HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 26 90 PC MinutesJUNE 26, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 26, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Davis Benish, Chief of Community Development;
Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
CONSENT AGENDA
Leisure Land Final Plat - Proposal to subdivide 1.44 acres
from an existing 9.507 acre parcel of vacant land. Zoned
HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as a portion of
Tax Map 32, Parcel 20A3 is located on the east side of Rt.
29N, approximately 1/4 mile north of its intersection with
Rt. 649. This site is located within the Community of
Hollymead in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Private -Public Transit Alternative for Urban Albemarle
County - Review of Recommendations
1989 Annual Report
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed (6:1). (Ms.
Huckle abstained because she had not been present at the
June 19th meeting when the Consent Agenda had been
previewed.)
SUB-90-063 - Ingleside Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create
12 lots averaging 6.99 acres from two parcels totalling
88.40 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 1
and "X", is located on the north side of Route 601 across
from the Inglecress Subdivision. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in
the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The Commission had several questions about the silt basin,
which staff was recommending be constructed to meet the
demands of a ten-year storm. Mr. Wilkerson asked about the
IV-9s-
June 26, 1990 Page 2
difference between a two-year and a ten-year storm. (Staff
did not know the difference in the expected amount of
rainfall but explained that a two-year storm can be expected
to occur once every two years and a ten-year storm once
every ten years.) Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there was enough
room for the construction of the basin. (Mr. Tarbell
replied that there should be room though it would be
"tight.") Mr. Johnson asked about the maintenance of the
basin. (Mr. Keeler explained that a silt basin is supposed
to function just during construction and will probably be
allowed to just "silt up" after construction is complete.)
Mr. Johnson asked if a bond would be required until the road
is taken into the State system. (Mr. Tarbell replied that
the road must be constructed or bonded before staff will
sign the plat.) Ms. Huckle asked if bonding was required
for the silt basin. (Mr. Keeler stated that a bond should
be required as part of the Soil Erosion plan but it was not
necessary to make it a condition of approval.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. James Gercke. He
offered to answer Commission questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked why the road was not located on a flater
part of the property. Mr. Gercke explained that the
location of the road had been determined by two design
criteria: (1) The desire to protect the existing race
track; and (2) The identification of logical and natural
building sites. He stated the road had thus been designed
to serve the building sites.
Mr. Jenkins asked how the creation of this 88 acre tract
effected the development rights of the original piece of
property from which it was taken. Mr. Tarbell explained
that the 88 acre tract had been created in May, 1990 "with
all their development rights." Thus the remainder
(approximately 220 acres) can only be developed in 21 acre
parcels.
Mr. Wilkerson felt the proposal was "staightforward" and
therefore moved that SUB-90-063, Ingleside Preliminary Plat,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following
conditions are met:
az(
June 26, 1990
Page 3
a. Department of Engineering approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit to include a silt basin
located downstream of the proposed culvert near
station 15+00on road "B". The basin shall be
constructed to meet the demands of a ten-year
storm; (NOTE: This condition was further amended
later in the meeting.)
C. Department of Engineering approval of
drainage easement plats;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
e. Dedication of right-of-way to accommodate
the turn and taper lane;
f. Residue strips of land on the north side
of the roads shall be transferred back to Tax Map
60, Parcel 1.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Ms. Huckle expressed extreme concern about the critical
slopes and the amount of fill which would be necessary to
construct the road across two gullies. She was also
concerned about construction which would take place in such
close proximity to one of the main tributaries of the
reservoir. She stated that though she was aware of this
developer's good reputation, she could not support this
proposal.
Mr. Grimm seconded Mr. Wilkerson's motion for approval.
Discussion:
Ms. Andersen asked if staff could comment on how much soil
could possibly get into the stream, i.e. how much would the
silt basin not collect? Mr. Keeler could not answer
definitively but stated that even the most effective soil
erosion measures are only about 75% effective. He added
that the nature of the soil is a factor because fine soils
stay in suspension in water for long periods and therefore
the basin will not catch those soils. He stated that
Albemarle County, in general, has a lot of fine -type soils.
