Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-02 adjOctober 2, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from September 25, 1985) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 2, 1985, at 2:00 P.M., the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 25, 1985~ Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 2:06 p.m.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 4:03 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 2:04 P.M. in Meeting Room 11 by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session: Acquisition, Disposal or Use of Public Property. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn into executive session for the above stated reasons. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened into open session at 3:59 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission. Planning Commission Members Present: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Mrs. Norma J. Diehl, Messrs. Richard F. Gould, Timothy M. Michel, and James R. Skove. Planning Commission Members Absent: Mr. Harry F. Wilkerson. At 4:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order again in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6 and introduced Mr. John T. P. Horne, newly appointed Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 3a. Development Activity Report - 1984. Miss Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development, referred to slides in her presentation and discussion of the Development Activity Report (on file in the Clerk's office). Miss Imhoff said the report is inclusive of a tracking of residential development, which is based on building permits; an analysis of subdivision activity; an inventory of types of multi-residential development; an inventory of commercial and industrial development comprised of information generated from the computer system; and Zoning and Comprehensive Plan modifica- tions that occurred in 1984 including rezoning activities, variances, and special permits. Miss Imhoff said trends for growth distribution in the County during the period of 1980 through 1984 indicate that approximately 50 percent of development has occurred in rural areas and 50 percent in growth areas. There has been an increase in the number of subdivi- sions, but a decrease in the number of lots and acreage subdivided. Only 19 of 117 subdivi- sions had more than five lots. Mrs. Fisher asked if most of the subdivisions which have been developed in the rural areas are by-right developments. Miss Imhoff said yes. Miss Imhoff said the number of final and preliminary plats approved by the Planning Commission in 1984 are shown in the report. Of the 390 new lots created in the growth areas, 340 were in the urban area and 50 in communities and villages. There is significant building permit activity in the rural area on lots that were created before 1980. Seventy-nine percent of the new lots approved by the Planning Commission last year are in growth areas. The average lot size in Rural Area No. 1 is 2.8 acres. In other rural areas the average lot size is in excess of ten acres, which is the aim of the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the inventories of residential, commercial and industrial development, Miss Imhoff said the computer information system defines "development" based on structures valued in excess of $10,000. This methodology overstates the numbers which reflect development in all of the categories. According to the inventory, Miss Imhoff said 57 percent of the residential growth areas are developed and 43 percent are undeveloped. Mr. Lindstrom asked if those statistics are based on the Comprehensive Plan recommendation or zoning. Miss Imhoff said it is based on actual zoning. ¸O2 October 2, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from September 25, 1985) (Page 2) Miss Imhoff said the County has been meeting the guidelines set by the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the issuance of building permits on lots in the rural area that have already been created and lots that can be created by right is a matter that is beyond control at this point. ' Mr. Fisher said the subdivision in which he lives is approximately thirty years old and several vacant lots still remain. Now that they are served by public water, there is being in-fill development. He asked if this situation is occurring in other subdivisions. Miss Imhoff said there are several small lots in Croze= that have existed for many years, but have not been developed for lack of public facilities. It will be interesting to see if they will be developed after the sewage interceptor/collector system is installed in that area. Mr. Tucker said he feels there is a lack of prime lots - subdivision lots with facilities. People have been holding those prime lots for a period of time, but they are beginning to be developed now. Consequently, there is development in subdivisions where utilities exist. He believes the reserve of lots which existed prior to 1980 were created in 1975 when the first amended zoning ordinance and map were considered. At that time, people tried to get ahead of the potential adoption of that version of the ordinance. Mr. Michel asked if the number of lots existing before 1980 is known. in 1980 the estimated number was in excess of 2,000. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Skove said according to the table shown on Page 26 of the report, two-thirds of Crozet has already been developed. He asked if that means it has been zoned. Miss Imhoff said, because of the computer definition of development, that figure overstates the amount of development in Crozet. There is more potential for development because of the available acreage. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is fair to look at subdivision activity as a primary indicator of how effectively the existing plan is managing growth in the sense of turning it away from rural areas. Miss Imhoff said approved subdivisions are a better measure than building permits. Referring to Page 16 of the report, Mr. Lindstrom noted the decline in the number of subdivision lots and acreage. Miss Imhoff said the number of subdivisions increased, however the number of lots and acreage divided actually decreased, which seems to represent smaller subdivisions. Mr. Lindstrom asked if all but nineteen of those subdivisions were created by right. Miss Imhoff said only nineteen consisted of more than five lots. