Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 11 78 PC Minutes/,i6 December 11, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Monday, December 11, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia, to receive public comments on the draft proposal of the zoning ordinance and the proposed zoning map for Albemarle County. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William R. Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James L. Huffman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Dr. James W. Moore. Absent was Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler - Assistant Director of Planning; Ms. Mason Caperton - Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne - Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Easter called the meeting to order at 7:42 after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Easter said that it is the will of the Commission that all interested citizens and citizen groups have the opportunity to get information and input to the Planning Commission prior to its action on the ordinance. He said that he was disappointed in the attendance at this meeting since many have made comments that there is inadequate time to make public comment because of the schedule for adoption. He said that the Planning Commission's record will remain open through the January 2, 1979, public hearing for public comment. Mr. Easter urged that this comment be made in writing to the Planning Department, who will in turn forward it to the Commission. Mr. Tucker assured everyone present that the staff was prepared to answer any questions at that meeting or any time during the next few weeks at the Planning Office. He asked that comments on the ordinance and the map be submitted in writing in order that the staff could react to those comments. Mr. Goode Love said that with the limited time he has had to review the ordinance he feels it is a step in the right direction. He felt that the key to the ordinance's success is the spirit in which it is administered and the cost of administering it. Mr. Love stated that the ordinance will be good for the county, though it might increase the administrative costs. Any small matters, he felt, could be corrected after the adoption. Addressing the zoning map, Mr. David Wood spoke of the Berkmar Drive area noting that approximately 10-15 acres, lying on both sides of Berkmar Drive behind Dart Drug are proposed for Commercial Office designation. He said that he and his associates have built the road there for a cost of approximately $65,000 and CO designation would mean a great financial loss to them. The land he discussed is currently zoned B-1 and he felt it should receive comparable zoning with this proposal. Mr. Wood further noted that some of the land has even been developed in what seems to be the new Highway Commercial designation. The Rescue Squad and Fire Station property, as well as the mini -warehouse property, has received the. Highway Commercial designation. Another area he addressed was the Whitewood Road area, specificially the east end, which has a similar problem to the Berkmar Drive property. He said that he and his associates own two 1.5 acres lots that are currently zoned B-1 and are proposed to be designated Commercial Office. He said that Whitewood Road was built to Highway Department standards at a tremendous cost and the Commercial Office designation would cause considerable financial loss. There was then a discussion when the Commission felt it would be appropriate to discuss the proposed zoning map. Nq It was decided that the Commission would complete work on the zoning text prior to taking up the proposed zoning map. That way the text could be forwarded to the Board in order that it could adhere to its schedule. Mr. Sandy Lambert, on behalf of Caleb Stowe Associates, addressed the Commission ( see attached comments ). He noted at the end of his presentation that he agrees with the editorial in the Daily Progress. However, he said that at this point he feels the zoning ordinance will eventually become an issue of growth versus no growth. Mr. David Wood said that one other issue he wished to discuss was the parking provision in the Highway Commercial zone. The provision permits no parking space or driveway within 20 feet of a residential zone. However, nothing can be built closer than forty feet from the property line. He said that the 20 foot area in between becomes relatively useless, and business property is too expensive to become useless. He felt the Commission should carefully discuss this provision. Mr. Lambert told the Commission that he concurs with Mr. Wood regarding the Berkmar Drive area. He also noted concern for property lying in the Crozet area, but said that he would refer to it more specifically in comments submitted to the Planning Department. Mr. Lambert also expressed concern that Branchlands shows no commercial zoning and that could certainly become a hardship. Furthermore, he said that the enabling legislation that: directs the Board of Zoning Appeals is very limited in scope when compared to the proposed ordinance. He felt that many things that should be considered as hardships will not even be able to be heared by the Board