Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 22 79 PC MinutesFebruary 22, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on February 22, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Jim Skove; Col. William Washington, Chairman; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Those members absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Dr. James Moore; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-Officio. Other Officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Tucker noted that the AGR District (Best Agricultural District) replaces BSA (Best Agricultural Soils) District. He noted that this district, as proposed, would allow for 3 divisions annually by right and any divisions over this amount would require a special use permit. Mr. Tucker noted that 2.00 acre minimum lot size would be allowed in this district and clustering would be a use by right. Mr. Tucker also suggested that under Section 3-11A-3(2), item 10 be deleted. (use by special permit) Ms. Faulconer noted that the proposed changes in the agricultural district are still down zoning, with the only change being in the degree. Ms. Faulconer stated that she feels the rural exempt division is too restrictive (only 3 divisions per year). She stated that she feels allowing higher densities in other zones would eliminate the need for rural development. Ms. Faulconer questioned how the 25% of whose rent is implemented (Section 3.11a.3.1). Mr. Payne noted that it would be much easier to administer without the 25% fiqure . Mr. Payne noted that the determination would be made by the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Faulconer suggested that #7, under uses by right, should include private utilities approved by State Authorities. She also suggested that #12, under uses by special permit, that mobile homes be allowed as a use by right. Mr. Tucker stated that if mobile homes are included under a use by right, it would be matter of defining a mobile home. Col. Washington noted that a mobile home in the A-1 zone is almost a use by right currently. He stated that an applicant applies for the special use permit and if there isn't any objections within a designated period of time the permit is issued, without coming before the Planning Commission. Ms. Faulconer suggested that a positive view point be taken. She noted that areas that are zoned for development should be made to look attractive to the developer. Ms. Faulconer noted that this would take attention away from the agricultural zoned property. She stated that extending public utilities may be a method of achieving this. Mr. Dorrier noted that the Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to ask the Planning Staff to develope some plans for extending public utilities into the County. Ms. Faulconer noted that when utilities are extended it will allow for a higher density in those areas zoned for that purpose. Comments from Mr. Roy Ackerman and Mr. George McCallum are attached. Comments from Col. Carrol Smith are attached. Comments from Mr. Patterson and Mrs. David are attached. Mr. Scott asked if the subdivision of three parcels per year is cumulative. m Mr. Payne noted that it is not. Mr. Hess stated that farmers looking ahead should subdivide three parcels per year in order to protect their financial future. He noted that the questions of how this proposed zoning changes will affect the tax base and the value of an individual's land should be addressed. Mr. Palmer stated that he doesn't feel the County can be divided up into agricultura districts. He noted that it is a difficult job to define what is prime agricultural land. He noted that he feels attention should be given to the stripping of roadways in the County. Mr. Tucker noted that it appears that most of the citizens feel public utilities should be extended, as an incentive, to,developers. He noted that it is their feeling this is the best means of protecting the agricultural area. Col. Washington stated that it seems as though the A-1 Zone has always been a catch all zone. He noted that he is not sure there is any alternative to it. Mrs. Graves noted that she has always felt that the A-1 Zone has been amended to death. She noted that it was originally in good form. Col. Washington stating that when best agricultural soils in the County are discussed it is hard to place a distinction between soils to determine which is best suited for agricultural use. Col. Washington asked what would the problems be, if the current A-1 zone and all parcels up to 5 acres are zoned Rural Residential. Mr. Tucker noted that this would have to be looked at on a County wide basis to determine the problems, if any. Mrs. Garnett stated that the Tax Assessor has already assested property at various levels. She noted that he knows which property is no longer agricultural in use. Mr. McCann stated that when land is no longer economically viable for farming, it is no longer agricultural. He noted that he believes the present A-1 zone is serving its purpose. Mrs. Graves stated that the soils in Albemarle may not be the best suited for agriculture, but it is the best the County has and should be preserved in any way possible. Mr. McCann suggested that possibly RPN's could be allowed as a use by right with regulations to stipulate agricultural uses. Col. Washington stated that he has problems with creating instant villages in the middle of nowhere. He noted that he feels development should grow outward from the urban area. Mr. Payne stated that there are two ways to control growth in the rural areas. He noted that they are incentives and disincentives. He stated that the best means of controlling growth is to provide for incentives and disincentives. Mr. McCallum noted that clustering by right, could be one means of controlling growth within the County. He noted that this could preserve a larger portion of the County and could include perserving such areas as steep slopes, flood plains, and floodways. