Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-05 adjFebruary 5, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from February 1, 1986) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 5, 1986, at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room 5, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia for the purpose of holding a joint meeting with the Albemarle County Planning Commission; said meeting being adjourned from February 1, 1986. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 4:10 P.M.) and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Mrs. Norma J. Diehl, Messrs. Timothy M. Michel, Peter A. Stark and Harry F. Wilkerson.~ Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:03 P.M., by the Board Chairman, Mr. Fisher, and by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Fisher said he appreciates this opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission for 'discussion of mutual concerns. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation: Planning Commission's 1985 Annual Report. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission's 1985 Annual Report (on file) concerns the operation of the Planning Commission and the status of planning within Albemarle County. The report also contains the Planning Commission's objectives and goals for 1986. The Commission continues to be extremely busy on a weekly basis dealing with current items (i.e. subdivision plats, site plans, special use permits and rezoning applications) and other planning matters. It is his feeling that the complexity of requests heard by the Commission in 1985 has increase and the requests are very time consuming. Hopefully, through continued work with staff, the Commission will be able to streamline and implement recommendations to reduce some of the workload to be able to deal with more planning issues. In 1986, the Commission's .primary emphasis is on the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked if there is~~ thing in the report on which the Board members should focus. Mr. Bowerman called the Board's attention to the second page of the report and indicated the list of items the Commission dealt with in 1985 compared to previous years. Although the Planning Commission spent a lot of time in 1985 on the Capital Improvements Program, the activity in 1985 is about the same as 1984. Mr. Fisher commended the Planning Commission members on the number of applications it handled last year. Many of the applications have had substantial changes made between the time they are heard by the Planning Commission and came before the Board of Supervisors. He is concerned about whether these applications s~ould be referred back to the Commission for~ further review. It is not always apparent whet~er the Commission's recommendation would have been different with the additional changes made~ He often thinks the Board should give the Commission another opportunity to review those applications. Mr. Bowerman said part of the problem is that the Commission hearing is often a "dress rehearsal". The applicant presents a concept and is unwilling to spend a great deal of money on the final details until indica- tion from the Commission that the application will move forward. Changes to the proposal are then made during the hearing stage. He does not know if the Commission wants to review the application a second time. Mr. Fisher said mos~ of the applications on which these changes occurred, had been recommended for denial by the Commission. Mr. Cogan said he thinks if a petition is recommended for denial and drastic changes are then made, the petition should come back before the Commission. Mr. Fisher commented that there is a petition to come before the Board tonight with two proffers addedsince review by the Commission. Mr. Cogan said he feels any changes that severe should co~e back before the Commission. Mr. Stark said he also thinks that applications with drastic changes should come back before the Commission. Mr. Fisher then suggested that each application be considered on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Fisher Said occasionally an application is heard by the Commission on Tuesday night and the next night, Wednesday, heard by the Board. He finds this difficult and asked if such scheduling can be changed, Mr. Tucker said there are two situations where back-to-back hearings are scheduled. Mobile homes are specifically advertised as such to prevent the petitioner from waiting. Also, when the Commission defers an item, it may appear on the Planning Commission agenda the night before the/Board is to hear the item. He does not know if it is fair to put the applicant off for another week when an item has already been deferred Mr. Fisher said this does not give an applicant~or another citizen time to work on any problems. Mr. Tucker asked if there is a problem with the handling of mobile homes requests. Mr. Fisher said there is no need to change mobile homes, but be aware that it does not allow time for any changes. Mr. Bowerman asked if there would be any merit to holding a joint public hearing on large items involving a lot of public interest. The Planning Commission would make its decision the night of the meeting and the Board when the item is scheduled on its agenda. Although this course does not allow an applicant to change his plans, it might have been beneficial on requests such as Keswick Country Club or WPED Radio Tower. Mr. Fisher said that has been discussed in the past, but Board members