HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 30 78 PC MinutesI,7
November 30, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a joint public hearing
with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisorsto receive a presentation from
Kamstra, Dickerson, and Associates on the Draft Proposal of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance on Thursday, November 30, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Jack Jouett School,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members of the Planning Commission present were
Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James L. Huffman; Mrs. Norma Diehl.
Absent were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; and Dr. J. Moore. All members of
the Board of Supervisors were present. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler - Assistant Director of
Planning; Mr. Donald A. Gaston - Senior Planner; Ms. Mason Caperton - Planner;
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. - County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John - County Attorney;
Mr. J. Benjamin Dick - Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, called the meeting
to order and noted that the meeting was a special joint session in order to receive
a formal presentation on the draft proposal of the zoning ordinance from the
consulting firm, KDA. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted in
October of 1977 and this zoning ordinance is an attempt to implement the Comprehensive
Plan. He stated that the zoning ordinance has not received approval from the county
and there are a series of meetings throughout the months of December, January, and
early February to receive public input and for work sessions for the Commission and
Board. Mr. Fisher stated that the zoning ordinance will be available to the public
that evening free of charge and afterwards for $1.00 and can be obtained at
the Planning Department or the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher then turned the meeting over to Mr. Robert Tucker.
Mr. Tucker briefly reviewed the planning process during the past two years
with regard to the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. He noted that
the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted in October, 1977, and KDA had been employed
shortly thereafter to draft a zoning ordinance that would implement that plan.
He noted for the record that the text of the draft is quite different from the existing
zoning ordinance. He stated that any zoning ordinance adopted should implement the
County's Comprehensive Plan. He then introduced Mr. Bruce Drenning and Mr. Beckham
Dickerson from the firm of KDA.
Mr. Drenning stated that the draft is certainly up for discussion. It is
arranged such that nine of the sections are very similar to the existing text.
He noted that the old comprehensive plan and the existing zoning ordinance have had
a low level of achievement. The previous attempt to revise the zoning ordinance
was not successful and the existing text has been patchworked such that it is
not sychronized with the new Comprehensive Plan. He noted that there is a legislative
mandate that formally recognizes the Comprehensive Plan and the Board of Supervisors
strongly feels that the zoning ordinance should follow that plan. Mr. Drenning
discussed the objectives of the ordinance draft, some of which are listed below:
1. encourage growth in urban area, communities, and villages;
2. discourage, limit growth in the rural areas;
3. conserve the special resources and the environment;
4. planned industrial growth;
5. improve community development execution, making it more functional;
6. higher quality residential development;
7. environmental protection;
S. wide variety in types of housing;
9. changes in the zoning map to reflect
Plan;
the recommendations of the Comprehensive
10. more rational review of rezonings with better timing ( the Board of Supervisors
to review rezoning requests four times per year in order to have a broader view
of what is occuring across the county ).
Mr. Drenning then related the Comprehensive Plan to the Zoning Ordinance Draft
through the village, urban area, and community densities. He also discussed conser-
vation, woodlands, hillsides, flood hazard areas, agricultural land use,
visual quality and how they relate to what will be permitted in these areas. He noted
that the draft contains many references to the county's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Drenning listed the names of each section of the zoning ordinance to
begin to familiarize the public and the Commission and Board. He discussed the
concept of planned development zones noting that these zones provide flexibility not
found in the typical zoning or subdivision ordinance. The purpose is to allow and
encourage better design; to provide higher levels of amenities; to require protection
of the natural environment during and after construction; to improve coordination
with utilities, public facilities and transportation; and to allow a mixture of land
uses. This concept is also broadened when applied to commercial, industrial and
special activity type zoning districts. He then listed the various planned development
zones suggested for Albemarle County and the density that would be permitted in each.
After the planned development zones, Mr.. Drenning,moved to the cluster concept
noting that it changes the lot size, but not the density. He said that this concept
would be an option in the various zones, except where the Best Agricultural Soils
Overlay is applicable. This concept changes the street frontage.
