Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-18 adjJanuar 18 ' - ' ~ 537 An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on January 18, 1984, at 3:00 P.M., County Office Building, Charlottesville, ¥irginia; said meeting being adjourned from January 11, 1984. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patrioia H. Cooke (arrived at ~:40 P.M.). Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J~ T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., Country Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M., in meeting room #11, by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session: Personnel. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session to interview persons for appointment to the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followir recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 3. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:05 P.M. in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6 for a meeting with the Albemarle County Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. James Skove, Mrs. Norma Diehl and just newly-appointed Mr. Harry F. Wilkerson. Agenda Item No. 4. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to appoint Mr. Harry F. Wilkerson to serve as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission representing the-Scottsville District, term to be effective immediately, and to expire on December 31, 1987. 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. Motion was offered by Mr. Lind'strom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to reappoint Mr. Timothy M. Michel as the at-large member of the Planning Commission, said term to expire on December 31, 1985. 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. Mr. Agnor said the staff has been involved over the past several weeks, in the application screening and interview process for the appointment of a Zoning Administrator to be head of a separate zoning department. The process has been completed and Mr. Agnor recommended the appointment of Mr. Michael E. Tompkins. Mr. Agnor then provided the Board with Mr. Tompkins' experience and credentials. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the County Executive's recommendation and appoint Mr. Michael E. Tompkins as Zoning Administrator, to be effective February 6, 1984. Mr. Fisher stated his pleasure at having Mr. Tompkins join the County in this capacity. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Fisher then turned the meeting over to Mr. David Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 5. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission had intended to discuss recommendations for changes in the private roads section of the Subdivision ordinance, however, the Board adopted those provisions before the end of 1983. The amende-d ordinance is stricter and may result in appealS being made to the Board and also requests for waivers. Mr. Bowerman said the Staff put together at the Planning Commission's suggestion, some items to be discussed. The first came about as a concern from members of the development group, that the processing of applications is too slow. A streamlining process has been instituted whereby the process can be expedited by taking a closer look at preliminary plats and in some cases, waiving review of the final plat by the Commission and inStead allOwing the staff to give final approval administratively. It has been decided to extend this experimental process for another three or four months i · Mr.!Tucker.then presented the following staff report: January 18, 1984 (afternoon meeting - ad~.'ourned from Ja~ Item 5a) Streamlining the site plan/subdivision r'eVie'W ~p'r~oc'ess. Currently we are undertaking an experimental review process under which the Commission gives "hard" review to preliminary plats, establishes conditions of final approval and permits administrative approval of final plats. The goal of this effort is to develop a system under which the Commission review of final plats would be limited to major or controversial development proposals, allowing Staff approval of other final plats. Some of the potential benefits of this procedure are as follows: More efficient Commission asendas: Repeated review of proposals (i.e., preliminary and final plats by the Commission is viewed as inefficient use of time. Commission involvement should be limited to those cases where legislative discretion may be effectively exercised (i.e., policy decision, resolution of dispute, development proposals of area-wide consequence). We believe the Planning Commission can better serve the public interest by addressing planning issues as opposed to technical matters. More efficient review procedure: Under the current process, the review schedule is of the shortest practical length. With administrative approval, this process could be shorter for many projects. Better development plans: Designers must currently contend with artificial deadlines for plan revisions or face a month's delay. Often more desirable solutions can be developed with a little additional time. An administrative approval process without revision deadline would offer such opportunity. Item 5b) Urban Stormwater Management Program The Commission appreciates the conscientious and responsive efforts of the County Engineer in addressing pressing urban stormwater problems. However, we recognize that many issues cannot be determined administratively and would like to discuss these issues with the Board. The Commission is concerned about requiring developer contributions to off-site regional facilities while the location, nature and timing of installation of improvements have not been established. As with other public projects, an urban stormwater plan should be incorporated into the Capital Improvements Program and reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. To date, efforts have focused on areas of immediate concern. Projection and planning for future problems should be undertaken in due course. With regard to these matters, however, the County Engineer will be making a report to the Planning Commission and the Board in February. Item 5d) State Legislative acti.Mity re,ar.ding 'o'ff-sit'e road improvements by developers - possible Co~nty'i'nvolvement. We believe that continued and possibly more intensive effort should be made in this regard. Several bills