HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 21 89 PC MinutesFebruary 21, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 21, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala,
Senior Planner; Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Richard
Moring, County Engineer.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of February 7, 1989 were approved as
submitted.
Yellow Mountain A ricultural/Forestal District - The proposed district contains
about 663 acres and is located south of Rt. 250 West near Greenwood in Western
Albemarle, and is described as Tax Map 70, Parcels 15, 15A, 15D, 15E, and 29;
and Tax Map 71,Parcels 2, 22, 22A, 22B and 22C, Samuel Miller anI.White Hall
Magisterial Districts.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval as submitted.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Policy Statement Regarding Private Roads - Mr. Keeler led the discussion. Though
staff had originally recommended this issue be addressed through a policy
statement, it was determined it would be more appropriately addressed through
a Subdivision Ordinance text amendment because this would clearly alert
any applicant that "they were going to be required to demonstrate, under
18-36(c), that their proposed private road was of public benefi4 as opposed
to proprietary interest of the developer." Mr. Keeler pointed out that the
issue in question was that dealing with 5-acre lots because this continues
to generate a substantial amount of Commission discussion. He noted that
an amendment would: (1) Clarify this issue in the Ordinance; and (2) Insure
that. the same issues are addressed each time there is a proposed private
road with 5-acre lots.
It was determined that this issue be addressed in Section 18-36(c) of the
Subdivision Ordinance (rather than 18-36(b)).
060
February 21, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Stark moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend
the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 18-36, to clarify cases under which
private roads will be authorized in subdivisions of five acres per lot or
greater.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Discussion of Critical -Slop es - Mr. Keeler led the discussion, assisted by
Mr. Horne and Mr. Moring.
Significant Commission comments included the following:
Bowerman: He asked staff to clarify the intent of avoiding 25% or greater
slopes and once that is established, under what circumstances
can the provisions be modified to allow construction on those
slopes?
"How do we come to grips with making this issue a less subjective
review? tt
'1If we are going to modify the Ordinance it should be in an
area where we want to encourage the density,.but it should be done
in such a way as to -result in no detriment either on or off site."
He felt the main issue dealt with the public purpose for modifying
the critical slopes provision. He felt this had not been identified,
i.e. where and under what circumstances can the provision be
modified? He felt confusion arises from the question of "When.
can we do it?"
"If there is a public reason to have critical slope provisions,
there has to be something in the public interest.to modify
those provisions."
Rittenhouse: If building on steeper slopes is allowed, there should be some
indication as to how slopes are going to be stabilized during and
after construction.
How was 25% chosen to define a critical slope?
He suggested the possibility of developing a checklist that the
applicant would be required to address and satisfy, first for
staff's evaluation and then for Commission evaluation.
(Note: Dater Mr. Rittenhouse started he was not in favor of
an actual checklist, but.rather was in favor of the Ordinance
including more "acceptability criteria.")
He felt this issue was important enough that the Commission
should not make determinations purely subjectively.
He pointed out that presently the
can't do it; it doesn't talk about
talk about waivers."
Ordinance just says "You
interpretation and it doesn't
?+6f
February 21, 1989
Page 3
He felt there was more to be gained by requiring that the
applicant submit an engineering design for review rather than
just having an applicant say "Will you let me do it?"
Michel: He felt it would be helpful to the public to have clearly
defined criteria for dealing with this question.
He.felt it would be a mistake for this to become purely an engineering
practice that says "Yes, you can do that."
"If we allow this, it should be clearly the exception to be proven
by the applicant."
He too felt the main issue was "What is the public benefit of
allowing building on critical slopes?"
He noted that even though it is possible, engineering -wise, to
build almost anyplace, it is, in most cases, beneficial not
to disturb a natural slope.
Diehl: She felt there should be a statement that a waiver would be granted
only for public benefit. (Mr. Horne noted that the issue has
always been viewed this way but it is not written.)
Mr. Horne stated that factors on which the Commission is basing differentiations
need to be identified. He stated that staff .would study this issue and
present a proposal which would probably include changes in. the Ordinance
and administrative procedure as to the presentation of reports.
Mr. Horne ascertained it was the Commission's intent that parking lots and
other accessory structures are to be included in this general discouragement
on 25% slopes.
Resolution of Intent: Amend Zoninp, Ordinance Regarding Non -Conforming Lots - To
provide for improved development; to provide for uniform regulation.
Mr. Keeler led the discussion. He explained that the purpose of the amendment
was to provide for improved development and uniform regulation. The report
explained:
"The Subdivision Ordinance contains a provision which permits
combination and/or redivision of non -conforming lots provided the
result is more conforming to the requirements of the ordinance. No
such language exists in the Zoning Ordinance, and, therefore,.even
though a result may be more conforming to zoning regulation, variances
are required. Staff opinion is that improvement should be achievable
without requirement of a variance in all cases."
.2 62
February 21, 1989
Page 4
There was a very brief discussion after which Mr. Jenkins moved that a
Resolution of 'Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding non -conforming
lots be adopted.
:sir. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-87-05 Amend 4.12 Off -Street Parking and Loading Requirements - The purpose
of these regulations is to set forth off-street parking and loading requirements
for permitted uses.
Mr. Keeler presented the start report which included a brief description of
proposed amendments. The purpose of the amendments was to provide for safe
and convenient access, circulation, and parking in development.
Mr. Keeler pointed out the proposed new sections of the ordinance. There
followed a brief discussion during which the Commission suggested sone
additional minor revisions.
mr. Stark moved that ZTA-87-05, to amend 4.12 Off -Street Parking and Loading
Requirements, be scheduled for public hearing.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20.
DS
126.1