The next point of the presentation was the bonus levels. Mr. Drenning noted
that bonus levels are essentially incentives for an owner or developer to create a
residential development which -is superior to a traditional subdivision in terms of
accomplishing specific goals, objectives, and standards of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan. They permit an increase in density of development together with corresponding
smaller required lot sizes and smaller dimensions of frontage and yards. The values
given in charts within the district regulations stipulate the maximum bonus levels
allowable - bonus levels less than the maximum allowable can be granted to an owner
or developer depending on the number of incentive factors which are incorporated in
the development plan and upon the degree to which the development plan fully accomplishes
the purposes specified for each of the bonus level incentive factors.
Mr. Drenning then discussed the overlay districts - he noted that the airport -
impact overlay minimizes the hazards/obstructions, restricts the accident hazard
area, and sets certain noise standards. He noted that the Best Agricultural Soils
Overlay is designed to conserve the County's best agricultural soils. It provides
bonus levels if the wooded areas are developed first and a penalty if the open areas
are developed first. A permanent agricultural easement is provided and there is a
hardship for developing if there are no wooded areas on the property.
Mr. Drenning stated that there are several methods for conserving farmland:
1. buy it outright;
2. buy the development rights;
3. prohibit development through the zoning;
4. discourage development through the zoning; and
5. give incentives through zoning and taxation.
He said that the Scenic Area Overlay is designed for waterways and streams,
and scenic highways. The Hillside Development Overlay's purpose is to prevent
environmental damage to slopes over 14%. Bonuses are permitted in this overlay,
however a runoff control permit is required.
A permit is required for the Natural ResourceExtraction Overlay. Noise levels
are provided and landscaping is required.
Mr. Drenning said that this concluded his presentation and would be available
for questions.
Mr. Fisher addressed the public, noting that the County must also adopt
a zoning map to implement the ordinance. He asked that in its comments the public
address the text of the ordinance and the zoning map separately.
Mr. Tucker addressed the public regarding the zoning map. He stated that
in its preparation of the zoning map, the staff used the Comprehensive Plan as a basic
guide. Also used were the Soil Study prepared by the Soil Conservation District; the
Community, neighborhood, and village plans; the land use taxation information; and
the summary of the district regulations proposed by the draft ordinance. He briefly
discussed the composition of each zone and compared the existing zones to those proposed.
Mr. Fisher said that the various groups and individuals should assemble their
comments into written form and pass them on to the Planning Department. He said that
the Board of Supervisors is hopeful it can hold its first public hearing on January 11,
1979.
At this point the meeting was opened to public comment.
Mr. Rey Berry questioned the environmental overlays. Mr. Drenning explained
that they are all environmental overlays and one specifically is not called "environmental
overlay." He apologized for any misleading comment he may have made which would result
in this conclusion.
Mr. Robert Merrill questioned the omission of a Conservation zone. Mr. Tucker
replied that this concept is addressed through the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay
which limits lot size to five acres.
Mr. Robert Patterson said that several citizen organizations will be holding
a meeting on December 13, 1978, at Jack Jouett School to discuss the draft proposal
of the ordinance. He stated that Mr. Drenning would be present at that meeting to
make another presentation which would be very similar to what had just been presented.
He said that the meeting will be open to the public and invited everyone to attend and
participate.
Mr. Jeffrey Hadden questioned the concept of purchasing development rights.
Mr. Drenning said that it is possible, for instance, to purchase mineral rights.
With a development right purchase, one can pay the property owner for the right to develop
the land.
Mr. Hadden established that it does not mean trading the rights to develop
one piece of property to another piece of property.
MR
Mrs. Francis Lee questioned the validity of the 1932 Soil Analysis Survey.
Mr. Tucker replied that soils don't change, however the Soil Conservation Service
is trying to provide more detail.
