Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 10 79 PC Minutes"49 January 10, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Wednesday, January 10, 1979, beginning at 4:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room of the County Office Building. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Huffman, Jr., Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Donald Gaston, Senior Planner; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio from the Board of Supervisors. Also present from the firm of Kamstra, Dickerson Associates were Mr. Beckham Dickerson and Mr. Bruce Drenning. Col. Washington called the meeting to order. Mr. Tucker began the presentation by pointing to the various visual aid maps representinq a piece of property in Greene County studied under the Best Agricultural Soils and Rural Residential ( with bonus ) provisions of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Drenning gave a detailed explanation of the various maps. Mr. Drenning stated that the intent of the Best Agricultural Soils provision is to preserve the agricultural lands. He stated that this goal had been identified in the work on the Comprehensive Plan. However, he pointed out, it is impossible to stop all development in the agricultural areas. This overlay does specify how the agricultural areas will be developed through the cluster concept, development first in the wooded areas, resulting in the preservation of the open space for agricultural uses. He stated that at this point it is presented as an overlay, however it could as easily work as a separate district or zone. Mr. Dickerson said that this is a conservative approach to the goal of preserving the agricultural lands. He feels it will be difficult to challenge in court. He said that the intent is certainly to treat the best agricultural soils differently from the remaining land mass of the rural areas. He further pointed out that this approach will not necessarily save the agricultural soils, but it could be a means to assure that they are the last areas to develop. Mr. Dickerson noted that farming is not that economically viable in the southeastern part of the United States. Mr. Skove questioned if it would be possible to develop at a density of one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres if there is no wooded land in the area in which one might want to develop. Mr. Dickerson said that is correct. Mr. Skove questioned what will prevent one from cutting down the wooded areas. Mr. Dickerson said that such might happen in extreme cases but it is obvious that a higher density yield can be achieved in the wooded areas so it probably would not be to a developer's advantage. Col. Washington pointed out that some might resort to planting trees, since it is possible to have 6 inch loblolly pines in 10-15 years. Mr. Drenning agreed that this is not the perfect approach to preserving the agricultural soils. Mr. Dickerson said that the ideas just addressed are extreme illustrations. He reminded the Commission that the intent is to save some agricultural land for twenty years from now. Mr. Dickerson further pointed out that it is possible for a property owner to go through a rezoning process to delete the BAS overlay from one's property; furthermore it would be possible for one to apply to have this overlay made applicable to one's property. Mr. Keeler, however, pointed out that the intent is to identify the best soils and then preserve them. He felt that once that determination has been made the supporting data will be difficult to discredit. He therefore felt that it is a more permanent type of designation than other zones; he ultimately likened it to the flood plain. district. Mr. Dickerson said that it is not quite as static as it may seem, since it would be possible for the Board of Supervisors to change the definition of "Best Agricultural Soils" at any time. He further pointed out that as proposed it could be of benefit to the community and the developers. Col. Washington said that he has trouble understanding why development won't be led into the Best Agricultural Soils. Mr. Drenning responded that the reason is that clustering is mandatory and the wooded areas have to be developed first. He said that he does agree that the maximum lot size should be removed from the RR. Col. Washington questioned the idea brought out by a citizen at the public hearing which meant that one could not build a house in the BAS and would possibly have to live in a community or village and commute to the farm. Mr. Dickerson said that was an emotional response. Mr. Huffman pointed out that much of the Best Agricultural Soil lies in areas where the roads are in an intolerable condition. Yet, through certain developmental practices, one could achieve an increased density. Mr. Dickerson said that in his opinion this type of development has no effect on the roads one way or the other. He stated that this is not addressed through, and won't be solved by, a zoning ordinance. He said this is usually handled through a subdivision ordinance. Mr. Tucker said that the county's concern is to encourage development in the urban area and in the community and village areas. Once" the developers realize the bonuses in the BAS, he feels the trend for development in the rural areas will even be accelerated, and this may not be good. And another bad aspect is that while this development is going on, the county has not encouraged the development where the county can eventually provide services. He asked Mr. Drenning if he sees that as a possibility. Mr. Drenning said that is a possibility until the new AWT Plant is opened. Then the difference will be one acres vs. 1 1/2 acres to 1 3/4 acres. If that is not enough incentive an increase in lot size in the rural areas could be provided. Mr. Skove asked if it is the professional opinion'of Mr. Drenning that 5-10 acres lots will not stop growth in the rural areas. Mr. Drenning said that is correct. Mr. Dickerson said that what will change the situation is the provision of services. 