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many special permits have been approved for residential development. Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning, said 21 special permits have been approved since the ordinance was adopted. Specifically, nine in 1986, three in 1982, one in 1983, three in 1984, and five so far in 1985. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that a summary on that information be prepared at some time in the future. Mr. Lindstrom asked for clarification of the table on Page 4 of the report. Miss Imhoff explained that the table shows actual dwellings as compared to Comprehensive Plan projections Mr. Lindstrom noted that the number of actual dwellings exceeds Comprehensive Plan projections by 315 percent in the rural areas. He said most of those dwellings are on lots approved prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1980. Mr. Skove said the report seems to indicate that the village concept is no= working. He feels the concept should be reviewed to determine whether it should remain in effect. Miss Imhoff said there is not much land left in the village areas to develop. Undeveloped lots are more significant in the communities. Villages are not intended to be growth areas in the same way as urban and community areas. The villages recognize existing population concen- trations in the County. Mr. Lindstrom said if new by-right divisions were kept at a minimum, an increased amount of growth would be seen in the urban areas not in the rural areas. Miss Imhoff said that will be gradually seen. Mr. Lindstrom commented that there is not a significant enough amount of activity in the by-right category to frustrate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Miss Imhoff said she does not think so. The northwest part of the County is an attractive area in which to live. It will be interesting to see how the southern neighbor- hoods develop. There are still large areas of undeveloped residential acreages south of the City. Mr. Keeler commented there are a large number of pending applications for the southern neighborhoods. Most of the applications are for multi-family units. Mr. Tucker commented that the the collection system for Crozet sewage interceptor line will probably not be completed in 1986. Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the plans on the collector system. Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, said the project is approximately 65 percent designed. A real estate appraiser and negotia- tor are acquiring rights-of-way. The Service Authority is waiting for a final survey before delivering plats to the negotiators. Right-of-way acquisition is expected to begin within the next 30 days. Bond counsel has been acquired. If everything continues to go smoothly, the project should be ready for bid by late winter or early spring, and hopefully construc- tion on part of the collector system will begin by early summer. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Service Authority is targeting problem areas first. Mr. Brent replied yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the bond issue assumes any percentage of participation by customers. Mr. Brent replied he is reluctant to guess what the participation will be. It may be difficult to sell bonds unless there is a reasonable percentage of connections. If everybody does not connect and use the system to the maximum extent, there will not be enough revenue generated in Crozet to pay for the project. The project must be subsidized by the entire system. The number of connections is important, but it is not a profit-making project. October 2, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting f~om September 25, 1985) (Page 3) Mr. Fisher commented that 50 percent of growth activity is occurring in rural areas which do not have the benefit of water and sewer. He knows that some counties are looking at costs of ultimately running water and sewer to rural development. Agenda Item No. 3b. Land Use Regulation Committee Report. Mr. Tucker said the primary recommendations of the Land Use Regulation Committee (LURC) deal with aiding and streamlining the plan review process. The two primary recommendations are: (1) amendment to the subdivision regulations relative to providing for a two-step process in the plan review process by retaining the Planning Commission review of the develop- ment plan and retaining public input; and (2) create a Development Information Office. Mr. Tucker then summarized the following memorandum dated September 27, 1985, from the County Executive's office, re: Land Use Regulation Committee (LURC) Recommendation - Development Information Office: The County Executive's staff has reviewed the recommendations of LURC and has solicited input from various departments involved in the development review process. Staff agrees that LURC's recommendation will be beneficial in improving the review process for the citizenry. We feel that a further expansion to their recommendation will ultimately provide a more efficient use of staff time and streamline more effectively the staff's involvement in plan review. We propose that the Development Information Office, and any subsequent expansion of this proposal, be implemented through a phaSed approach as follows: Phase I Provide a Development Information Office under the administration of the Zoning Department, utilizing existing staff to begin operations in Spring 1986. This office would: · Answer questions concerning the development review process; Provide information through written material concerning the process; Coordinate and schedule meetings between the public (engineers, surveyors, builders, etc.) and appro- priate staff regarding a plan review issue; Aid in resolving complaints or breakdowns in the review process. The office would be physically located on the second floor in the area previously occupied by the Planning Department's receptionist, in the midst of the Zoning, Engineering, Inspections departments and close to the Planning Department. It would be identified as an "information" office, and would be manned initially by an existing employee experienced in coordination of activities between Zoning, Engineering, Inspections, and Planning, with back-up by the Zoning Department Staff. Phase II Development Information Office could be expanded to include a central intake office for development plan submittals and pro- vide for the initial input for development tracking. Phase