Mr. Johnson asked if the road were constructed in another
location (such as across the dam) would a silt basin be
necessary? Mr. Keeler responded that VDOT would not accept
a road which crosses a dam.
0?3 7
June 26, 1990 Page 4
Ms. Huckle asked if she was correct in her understanding
that fill would be required in two different places for the
road construction, but that a second basin was not possible
to contain the runoff from the second smaller fill area.
Mr. Keeler responded that the smaller area would have 8--10
feet of fill and does not have "as defined a channel." He
added that if that was of concern to the Commission, then
staff would pursue the issue and ask the County Engineer and
Watershed Management Official to review that possibility. He
noted that in some cases excavation for a silt basin may do
more harm than good and other measures may be preferable.
Mr. Johnson asked if that was possibly already included in
condition 1(b). Mr. Tarbell stated that the Erosion Control
Officer would "require this anyway in his review of the
Erosion Control Plan." Mr. Tarbell added that he would
prefer the issue resolved and clarified now. Mr. Johnson
felt that would probably be done automatically. Mr. Keeler
felt that the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances offered more
authority because they recognized the reservoir and the Soil
Erosion Ordinance does not. Mr. Keeler quoted from the
building site provisions of the ordinance: "The County
Engineer shall require such protective and restorative
measures as he deems necessary to insure that such
development be consistent with the intent of the critical
slopes provisions." He felt that language provided the
authority to require additional or larger basins, more
detention, etc. He stressed, however, that this was under
the purview of the County Engineer.
Both Commissioner Wilkerson and Commissioner Grimm agreed to
the following amendment to condition l(b):
"Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit to include a silt basin located
downstream of the proposed culvert near station 15+00
on road "B" and possibly a second basin located
downhill at station 19 1/2 on road "B" if deemed
appropriate by the Watershed Management Official and
the County Engineer. The basin shall be constructed to
meet the demands of a ten-year storm."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the motion contemplated staff
approval of the final plat and staff was aware of the
Commission's concerns.
Mr. Keeler noted that if there was a difference between the
County Engineer and the Watershed Management Official the
matter would be returned to the Commission.
.139
June 26, 1990
Page 5
The previously stated motion for approval of the Ingleside
Preliminary Plat passed (6:1) with Commission Huckle casting
the dissenting vote.
SDP-90-041 University Heights Phase II Preliminary Site Plan
- Proposal to construct 30,450 square foot apartment
building for 52 residential condominium units on 4.96 acres.
Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 4008, is located
at the end of Colonnade Drive off of Route 250. Zoned R-15,
Residential in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report
explained that the applicant was requesting a waiver of
Section 4.2.3.2 Critical Slopes to allow part of the
building to encroach on critical slope areas. (It was this
issue which generated the most discussion among the
Commissioners.) The staff felt the request was justified
based on the following: 11(1) This design alternative allows
for underground parking which consolidates the development
and minimizes the amount of grading; and (2) A property
owner is entitled to a reasonable usage of the land. The
property is presently zoned for a density of 15 dwelling
units per acre and designated in the Comprehensive Plan as
high density which is 10 to 34 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed building would consist of 52 residential
condominiums for a gross density of 10.50 dwelling units per
acre which is the low end of the high density designation."
Staff recommended approval of the waiver with the following
stipulations: (1) Deletion of the deck and terrace at the
rear of the building and deletion or relocation of the pool
to the northeast corner of the site. (The report explained
the deck was located primarily on critical slopes and was
not a necessary part of the building and the relocation of
the pool would decrease noise levels to adjacent
properties.) (2) Relocation of the building to the south
and east. (The report explained this would reduce the
intrusion on critical slope areas from 4,500 square feet
within the critical areas to 1,000 - 1,500 square feet.)