210 Mr. Skove then said that if development does not occur where services are planned, then the services may never occur where they are currently planned. Mr. Dickerson said that the cost of houses where there will be services should cause a shift in the area of development. Mr. Huffman expressed concern for growth around the communities, and the villages. He said that the roads will be intolerable - even more so than if developments occurred farther up the road where the density is less. If the development were permitted away from the villages, it would be dictated that the roads be upgraded. Mr. Drenning said that it is not possible to discourage speculative ventures through zoning. Perhaps with taxes it could be discouraged, through taxing at the speculative value. The Commission then discussed bonus levels. Mr. Drenning explained that bonuses have provided more consideration for amenities such as open space, etc., so that quality is better and the environment is not so impacted. However he pointed out that Virginia law provides some restrictions. He said that through bonuses, though, one's density could increase. Col. Wasington questioned the subjectivity of the bonuses, noting that negotiation with the staff and Commission seems undesirable. Mr. Drenning said that properties could be given a numerical ranking, considering that all land has many variables. He also suggested that the bonuses could become a political decision for the Board of Supervisors on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Dickerson said that the bonus system works well and will stand up legally as long as it is applied consistently. Mr. Lindstrom questioned the status of the bonus level handbook, noting that many citizens have expressed concern that the Board adopt something that the public has had no opportunity to review. Mr. Drenning said that once the philosophy is developed, he feels the staff could develop the handbook. At this point, the consultants have done nothing on its preparation. Mr. Lindstrom again pointed out that the public is concerned about the significance of something included in the ordinance that is developed only after the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Drenning said that for the bonus concept to work it will have to be applied fairly liberally. Mrs. Diehl questioned what other counties in Virginia have done to preserve the agricultural areas. Mr. Drenning said that Facquier County has a special use permit for anything determined to be a major subdivision in the county. He said that this process has some validity, however he is not sure it will hold up in court since it may conflict with Virginia law regarding the subdivision of property. He also noted that this everything that goes on, and more bureaucracy is becoming adds a layer of bureaucracy to more and more unpalatable. 211 He said that Loudon County considers the county from the total environmental concept. Loudon County has rated the entire county and has attempted to hold out some areas from development. He said that he does not feel this approach will hold up in court unless there is good administration. Also he noted that this county 140) has a voluntary land bank with short and long term tax breaks. This concept is yet to get through the state legislature. Basically the land bank idea is a voluntary thing and hard to administrate for the public welfare. Mr. Drenning stated that in his opinion these two concepts do not cover all seg- ments covered in this proposed ordinance for Albemarle, and are not as legally sound. Mr. Dickerson said that at the moment the review process of the zoning ordinance is off the track. He said that he feels the process should be slowed. He said that there is a need to communicate with those individuals who are concerned, perhaps in small groups, and then jointly in larger groups. Furthermore, he said that the public needs to be aware that the Board is going to adopt something. At this point Mr. Lindstrom stated that the Board has just withdrawn its intent for a public hearing on January 24, 1979. He read the resolution, noting that the Board does urge the Commission to more forward with its work, though. Furthermore, he said that the initial scheduling had been to involve the public and this intent has been satisfied. He said that the Board has also reached a consensus that it will inform the people that the process of reviewing the zoning ordinance is going on. However, at this point, since nothing is yet firm, it seems unadvisable to notify property owners of the proposed zoning. He said that some of the Board members are thinking about some meetings around the county, perhaps not in the public hearing format, but some question and answer sessions such as those meetings in the very beginning of the Comprehensive Plan's formulation. Mr. Dickerson expressed the opinion that the interested citizen groups throughout the county are feeding on each other and creating chaos out of confusion. He suggested that through sessions with the groups individually