Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-03 adj 190 April 3, 1985 (AfternOon - Adjourned Meeting) (P. age~.l) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was h~ on April 3, 1985, at 3:30 P.M., in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6, Second Floor,-County Office_BuiI¢ ing, Charlottesville, Virginia, this meeting being adjourned from March 20, 1985. PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. G~rald. E. Fisher, C. Timot] Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. - ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley. - .~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman, Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Mrs. Norma J. Diehl (arrived at 4:03 P.M.), Mr. Timothy M. Michel and Mr. Harry F. - Wilkerson. (Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. James Skove were absent.) OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.~, County Executive; Mr. Robert W.. Tucker, Deputy County Executive; Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development.-- Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 3:38 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Bonus Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said that about a year ago the Planning Commission began work on revisions to the Zoning Ordinance relative to bonuses since the members of the Commission did not feel the community was getting anything in exchange for bonus increases in density. Eventually, it was decided to delete bonuses, and a public hearing was held. There was an outcry on the part of some~. ~ property owners and developers that the question be reexamined. The Planning Commission requested staff to develop some wording for existing bonus provisions that would tighten ~up control over the granting of bonuses and accomplish the original intent of these provisions..~ Planning Commissioners did not feel the bonuses should be used to increase the density in the urban area, feeling strongly that this question should be handled through rezoning requests. The Planning Commission is to hold another public hearing on this question on April 9, with the intent of deleting bonus provisions from the ordinance. The Commission did feel ther.e~ was some merit to the bonus for low and moderate cost housing, but there has never been an application for that particular bonus, so it also will be dropped. The one exception is that an increase be granted for dedication of land for public use. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said that provision is Currently in the ordinance, ~ ~ and is recommended to be retained. That is for dedication of land for public use that cannot otherwise be required by the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this meant to permit a _7. transfer of development rights from the area that is offered for dedication to the remaining parcel, plus an overall increase in density. Mr. Bowerman said yes. The County might not otherwise be able to require that dedication, and at some future time might have to purchase the property. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission has heard from certain people that at the time of adoption of the present zoning ordinance, a promise was made that certain rezonings were not really reductions in density because there were the bonus provisions which could be used to increase the densities. Now, by removing the bonuses, it is seen as a lowering of density. Mr. Fisher said he does not remember there being any promise, but the bonuses were to be by right if conditions were met. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know how the Board of Supervisors has reacted to applica- tions where bonuses were used, but the Planning Commission has never been able to reach a consensus that went along with densities. Mr. Michel said the Planning Commission thought this might be handled through some mechanism other than a bonus. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission felt the same thing might be accomplished through the use of proffers and rezonings, and there would be more control over the benefits to the public. Mr. Michel said that other than the housing bonus, there was no. other provision that the Planning Commission felt should be negotiated. The Commission could not write the bonus in such a manner that it could be controlled. Mr. Way said he basically agrees with what has been said. He has looked on bonuses as a way to cheat "fair". Mr. Bowerman said other local governments contacted have not been able to deal with the question effectively either. Mr. Agnor said he does not remember that there were any promises of bonuses, but because it was a comprehensive rezoning of the County, there was discussion by Board members that the density would be placed on certain tracts of land with the realization that a higher density could be achieved by the use of bonuses. Mr. Fisher said the Board would wait for the recommendations from the Planning Commission on the bonuses. ~ Agenda Item No. 3, Status of the Land Use Regulations Committee (LURC). Mr. Michel, a member of the Committee, said the Committee is moving steadily toward its goals. He feels the members were well selected, and the chairman is doing an excellent job. Mr. Fisher asked if the committee is staying with the confines of accomplishing all things that are in current county ordinances, but in a better way. Mr. Michel said yes, thanks to the chairman reigning in the committee a little bit. Mr. Donnelly said a survey was made of 14 counties, and there have been field trips to Northern Virginia and Richmond. Mr. Lindstrom said the chairman