have not been enthusiastic about sitting through a Planning ~Commission hearing and then a Board meeting. Mr. Bowerman said the idea is to limit the commotion caused by having two large public hearings. Mrs. Cooke said if the Board does not hold a public hearing of its own, she feels there is no way for those in opposition to the Planning Commission's recommendation to respond. The suggestion has its points, but she can see the public not being able to express views. Mr. Bowerman said he was thinking of a way to reduce work time, but does not know if it would February 5, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from February 1, I986) (Page 2) 271 be possible to work out. Mr. Bowie said in most cases, he does not see how the public hearing could be avoided. He thinks citizens have the right to express their views a second time. Mr. Bowie commented that it is helpful to have the Planning Commission's minutes in a timely fashion. He commended everyone involved. Agenda Item No. 3. Secondary Highway Plan. Discussion: Planning Commission's role in Review of Six-Year Mr. Horne said in the past there has not been a lot of direct involvement by the Commis- sion in formulation of the Six-Year Highway Plan. The Plan is virtually the only transporta- tion planning document over which the Board has direct control. Therefore, he feels it is only logical that the Commission be intimately involved in putting together a recommendation on priorities for road construction which are ultimately approved by the Board. Everyone is aware of the limited amount of funding granted to the County and its ability to actually implement road improvements, but the County should take maximum advantage-of whatever it does have direct control over. He put together a detailed recommendation for review by the Planning Commission. The Commission had one work session and another work session is scheduled, hopefully to bring to the Board an integrated recommendation for the Six-Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan for major projects, bridges and paving. The Board will then have an opportunity to review the list and make recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Bowerman said the first Planning Commission work session dealt with the secondary highway system, setting priorities for major projects and bridge improvements. The next work session will deal with gravel roads and spot improvements in the County. The Commission is putting together a list of priorities within each category to compile into a major priority list 'for the Board. The list will include descriptions and reasons for the priorities. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Dan Roosevelt, the Resident Highway Engineer, proposes a plan based on traffic counts, State law criteria for unpaved road portions, and rights-of-way deeded to the County, for consideration by the Board. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department's philosophy concerning the Six-Year Plan has changed this year. In the past, the Six-Year Plan has been viewed as a combination priority list and financial plan. It is recommended now to separate the two and prepare a "wish list" and not worry about whether the entire list can be financed within the six-year period. His recommendation to the Board includes more projects than can actually be funded in fifteen years. After review by the Board, the Highway Department will decide how to finance the list, recognizing that the Highway Department is attempting to finance the priorities listed by the Board. The Highway Department also has to consider two Federal and State requirements: (1) a certain amount of funds must be used each year for gravel roads, and (2) a certain amount of funds each year must be used for federal-aid routes. He has always tried to get the Board and its staff as involved as possible in the six-year planning process, and has no problem with involvement by the Planning Commission. Mr. Way said he thinks the present procedure is much simpler and cleaner. There has never been an attempt to do planning in terms of which roads really need to be paved and safety, etc. If the Board starts getting into a planning procedure, he thinks additional criteria will need to be involved. Mr. Fisher said no State monies are available for purchasing rights-of-way for secondary roads. To purchase rights-of-way the County would have to change its policy and use local funds. He feels that if people want the road improvements, they should be willing to donate the necessary funds. Mr. Bowie said there are three roads in his district which need repairs. The roads are not on the list and may never get on the list because there are a few individuals who refuse to donate the necessary right-of-way. He thinks something else should be done rather than spending a lot of time on an ~t~ when nothing can be done. Mr. Roosevelt said the traffic count is one of the three priorities used by the Highway Department for determining its eligibility for improvements. A change in policy is being considered by the Highway Department to allow counties the option of purchasing rights-of-way on gravel roads using secondary funds, but the purchase of those rights-of-way would use funds needed for improvements. Mr. Fisher~ said it really is frustrating to do the planning when so little funds are available. He appreciates the Commission helping with the priority list and he is in favor of it. Mr. Henley said if everyone paid the taxes he does to own land, the County would not mind paying for the right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman said this process will help the Commission in terms of its review of the Comprehensive Plan, and will allow the Commission to be more aware of the priorities for road improvements in the County. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members agreed to this this procedure. who were present agreed. The Board members Mr. Roosevelt said with the revised process, the Board will have an opportunity to compile a larger road priority list. The top priority in the County for road improvement is the Meadowcreek~Parkway/McIntire Road Extension, but no one appears to know the second priority. No matter how long the list is, it still will not cover all of the needs that exist in the County. His list of recommendations to the Planning Commission does not include roads in the Crozet area and includes only one improvement south of Charlottesville. There are still some road improvements with funding so far in the future that he feels the Board will have to consider local financing of those improvements. February 5, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting from February 1, 1986) (Page 3) Mr. Fisher said he does not know where the General Assembly stands on the issue of funding for roads. The Virginia Association of Counties has supported the concept of a bond referendum for road construction. He is worried that more suburban counties will decide to build their own secondary roads using real estate taxes. This has started in northern Virginia and has spread to the Richmond area. If those areas continue to do so, it would take pressure off of the legislature to deal with the problems of the areas that can't afford to pay for roads. He sees an ominous trend. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Areas for Residential Subdivisions. Memo Regarding Special Use Permit Activity in Rural Mr. Bowerman said, at the last joint meeting, Mr. Lindstrom asked about the history of special permits for residential development in the rural areas. Mr. Fisher said that since Mr. Lindstrom is not present today, this will be taken up later. Agenda I~em No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher commented that Ms. Kat Imhoff, Chief of Community Development, is leaving County employment and he would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her diligent service to the County and especially for her help in putting together the review of social programs in the budget process. Ms. Imhoff said she has enjoyed working for Albemarle County. She plans to complete her schooling and work with the Piedmont Environmental Council as its local coordinator. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission has discussed removal of the Board's liaison member on the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman said after review with the Commission, it was the general consensus that the Board member is no longer necessary. There are the Planning Commission minutes available for the Board and there are these joint sessions. Any Board member interested in an item that comes before the Commission has an opportunity to speak to his/her appointee to find out more information. Mrs. Cooke said it was a privilege to serve on th~ Commission for two years as the liaison member. Although it was a learning experience, she did not feel it was necessary for her to be present. It is much more important for individual Board members to have close communication with his/her appointee. If a Board member is so inclined, he can attend a Commission meeting when something in his district is discussed. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Areas for Residential Subdivisions. Memo Regarding Special Use Permit Activity in Rural Mr. Fisher suggested this item be discussed at this time even though Mr. Lindstrom had not yet arrived. Mr. Horne presented a memorandum (on file) dated January 7, 1986, from Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, on special use permit requests for rural areas subdivisions since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in December, 1980. Mr. Horne noted that substantial interes~ has been shown for lot size variation as opposed to additional lots. In the five years since adoption of the RA zone, seventy additional lots have been requested and fourteen additional lots have been approved. In summary, the special use permit approach under the RA zone has been effective in discouraging large rural subdivisions. .There is continued building of homes in the rural areas at a relatively rapid pace, but in terms of approval of additional lots under the special permit provisions, there have hardly been any requests for large scale developments. The by-right divisions in the rural areas continue to proceed at a relatively rapid pace. Mr. Cogan commented that there are many lots of record in the County which are holdovers from years past. He thinks this development trend will continue for some time until these lots are used. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher suggested that there be another joint meeting on May 7, 1986 at 4:00 P.M. There was general consent by the Board and Planning Commission. At 4:55 P.M., Mr. Fisher asked for an executive session for discussion of property acquisition and use. Mr. Agnor added to the executive session discussion of personnel matters. Mrs. Cooke offered motion for same. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M and immediately adjourned.