Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 22 79 PC MinutesZZZ January 22, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conduct a work session on Monday, January 22, 1979, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider the proposed zoning ordinance. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James W. Moore; Mr. James Skove; Mr. James L. Huffman, Jr.; and Mr. Charles Vest. Absent was Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, a member of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio, was absent. Col. Washington called the meeting to order and established that quorum was present. Mr. Tucker stated that at the last work session the Commission had reviewed the three major concepts of the ordinance and had asked to discuss the bonus levels at this meeting. The purpose was to make the amendments more definitive. He outlined the idea of the bonuses, and said that the purpose is to make them apply in toto and not in percentages. He noted that the staff has not completed work on the frontages and setbacks. He stated that the wording is, hopefully, more simple. The Commission reached a consensus that the following is agreeable: 2.5 INTENT OF BONUS FACTOR PROVISIONS The provision of bonus factors is intended to encourage development which reflects the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end, bonus factors are based on development standards as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. 2.5.1 APPLICATION OF BONUS FACTORS Bonus factors shall be applied to the Gross Density -Standard level in accord- ance with the regulations of the applicable district. Unless otherwise specifically provided, bonus factors shall not be permitted for any improvement or design feature required by this ordinance, Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle, or any other applicable law or regulation. Where permitted, bonus factors shall be applied in toto only. 2.5.2 PROCEDURES - Generally Bonus factors may be applied at the time of subdivision or site plan approval, whichever is applicable. The applicant shall submit preliminary plats or site development plans. Such preliminary plats or plans shall be of sufficient detail to permit preliminary determinations of probable bonus factors by the staff. The Commission then discussed bonus incentives for Village Residential District. Mr. Tucker stated that the amendments give bonuses in increments of five. He said that the staff does not support bonuses for decreasing frontage. However bonsues are given for saving certain caliper of trees. ZZ3 When Mrs. Graves questioned if the bonuses are cumulative, Mr. Tucker stated that in the villages they are cumulative up to 500, since the county is trying to encourage development in the villages. He also noted that bonuses have been added for low/moderate income housing. Mr. Huffman questioned how this will work as an incentive for houses financed by the Farmers Home Administration, since they approve financing for houses located only on state maintained roads. Mr. Tucker said that the internal road in this case is intended to be a state road. The Commission then discussed bonuses in the Rural Residential District, prior to reaching a consensus on the bonus amendments for Section 3.10.5 - Village Residential. Mr. Tucker asked the Commission if it really wants to provide bonuses in the rural residential zone since the County is really trying to protect the rural areas. He said that the bonus incentives in this district could essentially increase the density in the district. Col. Washington said that he does not know how the Commission can consider this district without considering the best agricultural soils. Mr. Skove suggested that if subdivisions were permitted in,' the Best Agricultural Soils by special use permit, perhaps the County could negotiate at that time. Mr. Payne agreed that since subdivisions located in the best agricultural soils will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis, there would be a disincentive in what he calls the Rural Agricultural District. Mr. McCann suggested that it might not be appropriate to consider bonuses for any area except where utilities are currently provided. Mr. Tucker stated that he is unaware of the Health Department requirements for the village areas, though he reminded the Commission of the current standards with utilities. He pointed out that prior to Health Department approval in the rural areas now, it is necessary to have a soil scientist verify the soil types. Mrs. Graves questioned if the soil scientist considers the slopes. Mr. Tucker said that he does not know. Mrs. Graves then stated that she is in receipt of a letter from Mrs. Treva Cromwell discussing some of the horrors of development on slopes with regard to septic systems. She suggested it would be appropriate for Mr. Gordon Yeager to be part of the site review committee, and it would also be helpful if he were present during the discussions of the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Yeager has mentioned his willingness to participate in these discussions at any time. Mr. Skove questioned the definition of, and means for determing, low and moderate income housing. He said that he had thought that the housing was determined by the salary and economic potential of the person applying for the loan. Mr. Tucker explained that this is hard to determine, except at one particular time. He said that the Housing Coordinator has criteria for determining this, and it is obvious it will change from time to time. Mrs. Graves then questioned if there are large lots for the CVN area. Mr. Tucker replied that they are mostly flat, 5-acre lots that are already existing. Mrs. Graves said that she means more than just those publicly owned properties that have recently been designated conservation under the existing district. The Commission then briefly discussed the square footage for a lot with only one utility. Mr. Tucker pointed out that as proposed, the Rural Residential permits roughly 1 acre. Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to discuss the concept of bonuses in the Rural Residential, stating that she tends to agree with Mr. McCann. Mr. Skove at this point cited the monthly building activity with regard to mobile homes and modular units that located in the county throughout 1978. He said that he feels this may continue, in view of the permitted uses. Mr. McCann said that he is not aware of anyone who might open up a subdivision of low cost housing. He said that the firms around here that deal in these units usually buy small lots with road frontage for the low cost housing; he noted that roads built to state standards cost a great deal, and therefore this does not seem like an incentive to provide this type housing, even with the extra number of lots provided. He said he can therefore, support bonuses only in the urban area and wherever utilities are provided. Mr. Huffman noted the requirements of the lending institutions and questioned if it would even be financially feasible for the developer. Mr. Tucker suggested that the size of the lots in the Rural Residential be dropped back from 2.5 acres to 2 acres. Mr. McCann said that if the county wants to permit bonuses for low income housing, perhaps the way to do this is by permitted 1-acre lot sizes for those who build low income houses. Mrs. Graves said that low cost housing should be provided only where utilities are located, otherwise too many built-in problems are noticed later on. Mr. Huffman said that low cost housing is not likely to occur in the areas the county would like to see it, because the land is at a premium price. Mr. McCann moved that the Commission delete bonuses from the Rural Residential District. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl then questioned if there are bonuses recommended for things that the Commission would require anyway. Col. Washington pointed out that though the county does not follow the concept of stripping the roads, there is one positive result from it - and that is the open land it leaves in the rear. The motion to delete bonsues from the Rural Residential District carried unanimously. LZ 5 Mr. Keeler pointed out to the Commission at no point does the proposed ordinance mention controlling development by the number of units per year or by the size of the development. He said that it is not done at this time, either, under the existing ordinance. Mrs. Graves said that it is possible to look at the maps in the Comprehensive Plan for guidance, nevertheless. Col. Washington questioned the magnitude of the bonus manual. Mr. Tucker said that if it becomes necessary to write that manual, it will be very simple; however, he said that the staff can be definitive enough to delete the need for this manual. Mr. Payne said that all that is necessary is to say that for a given number of improvements certain bonuses will be permitted. The Commission then discussed Section 3.10.5 - bonuses in the Village Residential again. distance Col. Washington questioned the purpose of the 4 mile^from the village cross- roads. Mr. Tucker said that this was determined from the aerial photographs, since the existing villages boundaries seem to have a radius of approximately 4 mile. This will provide for infilling with the 4 mile from the village serving as the boundary. Mr. McCann questioned if the centerpoint of the village will be pinpointed. Mr. Tucker said that as best as possible this renter is shown on the map. Col. Washington then questioned the frontage. Mr. Tucker said that the frontage could be down to 100 feet and could be lowered again if the Health Department standards would permit. Mrs. Diehl established that the 4 mile boundary will not be static because the villages will grow. Mr. Skove questioned if the village comprehensive plans might eventually take the place of the 4 mile radius. Mr. Tucker replied that this is possible. Mr. Keeler explained that the 4 mile radius is just for this one bonus criteria. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the villages on the land use map were arrived at through the aerial photographs. Mr. Skove mentioned the possibility of adding an incentive through zoning, therefore deleting 3.10.5.1, so that the county will not be bothered by the definition of "crossroads." Mrs. Diehl questioned how to differentiate between a Type I and a Type II village. Mr. Keeler noted that if the base density is changed, everything will have to be re -calculated. Mrs. Diehl questioned the threshold size. Mr. Payne explained that it will be 60,000 square feet. zz� The Commission reached a consensus to,delete 3.10.5.1 from the bonus levels for the Village Residential. Mr. Tucker explained that to receive 50% increase in density, one must have used all the incentives. Mrs. Diehl then questioned the environmental standards, noting her concern for the size of trees when planted. Mr. Tucker said that they will be 2" in caliper. Col. Washington noted that a 2" caliper is a large tree. He felt that economics must be considered. The bigger the tree the higher the mortality rate. Mr. Tucker explained that with the proviso, it is possible to have fewer trees, due to the ultimate size of some trees. Col. Washington suggested shorter standards for evergreens. He said that it is possible to purchase hardwoods in the dormant stage with bare r-ots in large sizes that will live and do well. Mr. Tucker said that could be done. He said that it would be possible to get some cost estimates from local nurseries to further tie down the breakdown. Mrs. Diehl questioned if 10% bonus is enough for an internal road system. Mr. Skove agreed, suggesting 25% when coming in from a state road. Mr. Keeler explained that the intent was to make sure all the lots enter from the internal roads, thus it would not be wise to give too much incentive. Col. Washington suggested a bonus of 15% for private roads, and 25% bonus for state roads. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is a good idea. The Commission reached a consensus on the following for the Village Residential: 3.10.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS For maintenance of existing trees and/or other significant natural features important to the existing landscape character of a village, a density increment factor shall be granted not to exceed 10% in dwelling units per acre. For provision of significant landscaping in keeping with the character of the area and/or to minimize impact of new development on the existing character of the area, a density increase of 25% shall be granted. Deciduous trees shall be of 1Y" to 2" caliper; non -deciduous trees shall be 3' to 4' in height; all trees shall be planted on 15' centers, provided that this distance between trees may be increased depending upon the growth characteristics of the trees. 2-z �f 3.10.5.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For serving lots with an internal road system which is the sole access of the existing state -maintained road system, a 10% density increase shall be granted. For pedestrian system separated from vehicular rights -of -way a density increment factor shall be granted not to exceed 5% in dwelling units per acre. For provision of low and/or moderate cost housing, certified as such by the Albemarle County Housing Coordinator, a density increase of 30% shall be granted, provided that the number of such units provided shall not be less than � of the number of units achievable under Gross Density -Standard Level. 3.10.5.4 The cumulative effect of density increment factors above may not exceed 50%. The Commission then discussed the possibility of forwarding to the Board of Supervisors its work completed to date, with the Board's reaction to that work to be returned to the Commission, prior to its line by line review of the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said that he had thought the Commission would first complete work on the three concepts and send that to the Board of Supervisors. While the Commission was waiting for some response to this, it would work on the zoning map. Mrs. Graves questioned if the Board of Supervisors can receive anything from the Commission prior to their public hearing. She said that she had thought the process was for the Commission to do its work and complete it, then send it to the Board of Supervisors. Whatever the Commission forwarded, was what the Board of Supervisors would hold the public hearing on. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier stated that the Board of Supervisors does not want to hold work sessions commensurate with the Planning Commission. Col. Washington said that on the issues thus decided by the Commission he had hoped to sound out the Board. Mr. Dorrier suggested that the solution might be a joint session with the Board. Mr. Payne noted that the concept is pretty weel established with the agricultural land. 22—i�3 Col. Washington said that prior to sending those amendments to the Board he would want to see an "agreed re -write" on the RA. Mrs. Graves questioned where all this would leave the public. Col. Washington said that he does not think the Commission will receive feedback unless the Board holds a public hearing. Mr. Tucker said that on the Commission's behalf he could communicate with the County Executive and perhaps he would be willing to discuss the matter with the Board. Messrs. Vest and McCann felt the Commission should go through the whole process prior to sending anything to the Board. Mr. McCann said that he feels the Commission should hold a public hearing on the proposed RA. Mr. Payne said that he feels it would be difficult to get the sense of the Board since they will need the benefit of the public hearings. Col. Washington suggested that the Commission could send a summary of the work accomplished thus far to the Board for information. Mrs. Graves asked if the County is going to have a CVN District for critical slopes, natural resources, etc. beyond the public lands now shown. Mr. Tucker said that the best agricultural soils overlay covers most of the natural resources with the exception of the natural resource district, which is basically an extraction zone. Best agricultural soils in the Comprehensive Plan is what is shown as agricultural/conversation areas. So most forested area falls within that. Steeper slopes will also be in that. But in most cases it is difficult to put steeper slopes on the map in a conservation map beca-:se of the actual task of mapping them. The same as problem was encountered in the 1975 proposal, when itnrefuted by many property owners that part of the land shown on the map was actually flat land. The only precise way of showing this is by surveying the property with the use of a transit. Mr. Keeler said that the plan addresses conservation through the best agricultural soils and the hillside overlays. It does not specifically show a green district on maps. Col. Washington said that he has been attempting to determine if timbering is not more profitable in this county than farming, but that is a topic for discussion at a later date. Col. Washington suggested that the staff draft a letter of information to the Board that will be discussed at the next work session. He also suggested that the Commission consider the bonus concepts for the R-1, R-2, and R-4 zones. Mr. Payne said that at a later date the bonuses in the RA and CVN should be discussed. Mr. Keeler noted that the Commission's packet that day includes the latest draft of the Historic District which will be considered at a public hearing the following evening. A With no further business, the Commi�s�on adjourned " 6:30 P.a' 9