submitted over the years have not come out of committee. Lobbying efforts should be coordinated with other localities. Item 5c) Semi-annual joint Board/Commiss'ion mee't'ings. We should establish semi-annual meetings of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to discuss planning problems and share ideas. These meetings could result in better planning and.imprOved communication. The Commission feels the joint meeting of the Board and Commission during 1982 was very productive. Private Road amendments. Hopefully, these new provisions will prove more workable. The Commission will monitor and report to the Board our experiences with the new road ordinance. It is anticipated that, due to more restrictive application and waiver prohibitions, increased appeals to the Board may result. Mr. Fisher noted the inevitability of significant changes occuring between the time the Commission reviews a preliminary plat and the time that the final plat is submitted. Mr. Fisher wondered how much latitude the Commission will grant staff in approving the final plat when there are changes. Mr. Tucker said this problemwill be handled by having staff approve plats with minor changes, but referring a final plat to the Commission when there are "sub- stantial changes" such as relocating a road or increasing the number of lots. As to what changes might be considered substantial, this is to be left to the discretion of staff. Mr. Tucker stated that at the present time, this decision has not presented any problem. Mr. Bowerman said that if this experiment is made a permanent procedure, a clear definition of the term "substantial changes" will have to be made. Mr. Fisher wondered how adjacent iandowners will be kePt informed of changes. Mr. Tucker said that any significant change in a preliminary plat.~ill be referred back to the Planning Commission and that will trigger notification to~ interested parties. Mr, Tucker added that notification to adjacent landowners would not be necessary in the event of minor changes to the preliminary plat. Mrs. Diehl said that so far the prel'iminary plats which have come before the Planning Commission have been very straight forward. Mr. Tucker said that if the experimental procedure is successful the Planning Commission would continue to review any controversial preliminary and final plats. Mr. Skove said something must be done to cut down on the length of the Planning Commission agendas. Mr. Lindstrom noted then, that the Planning Commission would continue to retain power to request review of final plats. 539 January 18, 1984 (afternoon meeting - adjourned from January 11, 1984) Mrs. Diehl said it would be necessary to enlarge on the definition of the term "controversial." Mr. Lindstrom wondered if the public would have the right to request that the final plat be brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said this was another option being considered. Mr. Bowerman said that if there are public comments regarding problem~ with a plat, this would trigger Planning Commission review to ensure that the problems are adequately resolved. He added that it is the intent of this experiment to gain better review by staff and better submittals by the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom noted that~his experiment would allow staff to make sure that any issues conditioned upon approval of another government agency, were met. Mr. C0gan suggeted that prior to the end of April, staff select some prelimi- nary and final plats and allow the Planning Commission to review them in work session. This would allow the Commi'ssion to make comparisons between the two and better enable them to determine the efficacy of this procedure. Mr. Tucker said that if this procedure is successful, staff could handle many of the minor type subdivisions themselves, reducing the number of plats which currently come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cogan referred to the minor changes Mr. Tucker had mentioned and said he would like for both staff and the Planning Commission to be cognizant of the rights of adjacent property owners to be notified about any changes. Mr. Tucker assured Mr. Cogan that this suggestion is well taken. Zt is hoped that this process will give the Planning Commission more time to do long-range planning. Mr. Cogan said that the intent of this experimental process is to place the expertise~back on the experts. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission requires submission of a preliminary plat, so the Planning Commission does see all plats which are submitted. They will see the same number of plats that they saw in the past, but will not have to review the plat the second time. Prior to this time, a surveyor would have submitted only a final plat and then made changes and because of the artificial timetable imposed, issues were not always resolved. If staff were allowed administrative approval, these issues could often be resolved before getting to the Planning Commission, or give the applicant more time to deal with the problems. Mr. Tucker then referred to the urban stormwater management plan. Mr. Tucker said there is concern over requiring developers to contribute to off-site improvements for stormwater management when there are no regional sites for detention ponds either defined or acquired in the urban area. Another concern is the urban stormwater plan itself, which, it is felt, should be incorporated and made a part of the five-year Capital Improvements Program. This would enable the County to acquire sites over a ~ong period of time, and make them part of the hensive Plan, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to deny development in areas designated for regional basins. At the request of Mr. Fisher, Mr. Tucker briefly explained the history behind the need for an urban stormwater management program. Mr. Tucker said that in 1978 the County adopted an ordinance which requires that as development occurs basically in those areas not covered by the Runoff Control Ordinance, the developer is responsible for all stormwater run-off leaving his property. The rate of run-off from a particular site can not be increased over the rate which existed prior to the development. This provision necessitated most developers building on-site detention ponds so that the water could be released at a slower rate, thereby not impacting