The staff report concluded: "Should the Commission grant
the waiver of critical slopes regulations in accordance with
Section 4.2.5 staff recommends approval of this site plan"
subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson asked why staff was recommending that the
existing gravel road (Albemarle County Service Authority
access road) be paved with concrete. Mr. Tarbell explained
that staff was concerned about erosion. Mr. Johnson felt
;239
June 26, 1990
Page 6
that a gravel road was preferable under inclement weather
conditions. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr.
Tarbell again explained why staff was recommending removal
of the terrace and decks (see above).
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Tarbell
explained that the slope areas in question (in the green
area) were 25% to 30% slopes.
In response to Mr. Grimm's question about detention plans,
Mr. Tarbell responded that the applicant had satisfied the
Engineering Department's concerns.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Cox. He felt the
critical issue was the request for the waiver of the
critical slopes provisions. He explained briefly the history
of the development and the current proposal. He stated the
proposal for 52 units represents only 75% of what was hoped
for the site. Mr. Cox also commented on some other
alternatives for the site which had been considered. He
stated that though the applicant would go along with staff's
suggested relocation of the pool, the original location of
the pool (on the back side) was preferrable. He felt that
some of the factors which usually apply to critical slope
issues (e.g. floodplains, erosion and sedimentation control,
subsurface water supplies, etc.) should not apply in this
case given the urban environment of the site. He felt the
applicant had exhausted all options in an effort to arrive
at the smallest footprint which would cause the least
environmental disturbance. He noted that the water tank
used up a considerable amount of the usable area of the
property.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about shallow depth to bedrock
in this area. Mr. Cox stated that no extensive studies had
been done. Ms. Huckle asked what the applicant would do if
it is discovered that necessary blasting may cause a
financial hardship or the underground parking facility is
too expensive to construct. Mr. Cox responded: "We would
probably fold our tents and go home." He added, however,
that there are ways to lift a building so as to minimize
blasting and rock excavation and that would probably be
considered if problems are encountered.
Mr. Tarbell confirmed that any significant change in the
site plan would require reevaluation by staff and could be
brought back to the Commission if that was the Commission's
desire. Regarding the possibility of raising the building,
he stated staff's only concern would be in relation to
height limitation.
,2A10
June 26, 1990
Page 7
Mr. Wilkerson stated he would like to see the site plan
again if the building should have to be raised.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Cox confirmed
that the applicant would prefer that the pool be on the back
side of the building for marketing reasons.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Julia Campbell, an adjacent property owner, addressed
the Commission. Ms. Campbell expressed several concerns
including noise from the development, trespassing on her
property by residents of the development and the maintenance
of a shared small section of road. She asked if there could
be a deed restriction about noise levels and also if a fence
could be constructed on the side of the building adjacent to
her property, but her primary concern dealt with the road
maintenance issue. Ms. Campbell explained that she was
currently providing the entire maintenance for a short
section of road that led to a private road to her home. She
explained that the road was owned by Mr. Vining who also
used it but contributed nothing to its maintenance and it
was also used as a pedestrian throughfare for residents of
University Heights. She asked that the applicant be
required to help in the maintenance of this road.
The road maintenance was discussed at some length.
Mr. Tarbell pointed out the short section of road to which
Ms. Campbell had referred. He noted that Ms. Campbell was
not objecting to the pedestrian use of the road, but was
rather asking that the residents of the applicant's
development share in its maintenance.
Mr. Cox felt the issue was recognizing that the applicant
has a pedestrian easement to use the road and it is being
used by pedestrians only. Mr. Cox stated he felt the two
property owners could work things out "because we recognize
the fact that there's been a problem there."
There was a brief discussion about Ms. Campbell's request
for a fence along her property line.
Ms. Anderson asked about Mr. Vining's responsibility to help
maintain the road. Mr. Bowling explained that would depend
on the terms of the easement and Ms. Campbell had indicated
that there was no maintenance requirement in the easement.
aIll
June 26, 1990 Page 8
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that the question for the Commission
to consider was whether it could reasonably require a
condition which would require this developer to share
maintenance for a pedestrian easement which the applicant
already possesses.
