission expressed their support for the report and
endorsed the protection of water resources as a high
priority. The Commission also endorsed the need for funding
for mapping and additional staff and hoped the Board would
give this need for funding serious consideration.
No formal action was taken.
Annual Report of the Commission (1990) - Because the
Commission had some questions about this report, adoption
was postponed until the June 4th Commission meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:10 p.m. ,
WiM
V. Wayn Cilimberg4�cretary
76