downstream properties with a large volume of water. This resulted in small detention bas±ns being sporadicai~ly located throughout the urban area; these basins also require considerable maintenance. The County Engineer, during 1983 recommended to the Board of Supervisors that regional basins serving several acres of a sub-watershed basin within the urban area, be considered in lieu of requiring a developer to provide a pond on-site. Developers are already being required to contribute their pro-rata share of the cost of the regional basins. The County would provide the basin that would serve that particular sub-basin. The Planning Commission is concerned that while contributions are being required, there has been no specific location selected for the placement of the regional basins. This problem needs to be addressed soon. Mr. Tucker said the County Engineer will be coming before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in February with a proposal regarding the location of these basins ~and a timetable for acquisition of sites. Mr. Fisher expressed surprise that this concept has already been put into effect. Mr. Bowerman said the County Engineer has determined the cost of an on-~ite facility. In lieu of constructing a facility, a contribution is being accepted, anticipating the imple- mentation of a plan. Mr. Bowerman added that the option to place a detention basin on some properties being developed still exists. Mr. Tucker said that in most instances, there is adequate space on the plan for a basin. He said the County Engineer feels that if location of the basins on-site is required at this time, there will be no need for a regional basin later. Mr. Fisher suggested that developers would prefer not to have detention basins on their prop- erties. Mr. Tucker acknowledged this to be so. Mr Tucker said that Mr. Elrod will soon make a presentation to the Board concerning the costs of these detention basins. Mr. Lindstrom asked the areas affected. Mr. Tucker answered that the areas affected are the Hydraulic Road/29 North region, Berkmar Drive/Four Seasons area, and other areas. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Elrod is also working on plans for a regional detention basin in the Crozet area. Mr Lindstrom said it seems that these will be presented individually and not for the whole County. Mr. Agnor said it takes a land survey and eng' calculations on every sub-watershed basin for every pond. He said it involves a tremendous amoun~ of work. Mr. Cogan said at one time, the County Engineer had roughed out four different methods of putting this plan into operation. He felt the solution of a method would be left to the Board. Mr. Fisher said the Board would just have to wait and see what Mr. Elrod will ~resent. January 18, 1984 (afternoon meeting - adjourned from January 11, 1984) Mr. Tucker noted for the new members that several years ago the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that localities could not require any off-site road improvements on state maintained roads. Prior to that, the Planning Commission had been requiring what were called futl-frontag improvements. In the case of Route 29 North, this road is scheduled to be six-lanes at some future date. This ruling impacted localities throughout the state where it is felt that the need for the improvements is being created'by the development~ itself. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission and staff have discussed taking a more vigorous approach in lobbying the General Assembly to provide this authority to localities. Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney~ said that this problem is not exclusively the County's. In many cases the developer is more adversely impacted than the County. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if the staff could review legislation being introduced this session which adresses this particular problem. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission would like to conduct meetings with the Board on a semi-annual basis. Mrs. Diehl noted the next such meeting could be used to assess the new policy on approval of subdivision plats. ~ Mr. Lindstrom addressed the matter of amendments to the private roads section of the sub- division ordinance just adopted by the Board in December. He asked how the Planning Commission suggests dealing with the situation where one lot is requested on a road which already has five or six parcels using it. Mr. Lindstrom said that the Board has, in some cases, waived the road improvements requirement in exchange for the applicant waiving his right for further develop- ment. Mr. Lindstrom said this is always a difficult issue for the Board to address, in that the question always arises as to how does one determine which division is the one demanding road improvments. Mr. Payne said there are two issues involved. If a distinction can be Wade' between the case in question, and all other cases which are likely to come up, the waiver is appropriate providing there is some rational and identifiable reason for the waiver based on the ordinance. The second issue, said Mr. Payne, is that there are parcels in Albemarle County which simply cannot be developed using private roads. Mr. Payne said he is very concerned about not following the ordinance and rules which are on the books. Mr. Payne suggested that if the rules and regulations presently in existence are not to the Board's liking, they should be changed. Mr Payne said the subdivision ordinance allows for exceptions. and provides a safety valve outlet for the situation to which Mr. Lindstrom is referring. Mr. Tucker then introduced the staff and media persons present to Mr. Harry Wilkerson and Mr. Michael Tompkins. Mr. Fisher asked for a suggestion as to the next date of a joint meeting between the Board and the Planning Commission. Mr. Agnor suggested May 16, 1984 at 4:00 P.M. It was unanimously agreed that this date was agreeable for the next meeting. Mr. Skove then congratulated Mr. Tucker on his appointment as Deputy County Executive. Mr. Skove suggested that Mr. Tucker's replacement should have some experience working in a fast growing area, and preferably have had experience in the State of Virginia. Agenda Item No. 7. There being no further business to discuss, the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission was adjourned at 5:07 P.M.