Loading...
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