prior to uniting them, some level of understanding could be reached. Mr. Gloeckner questioned what the consultants feel is a reasonable timetable for the Commission to 'spend in reviewing the ordinance. Mr. Dickerson suggested that the procedure could be using those individuals who have spoken at the public hearings as the nucleus for establishing committees. etc. Mr. Gloeckner then questioned the penalities on the RR from hillside overlays, Mr. Drenning explained that the runoff control limitations are separate from this ordinance, and should continue to be so, since they seen to be in a form that is quite workable. He stated that in considering the hillside overlay, one starts with five acres and could possibly work down with the bonuses. Mr. Drenning then stated that he has an aversion to completly prohibiting develop- ment in some areas. Z./ Z- Mr. Gloeckner stated that if one considers the hillside overlay, then the county must consider providing accurate topographic maps so that things can be equitably monitored. He stated that the USGS maps are very subjective. Mrs. Graves questioned using the maps that were prepared for the CVN zoning during the review of the last zoning ordinance. Mr. Tucker explained that they were "eye -balled." Mr. Gloeckner noted that topo can be easily changed with a bulldozer. Mrs. Graves questioned if the latest soil surveys were used in the preparation of the map. Mr. Tucker said that the 1932 soil survey Was used in the preparation of the the previous zoning map and in the preparation of the current zoning map. He said he felt it would be impossible to apply two different standards to a zoning map. The Commission then discussed the Planned District Concept. Col. Washington began the discussion by stating that he has trouble envisioning this idea when one must consider dealing with the real world and what is already existing in the county. He noted that lots of plats of record are smaller land areas than the minimum lot sized permitted in the planned districts. Mr. Drenning stated that the purpose of the planned districts is the same as the statement of intent in the current RPN zoning. However, when the concept plan for a planned district is initially presented to the county, it is in less detail than the RPN. Therefore, before an individual invests a great deal of money in the detailed plans, he has the zoning. Then various types of uses are very specifically addressed. He noted that it would be possible to apply for a lot size waiver from the Board of Zoning Appeals, or even the courts if necessary, to apply for a planned district. Col. Washington then stated that he feels this concept will be difficult to work into what exists at the moment. He cited as an example the downtown property in certain areas of Crozet. Mr. Drenning said that this concept arose from discontent with the development on Route 29 North. He said that the size of the parcel in the planned district could be lowered. Mr. Tucker explained that all the villages have been given the B-1 zoning as opposed to the planned development approach. Mr. Gloeckner said that if these zones appear in the zoning text, they should be provided on the map as well, as opposed to making the property owners apply for them. Mr. Drenning said that the only problem with this approach is that the county opens itself up to favoritism. Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels the county should direct this type of zoning from the onset. He said that he opposes making people apply for the zoning; in his opinion those who apply for it may not get the zoning even if the plan calls for it. Z. i3 Mr. Tucker said that there is not much called for in the Comprehensive Plan that does not show up on the zoning map. He said that the zoning map follows what the plan calls for. Mrs. Graves said that she has a problem with the substance of the ordinance. She said that if people living in the urban area have to put up with planned growth, she laments the loss of the special use permit process. Furthermore, she stated that she feels the ordinance for Albemarle County should be an exclusionary ordinance, since the citizens have to put up with so much already. Mr. Dickerson said that if Mrs. Graves feels that way she should make a case for the special use permit and present it to the entire Commission. He felt that all criticisms of the zoning ordinance should be addressed in a constructive fashion. Mr. Tucker asked that the consultants be aware that the public has questioned the incentives for low and moderate income housing. Mr. Drenning said that can be addressed through a system, however the localities where this mechanism has been tried have been unsuccessful. He said that most of the money for low and moderate income housing comes from the federal government with the 235 and 231 Plans and through the FHA. There was no further discussion on the proposed ordinance. Old Business: Mr. Payne passed out to the Commission an alternative to the Best Agri- cultural Soils, subdivisions through the special use permit process. Secondly, Mr. Payne advised the Commission that procedurally the Commission did not take the proper action on the Waverly Subdivision Plat the evening before. He advised the Commission that reasons for denial must be stated, even on a preliminary plat. Furthermore, the Commission is obligated to discuss with the applicant what it would allow. With. no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 4AL"44C4- Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. Se etary 19