III The final phase envisions possibly a separate agency or division which would include all of the functions listed above, plus an office which would house site planner(s) and engineer(s) from existing departments whose job descriptions and tasks would be the same as they currently are; the benefit to the public being that the actual review of plans and the majority of issues involving plan review could be resolved and coordinated in one office. While Phases II and III need further refinement and cost analy- sis, staff is of the opinion that this direction would prove to be even more beneficial to the plan review process. Additional costs to the FY 85-86 budget of implementing Phase I would be: Compensation and fringes Furniture and equipment Material and printing costs $ 750 $1100 $ 250 October 2, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from September 25, 1985) (Page 4) Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the concept of a Development Information Office, but he is concerned with Phase I of the proposal. If Phase I is started with no clear schedule for implementation of the remaining phases, the office will never be effective. If there is a consensus that this office is needed, someone should be assigned the sole task of implement- ing the idea. His fear is that there is already so much work that if somebody already on staff is assigned this responsibility, they will not be able to do the additional work. He thinks that the Board should be willing to devote some resources to getting this office started. Mr. Cogan said the existing staff should not be burdened without additional duties. He feels this office will require additional staff personnel. If this is going to be done, it should be done properly and not give people something else to complain about. Also, it should be made clear to the public that this is a public benefit and not geared toward helping the developers of large projects. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Cogan. Much of the purpose of this office is to make it easier for the individual and it will work if it is geared to serve the individual. He also agrees that if this is going to be done, it should be staffed properly, but it seems to him the person must know everything that is going on in the County and should be a current staff member. Mr. Skove said this person must be independent and not work for any one department and have the power to get results from a department. Mr. Fisher said the rationale is to use people whose primary function is to review site plans and subdivision plats. He understands that existing staff will be utilized initially. The reason for phasing the project is due to physical space. Mr. Fisher said he is looking for the individual in this position to be a person who can outline the development process and literally take someone to the office he needs to see. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the staff regarding Phase III, but he thinks that Phase II should be started as soon as possible. This is going to be a different responsibility from just going over a site plan with somebody. He thinks there will be a lot of handholding and making of appointments. He also agrees the person should be someone who understands the present system. Unless this office gets a solid start, it is likely to create problems. He thinks that the money should be spent to get someone in the office at the beginning and then if it turns out that there is not enough work for that person to do, the concept can be reevaluated. Phase III needs a lot of thinking and caution. Mr. Agnor said the staff's recommendation for phasing is based on the volume of activity and work expected. The idea is to start and after several months reevaluate to see if additional staffing is required. Presently, there is no timetable to start Phase II. Mr. Lindstrom said he expects that within the first six months of the office, people are not going to know about it, how it works and what it can do for them. If the .office is staffed only part-time, it is less likely to be a satisfying experience and its use may be discouraged by being too cautious. He wants to encourage the public to be able to come into the County building and get assistance. Ms. Diehl asked if anyone knows how many people may be expected to use this office. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the office will mainly be used for the scheduling of meetings with other personnel. The percentage of people just walking in and not knowing where to start is fairly small. He thinks the engineers and surveyors will use the office a lot to try to get someone to set up an appointment. He does not anticipate the average citizen coming in for everyday use. Mr. Cogan said he would like to make sure that this office could respond to the average indiVidual. Mr. Tucker said it is envisioned that Phase I will include answering technical questions and the inspections process. Mr. Fisher said this will be a very difficult job description to write. Mr. Tucker said the reason for phasing is to allow the staff time to refine some of the questions that have no answers at this time. There is physically not enough space to fully staff Phase III. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a more detailed proposal with some timetables could be provided for the Board. Mr. Tucker said Phase II will require additional personnel and is anticipated to begin in July 1986. Mr. Agnor said some physical changes will be made in the County office building by next summer. Mr. Michel asked where this development office person will fit into the hierarchy. Mr. Agnor said he thinks the person will be directly responsible to a Deputy County Executive. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on Agenda. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, discussed the first part of the LURC report concerning the streamlining process for site plan approvals. In general, the Commission supports what the Committee recommended. The Commission has streamlined the process for preliminary and final plats. The Commission has changed its schedule to allow two weeks of intake of plans, and for getting staff reports a week in advance of the meeting. Applying this to the site plan process might be very beneficial. The Commission feels that having a development plan could speed the process for a developer, save him time and unnecessary expenses and reduce the Commission's workload. However, the Commission did see some potential problems. The Commission does not want to get into the situation where technical information is deleted and thus the information available is inadequate for decision making. If there is not adequate information at the time of the site October 2, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from September 25, 1985) (Page 5) development plan review, the Commission will be forced to defer action. For some reason, the site plans reviewed by the Commission are becoming more complicated and more involved. The Commission would like to request Mr. Horne to review the recommendations of the Committee and recommend to the Planning Commission implementation of those recommendations including changes in the ordinance. Mr. Skove commented that when the final engineering work is done and a plan is changed numerous times, the plan should come back before the Commission. Also, developers are complaining about spending a lot of time and money on a plan. The developers also want to know in advance if the concept is going to work. Mr. Cogan said the Commission wants to see a conceptual development plan, but does not want the plan to be incomplete just to get it on the agenda. Seeing the same plan over and over take Commission time. Mrs. Diehl said the development plan idea satisfies her concern about public input. She is concerned about whether the Commission will get the information it needs to make a decision at the development plan stage and whether it will generate more work. The idea does have merit. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission relies on the staff for judgments on the engineering and technical problems, but questions the specifics of the plan. Mr. Michel said as the Commission gets into the development plan, it will learn what specifics will be needed. Mr. Fisher said as these tasks are assigned to Mr. Horne, a realistic timeframe should be set for response. Mr. Lindstrom asked what is being done to index County development ordinances. Mr. Tucker said before consideration of the ordinances, the stafftwan.'~t~s to get the Development Information Office started. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with starting the Develop- ment Information Office in the next fiscal year. Mr. St. John said he has talked with an Assistant State Attorney General regarding sidewalks. The problem is the bonding requirement of the Highway Department and a clarifi- cation will be be received shortly. His feeling is that the Attorney General thinks the requirement is unlawful, and he does not think the Board should spend more time looking for ways to get around the bonding requirement. This recommendation is only because the Highway Department will not accept sidewalks for maintenance without the bonding. Mr. Fisher asked about pending developments. Mr. Bowerman said Raintree Subdivision still requires sidewalks. Sidewalks in Phase II of Raintree were built outside of the Highway Department right-of-way. Mr. St. John said he believes that the Highway Department, on the advice of the Attorney General, will allow the County to build sidewalks in its right-of-way if the County gives the Highway Department a resolution exonerating it from maintenance of those sidewalks and the County accepts the responsibility. He does not think bonding in addition to the resolution will be required. Mr. Bowerman said the sidewalks would be easier to maintain if they were in the right-of-way. Mr. St. John said if the sidewalks are built outside of the right-of-way, some portions will still have to be bonded. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said he has also talked with the Attorney General, but has not received an indication one way or the other. Mr. Lindstrom said the County is still faced with whether it is going to maintain the sidewalks. He asked if this could be done through a referendum, or by setting up a special assessment district. Mr. St. John said no, although sidewalks can be maintained with General County funds. Mr. Fisher asked if payment could be taken from the owner and put into the General Fund, but earmarked for sidewalk maintenance. Mr. St. John said there is nothing that says that cannot be done, but there is nothing that says it can be done. The question arises as to whether it is authorized under Dillon's Rule. He does not believe it can be done because every type of payment that can be required is listed in the subdivision ordinance and that is not listed. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to prepare a report as soon as possible that specifically explores every legal avenue to assess the cost for sidewalk maintenance to the people who use the sidewalks or whose abuts the sidewalks. Mr. Fisher said there is already the density of development in the urban area for the need for sidewalks. He is worried that if the sidewalks are not required, people will later ask for them. He does not think it is a good public policy, and it will cost more in the long run. Mr. Bowerman said unless he hears otherwise from staff, the Commission is still going to apply the criteria it has for installing sidewalks. Mr. Fisher said the Board will be searching for ways to assess fees. Mr. Michel asked if other municipalities have these problems and if the Virginia Association of Counties has looked into this problem. Mr. Fisher said he has not heard anything because sidewalks are not a high priority with VACo. Mr. Tucker said this is a state-wide policy that the Highway Department has adopted and therefore it must be affecting other counties. He does know that some other counties are experiencing some of these problems but have not come up with solutions. The impact in other areas have not been as great as it is in Albemarle. Mr. Fisher said he feels that the policy requiring sidewalks should be continued. Bowerman commented that he agrees. Mr. Mr. Fisher suggested a tentative date for the next joint meeting with the Planning Commission to be February 5, 1986 at 4:00 P.M. There was general agreement by all Board members and Planning Commission members present. October 2, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from September 25, 1985) (Page 6) Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. At. 5:36 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session for discussion of property acquisition and personnel matters. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M. and immediately adjourned. CHAJ~AN