Mr. Cox stated: "Mr. Chairman, we would be more than happy
to acknowledge to Ms. Campbell and to the Commission that we
would be willing to use the maintenance people at our
project to do standard clean-up, fix -up, police -up type
activities in the area that our project will effect. I'm
not sure that we want to build a chain -link fence around the
top of the project." He doubted that there would be a
trespassing problem given the steep slopes in the area.
(Ms. Campbell disagreed.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse commented on the issue of critical slopes
and the Commission's traditional way of reviewing this
aspect of an application. He noted that the Commission
relies heavily on the Engineering Department's comments for
the more technical aspects of an evaluation. He stated, in
this instance, he was not completely satisfied with the
depth of the Engineering Department's recommendations.
However, he noted that Engineering has examined the request
and supports the waiver.
There followed a discussion about staff's suggested
relocation of the building. (Mr. Rittenhouse noted that
staff's condition No. 2 would "nail down that location.")
Mr. Jenkins asked staff to comment on a second waiver which
was was alluded to in the staff report. Mr. Tarbell
responded that it was not actually a waiver but rather just
the Commission's "recognition that in accordance with
Section 18.8 that you are moving the building closer to a
single-family residence although it is zoned R-15 and high
density. The specific language speaks to the fact that
there is that additional setback which in this case totals
65 feet from adjacent single-family districts or rural
agricultural districts." He stated that, as shown, the
setback is 65 feet which staff felt was sensitive to the
neighbors. He continued: "If you don't have any problem
with moving it to the south --to the left as you see it --you
can do that too. The minimum setback then would be twenty
a /9
June 26, 1990 Page 9
feet. what weld do is probably relocate it as much south as
possible while still maintaining a grading plan which is
sensitive to the site." In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's
request, Mr. Tarbell pointed out on the plan the result of
relocating the building as envisioned by staff.
Mr. Johnson questioned what was being achieved by relocating
the building 30 feet or moving the pool to the front. Mr.
Tarbell pointed out that moving the building would mean less
critical slope area would be disturbed. Mr. Johnson
questioned what was to be gained by avoiding critical slope
areas, e.g. less erosion? Mr. Tarbell stated that in terms
of granting the waiver and in consideration of future
projects which may involve this same issue, it would simply
mean less intrusion, and less grading in critical slope
areas. Mr. Johnson stated he could understand the concern,
"technically speaking," but he felt each case should be
evaluated on its own merit and in this case he stated he
"failed to see anything to be gained from a practical
standpoint, one way or another."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated the Zoning Ordinance was very clear
and stated "you shall not do it --you shall not develop on
critical slopes, period," and that is the posture in which
the Commission begins its review of the issue. The
Commission then looks to the Engineering Department for
guidance as to whether or not it makes sense technically. He
added that since the Ordinance says not to do it, then "the
less we do it the better off we are, assuming the Ordinance
is valid and critical slopes should be avoided."
Mr. Johnson stated he could see nothing to be gained "from
an engineering standpoint, an ecological standpoint or any
other standpoint other than being able to say 'We tried to
comply with the zoning.' I think that's a very foolish,
unsupportable position to take without reason." He added
that he could see no reason to move the pool to the front as
suggested by staff because leaving it at the back, up
against the mountain, would offer some protection against
noise.
Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed with Mr. Johnson's comments in
relation to the Ordinance. He stated: "I think we have to
say that the Ordinance is valid without questioning it on an
individual case -by -case basis. If it is not, then we have
to change the Ordinance. But it is in place ... and I think
it behooves us to avoid the critical slopes."
.2413
June 26, 1990 Page 10
Mr. Johnson stated: "If it is the procedure of the
Commission and the Board of Supervisors to go to the
Ordinance and say it says 'Thus and so' and say 'That's the
way we are going to do it, period' then this could all be
quantitized, put in a computer and when an applicant comes
in you can press the Questionmark Key and it will come out
Yes or No. We're here to evaluate case--by-case and see,
using the Ordinance as a base, if it's reasonable to
completely comply with it, partially comply with it or ignor
it completely, and make that decision on a human basis, not
a computer basis."
Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed, "but that decision may set a
precedent that may be good today, but may not be good
tomorrow."
Mr. Johnson felt the only precedent set was that "the
Planning Commission used logic in arriving at their
determination."
Mr. Rittenhouse commented: "Hopefully we have already set
that precedent."
Mr. Tarbell pointed out that the Commission did not have to
agree with staff's recommendation to relocate the building
and the pool, but unless they specifically stated otherwise,
the conditions of approval as presented would relocate the
building and pool as shown.
The Chairman invited the applicant to comment on the
relocation of the building to the south. Mr. Bart Fry spoke
for the applicant and stated that amenities were critical
and the pool issue was the most important from a market
standpoint. Regarding the shift of the building to the
south, he stated he did not think it was a particularly
significant issue other than the fact that it might effect
the views somewhat.
Mr. Johnson asked about the issue of the fence requested by
Ms. Campbell. Mr. Rittenhouse stated the Commission needed
to decide that question.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Tarbell explained
that the slope areas were wooded. He also stated that there
would be a wooded buffer between this development and Ms.
Campbell's property, but it would probably still be visible
to Ms. Campbell because of the elevation of her property.
June 26, 1990
Page 11
Mr. Grimm asked if there was any Zoning Requirement that
would require such a fence_ Staff knew of no such
requirement.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that the applicant should be commended
for offering to use some of his personnel to help in the
maintenance of the road.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that though he agreed with Mr.
Rittenhouse's concerns about the Engineering Department's
report, approval had been given by Engineering and therefore
he moved that the University Heights Phase II Preliminary
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plan shall not 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
pavement specifications to include bituminous
concrete on the Albemarle County Service Authority
access road;
c) Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
d) Department of Engineering approval of
retaining wall design;
e) Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
f) Fire Official approval of blasting plans;
2. Relocation of the building in accordance with the plan
initialled RET and dated June 26, 1990.
3. Provision of a sidewalk along the apartment access road.
4. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a) Fire Official final approval.
5. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
6. Administrative approval of the final plat.
7. Staff approval of the road maintenance agreement between
the property owners using Colonnade Drive.
.1*5'
June 26, 1990 Page 12
(Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be added requiring
Commission review in the event of a change in the site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson felt staff had already indicated that would be
the case. Mr. Rittenhouse added that typically staff is
aware of the Commission's concerns and will bring any
changes back to the Commission which if feels the Commission
would want to review.)
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion for approval.
Discussion:
In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Tarbell stated
this was the last parcel of this site which would allow
apartment buildings.
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion, but he did
not agree with the relocation of the pool. He stated:
"It's being done, as I see, technically to satisfy critical
slopes at the expense of the ecology --the effects of the
building."
The previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Jenkins casting the dissenting vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that former Commissioners would be
recognized at the July 10, 1990 meeting.
Ms. Huckle brought up the question of why the Commission had
spent so much time discussing critical slopes on the
University Heights application, which did not effect the
watershed, but "whizzed through" the Ingleside application
which was very critical to the watershed. Mr. Rittenhouse
responded that the amount of area in critical slopes is a
very important consideration, i.e. are they small, isolated
areas or is the area significant? Ms. Huckle felt 37 feet
of fill was significant and the fact that it was "loose"
would make it more erodable. Mr. Rittenhouse also pointed
out that a factor was also the fact that the Ingleside road
would be a State road and therefore the State's right-of-way
would include the fill slope and the State would maintain
it.
a 1/4
June 26, 1990 Page 13
Mr. Johnson felt Ms. Huckle's point was a valid one. He
commented: "There we have a critical slope next to a
waterway and here we have a critical slope next to nothing.
Engineering and nobody can make any comment as to why we
were worried about a critical slope other than there
happened to be a critical slope and somebody wrote it into a
document. There's no justification, no logic, no nothing."