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. - S cre-nary M ER M P9 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM BUREAU M 1710 Allied Street Charlottesville, Va. 22902 February 22, 1979 Memorandum for: Chairman, Albemarle County Planning Commission Subject: Comments reference Draft Zoning Ordinance for Albemarle County as it pertains to Agriculture. 1. Reference is made to our previous letter dated 6 February 1975 on this subject. In that letter we pointed out that the Board of Directors for Albemarle County Farm Bureau was very concerned over the complexity of the Draft Zoning Ordinance; its restrictions on a farmers use of his land and its apparent lack of emphasis on conserving good agricultural land and encouraging continuation of the pro- duction of food and fiber in the county. We feel strongly that now, more than ever, because of an impending fuel shortage, we need to produce more food locally and reduce our dependence on long -haul truck transportation. Let's not be as naive as the Arlington County shopper who said, "Why do we need farms when we have the supermarket?" 2. I can add informally that the County Farm Bureau realizes there is a need for some type of zoning ordinance to implement the already approved comprehensive plan. In addition, we are fully aware of the time and effort and expense that has already gone into the preparation of this draft zoning ordinance. Consequently, we are reluctant to recoLmnend scrapping it, yet could not support it in its original draft. 3. We felt that conversion of the current A-1 zoning classification to Rural Residential would seem to de-emphasize the importance of agriculture at a most critical time in our history. We also felt that super -imposing the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay with its additional restrictions over the RR would further complicate an already very complex draft ordinance. ¢. I might inject here that our goals would be to: a. Conserve the'maximum amount of arable land for agricultural use (primarily grain, hay "dud beef `oroauction) b. Keep down cost of providing services. c. Keep do= real estate taxes. d. Encourage job -producing light industry. e. Control development to those areas in which it is feasible to provide services (water and sewer primarily). f. Retain maximum freedom in use of and disposition of our land. 5. We have beer. following the proposed revisions by the planning staff and recommendations of the Planning Commission. We are encouraged considerably by the revision of the Agricultural section which eliminates the Rural Residential and the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay. We believe we can support the revised Agricultural m In Albemarle County Farm Burea u Page 2 District (AGR). We believe the potential of sub -dividing by Special Use Pe-mit, over and above the three rural exempt divisions by right will ease the objections of some farmers who felt the original draft ordinance was too restrictive in this regard. Some had felt they would be financially disadvantaged by not being able to sub -divide or sell to a developer because of density restrictions in the RR and Best Agricultural Soils Overlay. 6. We think you are moving in the right direction, by revising the draft, by taking the necessary time required for maximum citizen input and by recommending the extension of water and sewer services to those areas into which development should be encouraged according to the Comprehensive Plan. Carroll B. Smith Colonel, USA (Ret) Secretary, Albemarle Farm Bureau T- m Applied Science Through Research & Engineering • P. O. Box 5072 • Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 • (804) 977-0425 February 22,, 1979 Colonel William R. Washington. Chairman, Plbetnarle County planning Commission / Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Colonel Washington, Your committee should be commended for your great efforts to d.eyelop a new zoning ordinance which has come under tremendous publi,G scrutiny and comment. I'm sure the committee will succeed i.n its task I have a proposal that may make your function much simpler, allow the County to manage growth, and maximize the assets of the County The concept proposed is to utilize "alternative wastewater treatment." Before I continue, please be assured that I am not d,iscussi.ng lagoons or the like. The systems in question are more reliable and have more utility in Albemarle_, County. i understand an interceptor sewer line will be constructed to connect Crozet with the Rivannah Wastewater Treatment Plant. even wi.th.a low estimated cost of $12 per foot and a minimum length'of'42,OQQ feet (about 8 miles), we are talking about a cost of $500,000-- and that's just for sewers. When we take into account that the sewers won't be finished before 1986, and a sewage treatment plant is also to be built, we realize the costs are high. While we are correct in expecting federal assistance, that help only covers 750 of the costs, In. addition to the financial. considerations, we must realize that 1986 is a long way off. Obviously, growth in Crozet won't occur :before then, so strip development will reign supreme county -wide in the interim. Moreover, once the sewer system is built, there will be explosive growth in Crozet (there has not been a sewer system built recently that didn't radically encourage growth) . Last, but not least, it will be difficult to prevent "hook-ups" to the sewer line, Now, instead of having strip development along the roads, we'll have it along the sewer line. As you can see, we will have great difficulties in disccura.gng strip development in the near future and in managing growth. in the lone term -- regardless of zoning-- with the present concept of wastewater treatment, I propose two major alternatives be considered for Albemarle County, These alternatives are an oxidation ditch and a community management district. 