Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 16 79 PC Minutes,,714 January 16, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, January 16, 1979, to consider the proposed zoning ordinance. Those attending were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James Moore; Mr. James Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Charles Vest. Others attending were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Minutes of December 11, 1978, December 19, 1978, and January 2, 1979, were deferred by the chairman until the January 23, 1979, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tucker suggested the following short term work session schedule for the Commission. January 22, 1979, 4:00 - 6:30 p.m., Board Room January 24, 1979, 4:00 - 6:30 p.m., Conference Room - 4th Floor January 29, 1979, 4:00 - 6:30 p.m., Board Room January 31, 1979, 4:00 - 6:30 p.m., Board Room The Commission agreed that this schedule was appropriate. Col. Washington then suggested to the Planning Commission formulating recommend- ations on the three basic concepts in the proposed ordinance and forwarding these recommendations to the Board. He stated that unless the Board is in agreement with the basic concepts presented by the Commission, a line -by-line discussion of the text is certainly an exercise in futility. He noted that in the neighborhood sessions on the Comprehensive Plan, the idea that came forth was to take great measures to protect the open farmland. He said that he now senses second thoughts regarding this as a bona fide objective. The overall theme of the Comprehensive Plan was to encourage development in the villages, communities, and the urban area. Mr. McCann noted that the zoning ordinance is something that affects the entire community - it is law. And the Comprehensive Plan is more an overall goal, and not necessarily what will happen, and therefore the citizens were not as openly outspoken when it was being prepared and adopted. Mrs. Graves agreed that this is the case, however pointed out that the Commission must do something to adopt a zoning ordinance to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Skove pointed out that the success of the Comprehensive Plan's implementation depends upon the AWT Plant and the Crozet Interceptor being completed in the immediate future in order that growth can be properly directed in the areas setforth in the plan. He then questioned if it is even possible to implement the plan without that interceptor. Col. Washington stated his basic support for the concepts in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCann pointed out that the goals of the Plan were based on the utilities being available and the Comprehensive Plan is not what it should be until the necessities are available for development in the villages, etc. 2IS Without planning for the villages, Mrs. Diehl suggested that there could be too much random development. and Mr. Huffman felt that the roads to the villages/ communities are not adequate to support the development proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, especially in view of the way the Commission reviews the proposed developments that come in every week. He said that the roads leading to Esmont are certainly not adequate to support the proposed development shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Graves pointed out that it is mandated by the state that each locality have a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Skove said that he feels the Commission should go with the Comprehensive Plan. However, he pointed out that there will be some slippage, and the Commission must see that coming without the utilities. Furthermore, though, the subdivision and zoning ordinances depend on a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker emphasized that utilities are available for the urban area and Hollymead. Crozet. won't have sewer; Scottsville has some type of sewer facility. And now, with the soil studies, the Health Department may lower the square footage for the developments in the villages as long as there are two sites for septic fields for each dwelling. Mr. McCann said that he has heard recent discussion of ground water problems for the County. Mr. Tucker pointed out that if there are problems with the ground water, at least the development would be concentrated in the villages where it would be easier for the county to make the necessary provisions. However, he agreed that something does need to be considered about the ground water. Perhaps the State Water Control Board could make a study of this under one of the state statutes at the request of the Board of Supervisors. But the statute does have an exemption clause for commercial uses up to 50,000 gallons per day. Mr. Payne suggested that if the Commission is serious about the ground water issue, it could request the Board of Supervisors to hold public hearings and request the State Water Control Board to accomplish this study. Mr. Skove said that the State Water Control Board is currently doing a study that is to be completed in July or August. He said that several counties in the state had been picked at random and Albemarle County happened to be one. Col. Washington said that some of the local well drillers used to keep records on wells they had drilled with regard to depth, etc. He said that he sees nothing to preclude the county from requiring the individual drillers to contribute their data to the county for informational purposes. He said that he would like to discuss that possibility at at later date. Dr. Moore agreed that this was a good idea. Mr. Huffman suggested that it would be appropriate to look at the road situation as well. 19 ,7%1, i Mr. Gloeckner returned to the issue at hand and stated that he feels the fir+° County should stick with the Comprehensive Plan but feels the Commission should be spending its time attacking the map. He feels the county should then be prepared to deal with the litigation resulting from the map's conformance with the plan. However, he said that until the AWT Plant and the Crozet Interceptor are in operation, the goals of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be achieved. Mr. Gloeckner noted that it is the opinion of the deputy county attorney that if the Commission does not agree with the three concepts as proposed by the consultants, the county may as well make the necessary corrections to the existing zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne agreed that what Mr. Gloeckner said is basically true. He noted that he has heard that the land use tax protects the agricultural land as much as anything can. Mr. Skove said that there is an article in the Richmond paper that very day which says that the land use tax is yet to protect one acre. However, he said that the land use tax might be good for the developer, until he is ready to go forward with a plan. Mrs. Graves said that in her opinion the A-1 zone, as it currently exists, certainly does not protect the agricultural land. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that zoning does not necessarily deter development - if one wants to develop his property, one will. Mr. Lindstrom questioned the added development costs that result from county ordinances. Mr. Gloeckner said that the first increase in cost usually shows up in the cost of subdividing the property - for instance, the normal cost per lot in subdivisions is $250. The subdivision ordinance alone raises that cost to almost $500 per lot. Then there are added costs because of the soil erosion ordinances and any retention ponds that might have to be designed by an engineer. The run-off control ordinance, if applicable, adds another layer of cost in addition to the three just mentioned. Furthermore, the cost of each linear foot of road is approximately $50.00, and that also raises the cost, though that cost depends upon the road requirements made by the county. Soil studies add another layer of cost. He felt that one way to cut. a small portion of the costs is central water systems that can eventually be taken over by the Service Authority. It could be that the county would charge the developer "x" number of dollars to install and operate the water system. However, it might not be possible to connect existing systems, since they were designed to the minimum standard in many cases. Upgrading those inadequate systems might not be possible for the Service Authority, without undue expense. He noted that these are just some of the basic costs that result from county ordinances, and felt there are other subtleties that he had omitted. Mr. Tucker noted for the Commission's information that the Service Authority has a policy of not taking over individual systems, especially since many of these systems were not designed to the capability of adequate fire protection, just as Mr. Gloeckner had mentioned. He noted that the water from the Service Authority is from impoundments, and that is another reason - no dependence is placed on the ground water table. That way no systems in remote areas of the county are under the auspices of the Service Authority, since it would be very difficult to maintain them. However, he felt the Service Authority might be receptive to water systems designed to their standards in the villages. He suggested that this might be an incentive for developing in the villages. The Commission then discussed the concept of Planned Development Districts. concept Col. Washington questioned the proffered zoning s replacing the planned develop- ment district concept. Mr. Tucker stated that most of those things accomplished through the planned development concept can be accomplished through the County's site planning process. He felt that the site planning process plus the proffered zoning process could be good alternatives to the planned development process. Mr. Payne noted that the main difference with the planned development process is that it will cover large scale development, providing for planning on a large scale. Mr. Skove questioned if the proposed map specifically calls for these districts. Mr. Tucker said that those that exist now are exempt from the planned development district process. Those shown on the map will, therefore, have to bring only a site plan to the county. For those areas now shown as planned districts, a plan must be presented to the county at the time of the rezoning, though not as detailed a plan as is currently required with the RPN zone under the current ordinance. Mr. McCann said that he likes the idea of the Planned District, but hopes it won't be so specific that individual uses will have to be specified. Mr. Tucker said that the intent is not to be so specific. The purpose is to assure compatibility within the district and with the adjoining property and the neighborhood. Mr. McCann noted that many businesses seek visibility, and the setbacks may not allow this. Col. Washington questioned if people will have to come in for a planned development district with the C-1 of Commercial District. Mr. Tucker explained that the C-1 is a different type of use from the planned development district. Mr. Skove established that the planned district stands for land that already shown up as such and for lands that can be rezoned; for example, from A-1 to planned development district. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is correct. Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels existing site plans and proffered zoning can accomplish the county's objective. He felt that the Planning Commission should attack the zoning map, making nothing arbitrary according to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that some will benefit and some won't, but this way the county can direct commercial zoning and residential development where it should be. Mr. McCann said that sometimes he feels the county should take the good ideas from the proposed zoning ordinance and make them part of the zoning ordinance under which the county currently operates. 21e Mr. Vest agreed with Mr. Gloeckner that it is time to address the zoning map and the plans for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the map is what is causing the public discontent, not the text. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that if the zoning map is drawn according to the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the county must not consider the outcry regarding downzoning. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with this. Mr. McCann said that if the map conforms to the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, it would be possible to work with the existing ordinance with a few changes. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the shaping of the map to avoid ringing the city, and ultimately opening up the possibility of annexation. Mr. Payne pointed out that the state of the law in annexation is so uncertain. Mrs. Graves pointed out that if the tax base of the county is concentrated near the city, the argument is that annexation would destroy Albemarle's tax base. Mr. Tucker said that one of the biggest arguments against it is that the County provides services to the county citizens. providing Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to know about the ways for more flexibility in the residential districts with regard to planned developments. Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like to discuss adding some of the ideas in the proposed ordinance to the existing ordinance, as suggested by Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann said it would be possible to refine the existing RPN zone through the planned district. The Commission then moved to the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay. Mr. Payne passed out a textual alternative to this - the Rural Agriculture - and discussed it with the Commission. He explained that the concept is that there are two rural districts outside the village: one is the RR as proposed in the ordinance, and the RA, which means Rural Agricultural. The uses are quite the same, with one exception: there isn't any sudvision, in the technical sense, permitted by right in the Rural Agricultural. The Rural Agriculture District defines the special use permit use as a subdivision as defined in the subdivision ordinance. Not all divisions of land will require a special use permit. For example, if one had 100 acres and wanted to cut off ten 5-acre lots, each with substantial road frontage, no special use permit would