Mr. Keeler commented: "I have been pushing for this for
eight years now. We've reached the point where we have a
Water Resources Committee and they are evaluating all the
Ordinances that address mud, dirt and water. What I would
like to see happen would be to remove from the Zoning
Ordinance all reservoir protective measures and incorporate
those in a Runoff Control Ordinance and let that document
stand on it's own. The problem I've had for years in
writing provisions in this ordinance is that I'm writing
provisions for multiple purposes. It applies county -wide
but I also have to be concerned about whether it applies in
the reservoir watershed and by the time I finish writing
them it's got so many ifs, ands or buts that sometimes
(even) I get confused. I thought there was language in here
which would address this type of development but I left out
the fatal words that would address this particular issue. I
just think it's unwieldy at this point in time to attempt,
in the Zoning Ordinance, to write provisions --and most
everything in here applies county -wide --and then try to also
include language that makes it work within a reservoir
watershed too." (Ms. Huckle asked what the "fatal words"
were.) Mr. Keeler responded: "There's a provision in there
which permits fill and the fatal words which I left out were
'provided no such activity shall occur within 100 horizontal
feet of a tributary of a reservoir watershed.'"
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt this was one facet of the
Commission's dual role of implementing the Ordinances and
applying judgment and at the same time to looking at what
the Ordinances say. He stated: "We really don't have the
latitude to modify an Ordinance as we go on a particular
issue."
Mr. Bowling interjected: "I think Mr. Johnson made some
good points. You do have discretion."
Mr. Rittenhouse replied: "We do in interpreting the
Ordinance but not in modifying the Ordinance."
June 26, 1990 Page 14
Mr. Bowling stated: "There's a fine line there. This is a
good example. You could have done whatever you wanted to
do and I don't think that legally it would have made any
difference at all for all the other cases that came later in
interpreting critical slopes. That's the kind of discretion
that you do have."
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that that is part of the dual
role of the Commission, i.e. to be cognizant of the
opportunity to improve the Ordinance when appropriate.
Mr. Johnson stated: "We don't have to wait. When the
situation comes up --there needs to be a waiver or a
change --I think we should take it, bite the bullet, do it
and then see what happens."
Mr. Rittenhouse felt these were two different issues, i.e.
how to deal with waivers vs. the structure of the Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that he did not have the staff to
deal with all the issues which need to be dealt with and
some of those need to be taken over by some of the other
County officials, e.g. the Watershed Management Official,
the County Engineer. He stated there are currently "too
many cooks stirring the broth and there are a lot of little
holes."
Mr. Keeler stated he felt the proposed location for the
public road in the Ingleside project was in the worst
possible place, but there was nothing in the Ordinance to
prevent it at the moment.
Mr. Keeler stated that staff was aware of the Commission's
concerns, but he added: "I do think we have to take a lot
of stuff out of this Ordinance and put it somewhere else
because we are just spinning our wheels." He listed all the
Ordinances that staff now has to deal with and stated it is
just too many for one department to have to deal with,
particularly when in many cases the Planning Department is
not the agency which administers the ordinance. He felt it
might be time "to remove some of the protective measures and
let the Chesapeake Bay provisions stand on their own as a
separate ordinance and take all reservoir language out of
here and put it in the Runoff Control Ordinance where, in my
opinion, it really belongs."
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the "fatal words" which Mr. Keeler
had referred to should be put in now. Mr. Keeler responded
June 26, 1990 Page 15
that currently the Watershed Management Official has some
proposed amendments before the Board of Supervisors and
"rather than doing it here we may want to sit down with the
Watershed Management Official and suggest we change the
language that he's considering putting in that ordinance to
include this privilege."
Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission had had the power to make
modifications on the Ingleside application.