of Zoning Appeals under the current statutes.! Mrs. Johanna Conn questioned the procedure for down zoning property she owns on Hydraulic Road to make it more useful to her. Mr. Tucker said that it is possible to apply for a rezoning of that property under the current zoning ordinance; however, he suggested that she come to the planning office to more thoroughly discuss her property if she is interested in rezoning in the immediate future. Mr. Leroy Bruton questioned who developed the philosophy of the draft ordinance. Mr. Easter explained that the County of Albemarle had employed the consultants who drew up the Comprehensive Plan to draft an ordinance that would implement that plan. He said that there was a steering committee composed of two Board members, two Planning Commission members, and various county staff members. He said that primarily the draft is composed of ideas and philosop;zies of the consultants. However, he said that the Citizens Advisory Panel has submitted comments on the text since they reviewed the draft that is now in the hands of the public. Mr. Easter further noted that it was not the intent of the county to employ the consultants and then tell them what to do. Mr. Bruton pointed out that the consultants do not live in Albemarle County and yet they have decided what is best for the county. Mr. Easter explained that the Steering Committee gave some degree of guidance to the consultants and did have contact with them throughout the writing of the ordinance. He said that the Citizens Advisory Panel who periodically reacted to the ordinance during its draft is composed of a cross section of the community. 150 ( The following were comments made by Mr. Sandy Lambert.) "As often has been the case in other communities, Albemarle County found that its Comprehensive Plan and its Zoning Ordinance are in conflict - a somewhat hopeless conflict which could only be resolved by costly, time consuming, court contested downzoning. The proposed ordinance is a tool for legal downzoning. Its palatable justification is that planned development will permit the same uses. On the positive side, the proposed ordinance is/significantly better tool to implement the Comprehensive Plan. On the negative side, land owners and developers will be exposed to more bureaucracy, and cost, against the back drop of the Comprehensive Plan - a conceptual document that becomes quasi -law when enacted despite general agreement that its literal application to all matters of development is impossible. Thus the Comprehensive Plan is different things to different people - the Bible by which opponents and proponents will swear their viewpoints in the political arena. Technically, the Comprehensive Plan contains provisions which will bebound to be in conflict with each other and provisions which are economically or physically impossible. These conflicts are not readily predictable, but rather emerge in the day- to-day process of zoning matters. These conflicts are not intentional but they have a significant impact of a totally unpredictable nature and they emerge. The Planning Staff, which derives in part its authority to impart professional guidance from the Comprehensive Plan, cannot or will seldom go against the plan in Staff recommendations. Thus, the issue at hand goes into the political arena where the wheels of democracy, more often than not, turn slowly and costly. Planned Development Districts on the positive side provide a means of achieving the Comprehensive Plan in a timely manner. Without the planning tool it could be argued that the Comprehensive Plan is an impossible goal, thus justifiably ignored or eliminated. Laws and a recognizable need for planning prohibit eliminating Compre- hensive Plans. Ignoring the plan in parts weakens the working aspects of the plan. On the negative side, land uses which are now permitted as a legal right subject to site plan review will be legally permissible provided the land owner or developer surve the political process. The professionals and/or authors of the propose_ planned development concept intend that in return for more planning and planning amenities that the possible uses be assured, but the political process provides no assurances. One needs only to attend a meeting of the County Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors to see that planning matters, from rezoning to special permits to site plans involve uncertainties, ambiguities, and inconsistent decisions. In return for unassured bonuses for planned development, developers and/or investors must allow the county to have a significantly greater influence on the design of a project, including internal matters. Design matters become a matter of law. The only recourse to resolve differences in opinion or impractical law is once again the political arena. In return for providing "significant landscaping which minimizes visual impact of new development,"a bonus in density per acre and reduced frontage is available. What is "significant landscaping which minimizes visual impact of new development"? Who determines it? The same is true of providing developed recreation space, providing useable open space and providing land for public or quasi -public facilities. How much