Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 31 79 PC MinutesJanuary 31, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on the proposed zoning ordinance on Tuesday, January 31, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James L. Huffman; Dr. James W. Moore; Mr. James Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. 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. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, member of the Board of Supervisors. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. He asked that Mr. Tucker present the proposed map to the public present and to the Commission. He noted that members of the Steering Committee and the Citizens Advisory Panel have seen the map, however this is the first time the Commission as a whole has looked at it. Mr. Tucker gave a general overview of the map, noting that the intent in its preparation was as closely as possible to provide densities and zonings according to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the concentration of densities in the villages, Hollymead, and the urban area. He explained the legend of the proposed map to the Commission and discussed the permitted densities of each zone. He said that there is some downzoning, though he is not prepared at this time to give a percentage estimate. However, the map closely follows the Comprehensive Plan, the village plans. He said that some recent rezonings have been recognized on the map, for instance the new planned industrial district near the airport. He said that the staff now needs direction from the Commission on how to proceed. He questioned if the Commission wants to address the map parcel by parcel, or if it wants to deal with the comments on individual parcels received to date. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff has forwarded to the Commission all the letters received to date regarding the zoning map. Mr. Gloeckner questioned how the existing utilities ( public water and public sewer ) and the proposed utilities' expansion match what is shown on the map. He said that he realizes that some of the existing zonings have been shown to a degree, but questioned the need to show some of the PDR Districts. Mr. Tucker pointed out that in order to have a PDR zoning, a plan is needed, according to the current wording of the text. He said that areas that could eventually be rezoned to PDR, and that would comply with the Comprehensive Plan, could apply for a rezoning and expect to have that application approved. He noted that the staff has mixed feelings on the PDR, since floor plans are required in the planning stage, and this is quite a costly adventure. Many who apply for rezonings have not determined the actual size of dwelling units at that particular planning stage. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the zoning designations should show up on the map, so that county citizens know where growth is planned by the county. He realized that some will benefit by the designation. He said that when zoning was adopted zonings were recognized that ended up with business development on Route 29 and that is the reason we have ended up with what we have today. He felt that this would make it easier to provide the necessary utilities and know where future development will take place. Mr. Tucker pointed on the map to the existing utilities in the Hollymead area. Mr. Gloeckner said that it appears that Crozet may not have enough business 140) areas proposed, in view of the planned growth for that area. Perhaps the Main Street business area should be made longer. Otherwise it might not );,? able to handle the growth that is scheduled. Mr. Tucker agreed that is a good point. Mr. McCann stated that he does not feel it appropriate to show residential uses for quadrants of the interstate exchanges, after hearing the proposal for the I-64 interchange at Ivy. Dr. Moore established that the RTM zoning is not shown at the Ivy interchange. business Mr. Gloeckner said that the RTM zoning is one type of/zoning that is preferable for the county, much more so than service stations, etc. that frequently locate at interstate interchanges. However, he said that he understands that there are no utilities at this location for such a zoning. Mrs. Diehl questioned if there are any figures on the additional residential and vacant industrial land as a result of this proposed map. Mr_. Keeler said that such a figure would be difficult to arrive at because of the hillside overlays. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would be interested in just rough figures. Mr. Gloeckner asked that the staff prepare an overlay of the existing utilities and proposed utilities as a result of the Crozet interceptor and the AWT plant. He also said it would be helpful to see lines showing the proposed road improvements to the area proposed through the CATS proposal. Col.Washington said that it might be helpful to show the locations of the county schools on the map as well, to have an adequate overview. He said that he does not see any disadvantage to business development along Route 250 West where there are currently small businesses anyway. At a later date it might be possible, with different business uses, to get them to move further off the roadway, since that route is designated as a scenic highway, and the parking areas could be moved out of the right-of-way. He said that not recognizing these business uses is not going to make them go away. Mr. Tucker said that the point in not showing them was to try to keep from having another strip development like Route 29 North. Col. Wasington said that he is talking about a roadway