of the committee of the committee told him last week that they will have a series of informal meetings with people from different industries. He feels this is a good idea, and probably better than having a large public meeting. Agenda Item No. 4. Streamlining: Effectiveness of Current Procedures. Mr. Donnelly said that even before the formation of the LURC committee, the Planning Commission and its staff had undertaken several streamlining tools or methods to speed up the approval process. Several amendments were developed for the Zoning Ordinance: 1) To include drive-in windows under the special use permit process; 2) the development of minimum landscaping requirements; 3) paving requirements for parking lots; and 4) minimum standards for recreation. In Decem- ber, 1984 reviews of site plans and subdivisions were changed to twice a month. This gave the ld April 3, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 1-91 developer a thirty-six day period from time of submission until the time it gets to the Planning Commission. There have been some problems with this because the staff does not have adequate time to write a final report after the revisions to a site plan, etc., so a for- ty-three or fifty day period is being discussed. With the present schedule, the Planning Commission does not get the final report until the night of the meeting. Mr. Keeler said before the present schedule was developed, there was only a once a month submittal with two review dates. That put a lot of pressure on the applicants. The new schedule has effectively reduced the number of applications the Site Review Committee looks at at any given meeting so there is a better review. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a better quality application received. Mr. Donnelly said there does not seem to have been any improvement, and the Committee is only dealing with about one-half of the plans submitted in any two or three hour meeting. The staff is considering developing a check list so that when the plan is submitted, if all of the requirements are not on the plan, it can be turned back to the applicant. At this time, all site plans are accepted. Mrs. Cooke asked why they are accepted if not complete. Mr. Donnelly said the Deputy County Attorney, Fred Payne, has said that all plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman said the Site Review Committee has the power not to make any comments on a site plan if it does not meet certain requirements, although the Planning Commission has the obligation to consider it within the sixty-day time period. In the past, the Planning Commission has taken on itself to try and work out problems that exist by attaching conditions, and to actually try to hammer it out in a public meeting rather than deny the application, or defer it again. Neither the Site Review Committee nor the staff can refuse to bring a plan or plat to the Planning Commission unless they are given authority for administrative approval. At this time, the Planning Commission has not been willing to go that far. (Note: Mrs. Diehl arrived at 4:03 P.M.) Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission, at its meeting last night, adopted a resolu- tion of intent to amend the ordinance to include minimum landscaping requirements. They feel this might help the approval process. Mr. Fisher said the Board sometimes gets special permit requests that have an unusually long list of conditions attached, and he wonders if the Commission has ever considered some standardized wording for conditions that are used again and again. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission is seeing significantly fewer final plats. After the preliminary plan is re- viewed, the staff is being granted the authority to approve the final plan. If staff finds a problem and needs verification, they bring the plat back to the Commission and that seems to be a workable solution. ' Agenda Item No. 5. Highway Department: Policy on Sidewalks. Mr. Bowerman said he has asked Mr. Keeler to speak about this item, but he thinks the situation summarized to be that whatever sidewalk is in place now will be maintained by the Highway Department, and anything that is not in place now, will not be maintained by the Highway Department. Mr. Keeler said that is essentially correct. It seems that the County will have to deal with the maintenance of sidewalks in areas where it is in the best interest of the county to have sidewalks. He does not think the County will be able to stay totally uninvolved in this question. Mr. Fisher asked if there may be cases where the roads in a development are state maintained, but the sidewalks are maintained privately. Mr. Bowerman said that example already exists in Raintree. Mr. Keeler said this case is even more peculiar than that. The Highway Department approved the road plans which showed sidewalks, and in some cases sidwalks were partially constructed. In that case, the Highway Department has agreed to accept those sidewalks for maintenance, but other sidewalks in the same development will have to be privately maintained. The real problem comes with the location of the sidewalk if there is also storm sewer under the sidewalk. The Highway Department wants the easement for the storm sewer but not the sidewalk. Usually, putting the sidewalk further back on the lot causes a physical location problem. Ms. Imhoff is now doing a study of pedestrian needs in the county and this summer expects to schedule a way to identify long-range needs. Agenda Item No. 6. Interstate Access to Avon Street Extended. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission originally adopted a resolution of intent to eliminate from the Compre- hensive Plan one of the connector roads in this area and to have the County Engineer study other access to Avon Street. The Board chose to keep that route in the Plan. Mr. Fisher said the Board has not taken action on that matter, but deferred it for further study. Some Board members did not want to delete any roads shown in the Comprehensive Plan until there was some other alternative for a connector road in both directions. If the area develops as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, it does not seem that one road will be adequate. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission felt the best idea was to have an interchange at Avon Street, but the Highway Department will not consider that as an option, so the proposed connector road will have to be constructed in an extremely difficult area becauseof a stream and the topograph of the area. Mr. Fisher said he feels strongly that any road reservations should be good ones, since the Board may need to stick with them for decades, or until development occurs. The only reason the Meadow Creek Parkway is conceivable now is because that land was set aside some fifteen years ago, and every time an application was received for development in the area, the Board urged the applicant to move construction out of the path of the proposed road. He asked if there has been any change in the Highway Department's policy concerning construction to ultimate design standards. Mr. Keeler said no. Agenda Item No. 7. Highway Department Letter on Six-Year Highway Planning. Mr. Tucker said a letter has been received from Commissioner Harold King stating that the Highway April 3, 1985 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) Department will be taking more authority in the preparation and implementation of the Six-Year Highway Plan in the future. Mr. Fisher said he had asked the Clerk to schedule this item for discussion at next week's meeting. Agenda Item No. 8. Other Items Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowerman if the Commission members had any comments about staffing the department. Mr. Bowerman said he feels the Commission often makes demands of staff with little regard to the ability of the staff to meet those demands. He relies on them to say whether or not they can complete an assignment. He thinks that staff is "spread thin" in terms of ability to meet certain requirements. Mr. Fisher asked if long-range planning is receiving enough attention. Mr. Bowerman said he is not sure. Mr. Tucker said there is an annual work plan development, but then unexpectedly large items throw it off schedule. There was a transportation planner position in the budget, but with the Federal cutbacks, that position may not be funded. The position would be a big help to staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff has had a chance to study the Highway Department's comments relative to the Route 29 North corridor. Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Imhoff gave the Planning Commission a report about three weeks ago on the basics of that report. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows the MPO Technical Committee met and was told that basically the only way to solve the problem with with a bypass. Mr. Tucker said the Technical Committee re- ferred some questions that came up during the Board's meeting to the Highway Department's Transportation Planner. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff is going to do its own study on the cloverleaf interchange question. Mr. Keeler said that question was referred to the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that is a mistake. He thinks the County staff should do its own independent evaluation. The Highway Department has been very clear that it is not open-minded on this question. They have a history of insisting on diamond interchanges in ways that are totally insane. Mr. Bowerman said it seems the report is biased by not wanting a bypass to the west of Route 29, andwith that bias it seems that not all alternatives are being studies. Mr. Fisher said that any solution is going to have the effect of increasing through traffic. Mr. Bowie said it same to his attention last week that Liberty Fabrics in Gordonsville is devising a new land treatment procedure for toxic dye wastes. It will be treated par- tially and then dumped on the ground. He became aware of this through the Rapidan/Rappahannock Planning District Commission. The land that has been purchased on which this toxic waste will be dumped straddles the line between Albemarle and Louisa County, yet Albemarle County has had no official notice of this proposal. It appears from looking at maps that the water will magically stop running downhill at the Albemarle County line. If it did continue downhill it could end up in Howard Creek or Happy Creek, which feed some large livestock farms along Route 231. He asked if the staff could investigate this matter and let the Board know what is going on at the meeting next week. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission's Annual Report is late, but should be ready in a couple of weeks. Mr. Bowerman asked about the next joint meeting. October 2, 1985, at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher suggested it be held on Agen, da Item No. 9. Adjourn. At 4:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session for a discussion of legal matters concerning the Cason Suit and personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 7:29 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned. · ' ~ ~ ~CHA~RMAN