is enough? At what point in the economic life of a project must it be built? What happens to the economics of a residential planned development which requires that 800 of it be developed prior to any utilization of the commercial !si land approved as part of this planned development zoning? Is it economically feasible or even plausible to require floor plans for commercial planned developments for buyers or tenants who won't consider being a part of the planning process until after the land cost or lease cost is confirmed enough for a legally binding agreement? Percentages are thrown out like! salt throughout the proposed ordinance without demonstrated awareness of their application. Likewise setbacks are established without demonstrated awareness that they can be applied to land other than a hypothetically rectangular, gently sloping site. Commercial off-street parking is to be screened from public rights -of -way as if to presume that no parking area is aesthetically acceptable. Out -of -sight is out -of -mind when it comes to parking spaces... including the vandalism and crime that couldn't be observed by police protection. How do you effectively screen a parking lot that is twenty feet below eye level on a public right- of-way? I haven't even finished reading the 254 page proposed ordinance in detail. Based upon the proposed schedule for enacting the ordinance I feel quite sure that the end result will be disastrously short of its objective. We support the intended objective of implementing the Comprehensive Plan, but not in a hasty manner which allows only costly trial and error to determine if the process is economically feasible - economically feasible to both the developer and the consumer. I personally have two children who are natives of this community. I don't want them to have to move away from their native home because housing is too expensive here or economic livelihoods impractical. Raising the cost of development in a hasty reckless process, or by any process, is assuredly the best way to assure that the rich will get richer, the big will get bigger, the poor will get poorer, and the small will get smaller." 152 opposed to the zoning ordinance because much opp into Mr. Bruton said that he is very now have. resssive in nature. He felt the ordinance will turn the county it is so rep ark and will take away many freedoms the county people a state or national p to implement and adminisinrAlbemarle County, as well as f andlt It will be costly and inflationary owns no property to administer. He said that he currently does not intend to. Those comments concluded the public input. public for its attendaa ted toand sthe Planning Department• ked that the comments they had made that evening be P Mr. Easter thanked the put in writing and s disagrees be addressed urged that those areas where the public Mr. Huffman on they submit an alternative to what is proposed* ositive fashion - i.e., in a p resent because suggested that many of the +citizens might not be P public hearing Mr- Gloeckner sugg He felt the they have not had tiwould reveea and d digest the Ordinance. on January 2, 1979, Mr • Easter noted that the sooner the Commission has the public input the better decision the Commission can make. groups on Mr. Easter then noted the meeting to be held by several citizen Wednesday night at Jack Jouett School at 7:30 p.m- d have been confusing with r. Moore said that the editorial inthe with he himself hat after reading Progress coul D He said t regard to the Commission's schedule. wondered if the Commission were to meet on December 11• on the ordinance in January, Mr. McCann said that he will not be ready tseason interfere with o vote one way or the other. He said that too many meetings at this his livelihood, which obviously comes first. Mrs. Diehl said that in consideration of the zoning map she wants to pay particular attention to the community and village plans.. der the cnsi Mr. Payne said that it is possible for the Commission nato simultaneouslyadopt and text separately, however the Board must act a zoning map to implement the text. n consideration of the zoning text, he felt it would be Dr. Moore said that iexamples of how the provisions would work. proper to see particular memoranda used in the preparation of the working Put them on Mr. Goode Love asked that the Mr. Tucker said that he would draft be made available to the public. reserve in the various libraries. philosophy of the ordinance. Again there arose the question of who developed the the Commission and the public that KDA had worked into the draft Mr. Tucker advisedPanel during the many of the comments it had received or example, the ldesire dt se d road stripping. work on the Comprehensive Plan suggested that it would be proper for the Commission to directly er Mrs. Graves since they the supplemental regulations when the districts are considered, , relate to each other. ether. �� of how the var Dr. ious sections work tog Moore suggested a roadmap just that. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff is currently in the process of doing j )s-s The Commission had no further comments to meordinance or the proposed map, 9:00 P.M. and Mr. Easter adjournedntheemeeting text o he at 9 0