HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 24 79 PC Minutes121f3
January 24, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission Econducted aC work
session
ence oo
Wednesday, January 24, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Y
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to discuss the proposed
zoning ordinance. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Charles Vest; Dr. James Moore;
L. Huffman, Jr.; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Layton McCann; and Mr. James Skove. Absent
was Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director
of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Ms. Mason
Caperton, Planner; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Lindsay
Dorrier, member of the Board of Supervisors; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio.
The meeting was called to order by Col. Washington after establishing
that a quorum was present.
The first item of business considered was a letter addressed to the Board
of Supervisors addressing the proposed conceptual amendments to the draft zoning
ordinance. Mr. Tucker read the letter to the Commission that he had drafted
and Col. Washington passed around a draft letter he had composed.
Col. Washington noted his intent to ask the members of the Planning Commission
is addressed to the Board in the
to participate in any letter writing that howevertCol.
The Commission reaffirmed the three concepts addressed in the letter,
Washington noted that it should be pointed out that there is not 100 percent agreement
on all the ideas.
Dr. Moore agreed that the letters contain what the Commission has accomplished
in the work sessions in the past few weeks. He suggested that at some point the
Commission should discuss roads and ask the Board of Supervisors to consider some
possible ways of financing road improvements.
Mr. Huffman said that there should be a concrete plan on road improvements to
follow,. in order that there is consistency.
Mr. Lindstrom at this point advised the Commission that he is in receipt of
a letter from Culpeper County addressing certain fees they require with piecemeal
development.
Mr. Tucker said that with the bonus level proposals, it will be necessary
to determine if the standards are workable. He pointed out that at this point the
standards are the same for the R-1, R-2, and R-4 zones.
Mrs. Graves questioned if there are any penalties for locating on the reservoir.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Run -Off Control Ordinance will take care of that.
The Commission at this point decided to discuss the private road concept
at a later date, noting that at this point it does not seem to be used as was intended for larger lot subdivisions.
Mr. Payne suggested that the wording of R-1, R-2, and R-4 amendments have
the language "shall be permitted" as opposed to "may be permitted."
,241y
Mrs. Graves suggested re -wording Section 3.12.5.2 to cover trees that
may die within the year. She feels it is too "iffy" as proposed.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is concerned about giving incentives here,
with the current provisions of the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said that perhaps the grading permit should be considered with
this provision, however pointed out that if there are incentives, fewer trees
might be removed.
Mr. Keeler also pointed out that the Code of Virginiapermits grading permits
with proper soil erosion measures.
Dr. Moore said that there needs to be some sort of provision that prohibits
cliff building, such as the cliff behind Carrsbrook and the cliff behind the bank
across from Shopper's World.
Mr. Tucker agreed.
Col. Washington said that he feels there is merit in keeping trees on
property that is being developed.
Mrs. Graves noted concern for the fact that the bonuses seem to be mandatory.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that it is the opinion of the consultants
that if bonuses are included in the ordinance, they should be given liberally.
Mr. McCann said that the idea of a bonus for working around the trees
IIWJis a good idea, since it takes careful planning and time to work around them.
Mrs. Diehl questioned how many trees will meet the criteria for a 15% bonus,
and questioned the possibility of a replacement clause.
Mr. Keeler sai.d that for the most part this would be a good faith provision.
Mr. Vest said that since it is more economical to clear trees, when employing
the use of heavy equipment, this has to be an incentive as proposed.
Mr. Skove agreed that it will be necessary to rely on the developer's good faith.
Mr. Payne said that he is not concerned with the maintenance of the trees during
the development stage; however, a new site plan could be required if the county
does not feel the necessary trees have been maintained.
Col. Washington agreed that it would be possible to cover the replacement
concept at the time of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Tucker noted the definition of "wooded area" in the ordinance, stating that
this takes the subjectiveness out of the matter.
Mrs. Graves questioned the idea of buffering. She said that she would
not be as concerned if the soil erosion permit could be tied to the site plan
approval.
Mr. Vest again stated that he feels a 15% bonus will be sufficient incentive
for the developer to maintain the trees.
Z�5
Mr. Payne suggested tying Section 3.12.5.2 to a definition, giving it
an objective standard.
There was a consensus to do this, thus maintaining the provision.
The Commission then briefly discussed pedestrian systems.
Mr. Tucker noted that under Sec. 3.12.5.3, the county must accept what is
dedicated in order for the developer to receive a bonus.
The next topic discussed was whether to permit bonuses for central water
systems. Since tn.is could be subjective due to the fact that it would be reviewed
on a case -by -case basis, the Commission asked that the staff address this at a later
date.
Col. Washington suggested that Sec. 3.12.5.3 should be made somewhat clearer.
When questioned by Col. Washington regarding the definition of low and
moderate income housing , Mr. Tucker stated that this will be determined by the
Housing Coordinator, and will vary according to the economic times. He said that
he will be glad to bring the current criteria to the Commission.
It was determined that the staff would bring back to the Commission the
idea of a subdivision of only low income housing, however Mr. Keeler pointed out
that part of this will be governed by the minimum lot size within the district.
The Commission decided to consider the R-1, R-2, and R-4 districts again
at a later date.
Mr. Tucker asked that the Commission consider setting a work session prior to
the continuation of the public hearing on the Historic District and announce the
date at its next regular meeting.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
r
A u
rt W. Tucker, Jr. -S.e
19