section approximately 1500 feet in length. Mr. Gloeckner said that this commercial development might be a deterrent to business growth in Crozet. PE Col. Washington said that he feels the community could support the businesses in both locations. Mr. Keeler again stated that the map follows as closely as possible the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Graves suggested that businesses along Route 250 might conflict with the school traffic. Dr. Moore said that he feels this is the time to differentiate between highways and streets. For instance, if Route 250 West becomes too populated with businesses, it could become a street and necessitate the construction of a highway somewhere else. Col. Washington pointed out that Mr. Wendell Wood is correct to a degree in his argument over depth of business zoning - most businesses want to be seen from the road. Mrs. Diehl said that she favors any property which has not been developed in 7 years reverting to the original zoning. Mr. McCann said that wherever population expansion is proposed, business locations should be proposed to accommodate the population. Mr. Gloeckner said that if possible, now is the time to reserve land for the CATS proposals. Mr. Tucker pointed out that area on the map that is being studied by CATS, t but stated that no plans have been drawn and nothing has been approved by the locality. Col. Washington said that in his opinion changes in the existing zoning map should be minimized in order to encourage public support for the Zoning Ordinance. He said that some strong rationale must be established for any changes that the Commission makes. Mr. Tucker said that most of the neighborhood area studies have been completed, however they have not been adopted as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that those studies are more detailed than the same areas shown in the Comprehensive, since the plan specifically calls for these studies to be completed. He felt that the Commission should perhaps look at those studies in depth prior to too much work on the proposed zoning map. Mrs. Graves said that she was surprised to see so much of the neighborhood studies incorporated into the proposed map. Furthermore, she said that due to changes in land values, densities, and bonuses, she is going to feel perfectly free to repudiate any previous commitments she made during the preparation of the neighborhood plans. Mrs. Diehl reminded the staff of her discontent with the representation on her particular neighborhood committee. She then questioned if there are reports on the rationale for the decision by the consultants on the urban area. Mr. Skove said that he has problems working on the zoning map if the Comprehensive Plan is later to be amended to reflect the village studies. Col. Washington said that with regard to the PDR districts, he does not feel the Commission has the competence to assign particular densities to land areas without terrain analyses, etc. .2,&5 Mrs. Diehl noted that at one time the Board was talking about neighborhood meetings to review the zoning ordinance. She suggested that it might be in order to take the village plan pertinent to each area and discuss that along with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Keeler said that he is unsure about the Board's schedule on this. Mr. Lindstrom said that he and Mr. Dorrier are both proponents of neighborhood meetings, however he said that no definite commitment has been made by the Board with regard to these meetings. Col. Washington noted that the following Wednesday the Commission is to hear from the farmers with regard to the proposals for the agricultural lands. Mr. Dorrier said that he feels it would be appropriate to integrate the village plan approvals into the approval of the zoning ordinance. Mrs. Graves noted that after the completion of the neighborhood meetings there was a promise of one large meeting of all the urban area neighborhood committees. Mrs. Diehl established that no change was made in the conservation zone from the old, jr existing, map. Mr. Skove asked if there had been a tally on the land that has been up -zoned and downzoned as a result of the ordinance. Mr. Keeler said that it is difficult to do that since it would be qualified by the hillside overlay. The Commission then discussed the Chamber of Commerce breakfast of the previous day. The Commission felt that it would be appropriate to hear reactions of all the corm^unity and civic groups involved in reviewing the zoning ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that these be considered comprehensively. Col. Washington asked that the staff present an event schedule for the ordinance review at the following Monday's meeting. Mrs. Graves asked that any restructured amendments be mailed to the Commission in order that they have them in time for sufficient review. Col. Washington then appointed the three at -large Commission members - Mrs. Graves, Mr. Gloeckner, and Mr. Vest - to a committee to work with the staff in formulating a format,style, and approach for the Tuesday night meetings. The following were items that the Commission mentioned they would like the committee to consider: pending policies of other agencies that affect Commission actions, reasons for inconsistencies in approvals, additional plans to be submitted to the Commission members prior to Commission meetings for their perusal, legal guidance in approvals/denials, assistance in reading plats, etc., secedule for Commission to view sites, etc. With no further business, the meetin journed 6:10 p.m. /I - . j4-le/4 Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. Se etary