Mr. Bowling responded: "That's more difficult.... You have a
specific section of language in the Ordinance concerning
building areas which suggests that access roads either
leading to or within the building area are subject to
certain requirements concerning the environment. It seems
to be there, but you can also argue that the requirements
for building areas is concerned only with the driveway
portions of access roads. The next section concerns the
improvements and it says 'No improvements shall be built on
critical slopes BUT' and then it says 'fill areas.' It's
your ordinance and basically you could interpret it to have
that power if you want to. It's just that it's not black
and white."
Ms. Huckle suggested that perhaps the fill areas should be
removed.
Mr. Keeler commented on the stockpiling activity at the
Ingleside site. He stated: "Under the Ordinance it's
by -right; it requires the Wateshed Management Official's
approval within 300 feet of a tributary. I'm not sure
there's any real clear answer to that because when you have
a construction project here which has overburden, you have
to move it. Maybe make it applicable everywhere except
within a reservoir watershed --I don't know. These are
matters which you all may want to ask us to refer directly
to the Water Resources Committee when they are reviewing the
various ordinances and formulating new provisions to the
Ordinance."
Mr. Johnson stated that his experience on the Commission has
given him the feeling that "we're not looking at the forest
because we can't even seem the ... trees because of the
leaves." He questioned why staff should have to take time
to review items which are necessary requirements such as
Fire Official approval, etc. He felt that anything which
was automatic should not be addressed by the Commission
unless there was "an exception to be taken." He felt that
would free some of staff's time.
'949
June 26, 1990 Page 16
Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that many items are included in
the staff report for the benefit of the public and the
applicant. Mr. Johnson felt it was the responsibility of
the public to ask questions. He felt staff might spend too
much time on "mundane, immaterial
aspects--techanicalities--which have no meaning and are
completely superfluous... and they don't have time to get to
the big picture."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was in favor of tight ordinances.
He stated: "I don't like ordinances were we are called upon
to apply a lot of waivers to make them fit. If we find they
are typically not fitting the purpose that we think they
should, then I think it's time to change the Ordinance.
Once we get away from tight ordinances we start applying
lots of interpretation and lots of conditions and we begin
to lose consistency and the public and development community
no longer knows what to expect of us."
Mr. Johnson again brought up the issue of the Commission
getting notification of BZA items.
It was noted that the Ordinance says that the agenda of the
BZA will be presented to the Commission which will offer
comments. (Mr. Johnson quoted Section 34.4 of the
Ordinance.)
Mr. Keeler stated that the Zoning AdALL—L L trator has complied
with this requirement by notifying the Director of Planning
and Community Development who is the Secretary to the
Commission. He added that the Commission decided some time
ago that staff was to respond to these items and inform the
Commission of any items of a "dramatic" nature. Mr. Keeler
also stated that if the Commission wishes to change this
procedure and wants to provide direct comment to the BZA,
then staff will no longer provide comment so as not to risk
being in disagreement with the Commission.
Mr. Johnson disagreed with the statement that the Secretary
of the Commission was actually a part of the Commission. He
also stressed that it was not his intent to discourage staff
comment on these items.
Mr. Keeler noted that there is often very little time
between when staff gets notice of BZA agendas and when
comments are needed.
2,-0
June 26, 1990
Page 17
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that if the Commission is to
make comments to the BZA, it should be prepared to establish
a basis for making those evaluations. He noted that these
items would not have the benefit of a staff report.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in favor of the procedure
remaining as it has been. He stated: "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.,,
Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Wilkerson but noted that after
just having had a discussion about the sanctity of the
Zoning Ordinance, "we turn around and say 'It ain't so
sacred."
Mr. Wilkerson felt the procedure was in compliance with the
Ordinance because the Secretary is a member of the
Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling to comment. Mr. Bowling
stated it was the Commission's choice to make.
Mw. Huckle asked how the Commission would choose which
issues on which to offer comment. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed and
pointed out that by not commenting on all of the items, the
Commission would then be making a statement by its silence
on some items.
No decision was reached and the item was to be discussed
again.
There being no further
9:45 p.m.
DS
, the meeting adjourned at
Secretary
.;25,1
I