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier questioned the planned development districts' facilities.
Mr. Drenning stated that they would be located in the urban area and communities
where public water and sewer are available.
Mr. Fisher noted that he understands that clustering will be permitted by right
in the villages.
Mr. Herb Stuart questioned how the Zoning Ordinance plans controls where there
is a problem with the ground water supply.
Mr. Drenning replied that the issue of ground water is generally left alone
by zoning ordinances- In some areas of the country, a test well is required, but
that should be handled by the subdivision ordinance. He said that he is really unclear
about the statutes addressing ground water.
One gentleman from the public questioned if the Board of Supervisors would
be taking the ordinance to the various villages. Mr. Fisher replied that most of
that work has been completed. Mr. Tucker stated that the village plans that had
been completed had been used in the preparation of the zoning map.
Mr. Wendell Wood questioned if this zoning ordinance is not a form of down -
zoning approximately 92% of the county. He said that probably 70% of the county is
in slopes over 15%. He also questioned the speed with which the Board is attempting
to adopt the zoning map and ordinance. He suggested that public input should be
considered on this matter just like all other matters before the County, noting
that Mr. Fisher has always been a proponent of detailed study and public input.
Mr. Tucker then discussed the incentives in the Best Agricultural Soils
Overlay and said that he does not consider this to be a type of downzoning.
Mr. Drenning did agree that there are cases in the rural areas where the standard
density may be lower than what it is today. However, he pointed out that the incentives
offer some ways in which the density can be increased under certain circumstances.
Furthermore, he said that the idea is to preserve the agricultural areas and shift
development to the communities and the villages.
Another gentleman from the public questioned where these types of concepts
have been used, and how effective they have been. Mr. Drenning answered that they are
being used in two counties in Maryland. At this point, it is such a new idea it is
too early to measure the effectiveness.
Mr. Dorrier questioned if the Historic Districts would be included in the
zoning ordinance. He said that he had hoped that one of the overlay districts would
be Historic Overlay District.
Mr. Tucker replied that it would be up to the Board of Supervisors whether to
remove those amendments from the normal process and put them with the proposed zoning
ordinance.
19
Mr. Fisher said that they could proceed in the normal fashion, and if
adopted by the county could become a separate chapter of the ordinance.
Mrs. Rosenblum questioned if the zoning ordinance includes watershed
protection, if it lacks historic preservation.
Mr. Drenning replied that the consultants feel it best to leave the runoff
control ordinance as a separate entity since it seems to be working so effectively.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said that his concern stems from the public hearing schedule
and the fact that this ordinance is scheduled to proceed to the Board on January 11,
1979. He said to force an ordinance like this on the citizensin a four week time
period that includes the Christmas holidays in unconsciencable. He said that he feels
the public needs more opportunity to understand this ordinance in order to properly
address it at the public hearing level. He felt the ordinance should be taken to
the various sections of the county. He also asked that the various proposed zones
be discussed at length, as they had been done with the last proposed zoning ordinance.
He also noted for the record that the builders do not build with the idea of bringing
people to the county - however, they react to the needs for housing of those already
here. He again asked that the Commission and Board hold several more meetings in
a longer period of time than is currently scheduled.
Mr. Fisher noted that the Board has scheduled public hearings and meetings
for January, since their workload during the first of the year also includes the
1970-1980 fiscal year budget.
Col. Washington noted for the record that the Commission would be holding
meetings December 4, 1978 - 4:00 - 6:30; December 11, 1978 - 7:30 p.m., public hearing;
December 18, 1978, 4:00 -6:30 p.m., Work Session; January 4, 1979, 4:00 - 6:30 p.m.,
Work Session; and tentative meeting scheduled for January 10, 1979.
There were no further comments and Mr. Fisher adjourned the meeting at 9:35
p.m., noting that ordinances were available /fo� the public in the hallw of the
school.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - S creteary
v
ZIR
Wr