be required ( this is exempt from the subdivision ordinance, and by the carry-over it would be permitted by right ). Densities and bonuses carry over from the RR. This would conform with the Comprehensive Plan by permitting development in the agricul- tural areas through the RR, and not prohibiting development in the Rural Agricultural, but by inhibiting development in the RA. That area can be developed through controls. Mr. Payne continued that the last provision deals with a standard for reviewing these subdivisions. Perhaps this section should be expanded and/or made more specific. When should they, and when shouldn't they, be approved? He cited a few possible examples. Mr. Payne explained that the big difference in this and the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay, as proposed, is the fact that the Commission will have more flexibility, meaning different potential results based on decisions that are made. That is the reason for more specific standards. The BAS can almost dictate a design, lot size, etc. and may not always accomplish what it set out to accomplish. It may even be incongruous with ;What is desirable. The special use permit process gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to make a decision in a given case whether something is in congruity with the surrounding area and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Payne noted that it could be possible that the Commission may not want to permit any development on a piece of land at all. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if this goes against the grain of the state statutes. Mr. Payne said that he feels it is more legally defensible than the BAS since this is a new application of an old concept. Mr. Skove noted that some scale would have to be considered in the special use permit process. Mr. Payne said that there will be rural development since the Comprehensive Plan promotes it. Mr. Skove asked how much land in the county falls under the BAS as proposed by the consultants. Mr. Tucker replied that about 50-60% of the county falls under the BAS. Mrs. Diehl questioned if the criteria could be more specific for Mr. Payne's alternative to the BAS. 140) Mr. Payne stated that he feels it could be more specific. Mr. Gloeckner said that from everything he understands about the state statutes, the special use permit process for subdivisions is not permitted. At this point the Commission took a ten minute recess. Upon the commencement of the meeting, Mr. Tucker stated that the concept of Mr. Payne's alternative is more in the direction of implementing the Comprehensive Plan. The Best Agricultural Soils Overlay is not going to reverse the trend in rural development. It provides no disincentives, though the special use permit process does provide for the county giving some direction to the developer. The BAS could result with odd -shaped pieces of open space that would be relatively unusable. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if either alternative provides for maintaining the large farms in total; he suggested that some minimal tax should be adopted so people can afford to keep the farms in one piece as opposed to having to sell them to those who will potentially develop them. Mr. Tucker stated that the county must concentrate on incentives where it wants development to take place. Mr. Skove said that if a subdivision application comes ' within the middle of large farming area, the County could probably deny it with Mr. Payne's proposal. `4 Mr. Payne said that he feels this would be defensible because it would fit in an established category. Zz v Mr. Gloeckner surmised that the district lines for the RA will be drawn on the map. Mr. Payne agreed that this is correct. Mr. Gloeckner asked someone to define "compatible with the surrounding area" with regard to the Rural Agricultural alternative. Mr. Payne said that this can be defined on the map in the same places that the BAS was primarily shown; he stated that other overlays will apply as well. He noted that rural development away from the villages has also been provided. Mr. McCann said that there will be lots of small farms that families will want to pass on to their children, that should be permitted the right of subdivision. Col. Washington suggested that the RA include a "one-shot" division for family purposes. Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels as if the goal of preserving the best agricultural soils translates into preserving the farms and furthermore feels it is discriminatory to tell a man who owns a farm he cannot do anthing with it but farm the property. Mr. Payne stated that is what zoning is all about - that the map and text tell everyone that they cannot use their land except for a specified number of uses. Conceptually he said he feels the RA is no different from anything else. Col. Washington questioned if there were a consensus about the alternative to the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay Concept. By a show of hands, the Commission, with Mr. McCann and Mr. Gloeckner dissenting, agreed to proceed with the alternative proposed in the RA as opposed to the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay concept. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the county would ask the State's Attorney General for a ruling on the legality of subdivision by special use permit. The next item considered by the Commission was the Bonus Concept. Mr. Tucker began the discussion by stating that he has trouble with the application of the concept since the criteria is stated in a subjective manner. He said that he does not favor the negotiation aspect and in the long run doesn't think it would be used if left as it is. He does not feel the staff, Commission or Board will want to be in a position of having to define what the ordinance means, and the same goes with the negotiation aspect. He reminded the Commission that the consultants feel the County should give as much as possible - Mr. Tucker said he has no problem with that, unless there is room for negotiation. Mr. Skove established that Mr. Tucker would feel comfortable about the bonus concept if it were "all or nothing." Col. Washington questioned the rationale in jumping density from 1 unit per 2 acres to 1 unit per 2.5 acres. zz i Mr. Tucker said that it is easier to work with the percentages because of the way the incentives are proposed with the 2.5 figure. Mr. Gloeckner suggested using bonuses only with low and moderate income housing. Mrs. Graves questioned the difference in the cluster alternative ( with the previously proposed zoning ordinance ) and the bonus concept ( the current proposed ordinance ). Mr. Tucker said that with the cluster alternative one had the right to cluster. Protection and location were not addressed with the previous ordinance. There was a consensus to keep the bonus concept as long as everything is straightforward and not negotiable. The Planning Staff was directed to bring to the Commission at the next work session some more definitive language. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier suggested that all the ordinance be written in language that the ordinary citizen can understand. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. 19