45 NEW YORK • ATLANTA • CHICAGO • LOS ANGELES F*-*Z. / x, r S 7 � To the Albemarle County !Manning Commission - The Citizens for Albemarle Inc. would like to comimend the Albemarle p���1` County Planning Commission for their leadership in revising tl,.e Draft of the new Albemarle County coning Ordinance to More . c f l c ct the aims of the Comprehensive Plan. We approve the remov,-,l of the bonuses which encouraged higher density in t}1e hi—ricultural In the new proposed AGUR district we suggest that the ninimum sizes by right on State roads should be 10 -acres. Subdivisions ( other than Rural Exempt Divisions) s'r_ouic{ be b , necial Permit Jr- this AGR. district and should have a minimum lot size of 10 acres also. :Mural Exempt Divisions should be limited to ti,,o (2) ti,,o acre lots per year, plus the residue. In addition it is hoped that some protection be for stcp slopes and for vegetation ( so that run off oofs,;rl:a,ec: t:wt^r x lc;,er in all agricultural land. Also we c,;ould. like to have the belt of Hura1 riesic�. t;ica lad.. around the urban areal ,Iel.ineatcd. IVAW Citizen, for Albemarle further sugl�lesis that t c consider the idea of making future rezonings effective for a reasonable but limited time. eav,, V" . 2a, tT-4 ^ •c. & M Alternative draft - 0.0 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (AGR) Suggested. by Opal D. David - Feb. 1.2, 1979 0.1 INTENT This district (hereafter referred to as AGR) is created primarily to encourage the establishment and continuation of farming and kindred rural activities with particular emphasis on the conserv- ation of the County's best agricultural lands. While the basic aim is to preserve and promote this utilization of the land, pro- vision is made for residential and other uses, subject to Supple- mentary Regulations designed to protect active farms and other potentially productive agricultural lands from encroachment by development and to discourage the random scattering of residential and other land uses which require public facilities and services to a greater extent than these are generally available in rural areas. 0.2 WHERE PERMITTED AGR districts will be permitted in areas where large contiguous areas containing active farms and/or best agricultural lands exist as depicted in the Comprehensive Plan or on soils maps prepared by the United States Soil Conservation Service. 0.3 APPLICATION All land in the County which is subject to the reduced tax rate approved under the Land Use Ordinance for agricultural or forestry uses shall be considered as in the AGR district. AGR districts maM be applied to previously established A-1 districts in accordance with the criteria cited under "Where Permitted" above. 0.4 USES PERMITTED For uses permitted in this district by Right, by Special Permit, and by Planned Development, see Table , pp.Tto`. End of proposed text. Explanatory comments Statement of Intent is broadened to include agricultural land other than "active farms and best agricultural lands." Land under reduced land use tax rate is automatically considered as in Agricultural District. Repetitive lists of uses (here and. in all other Districts) should be presented in Table form at end of District Regulations. Area and Bulk Regulations (which are identical with Rural Residential) should be moved to that District. Cluster Development Option (which is repeated in all residential districts) should appear only in General Regulations for residential development. Special Provisions for Multiple Single Family Dwelling Units should apply only to active farms and "best lands" as defined and should be In Supplementary Regulations. (Or with Planned Development?) Special Provisions for Rural Exempt Divisions should be in the Sub- division Ordinance. _ JLi r EM M The Albemarle Property Owners Association, Inc., favors and supports the conservation of open spaces within Albemarle County, the well -planned and efficient use of our land resource, and the protection of the open and scenic qualities of our rural road frontages. We also support the maintenance of the economic well-being of our community and recognize that the stability and predictability of zoning and of the right to use land are critical to that economic well-being. These goals and concerns can best be met with a zoning ordinance which provides for the following: (1) Uses by right in all zoning districts; and, (2) Well-defined incentives as a matter of right. We see little difference in the nature and character of the common rural landscape of Albemarle County and feel that all rural land should be treated within one zoning district. We are opposed to its arbitrary division. In our rural areas, well-defined incentives, such as increased density, should he used to encourage the conservation of open spaces, the well - planned and efficient use of land, and the protection of the open :, and scenic qualities of our rural road frontages. On the issue of "dburnzoning", we believe that the concept that Albemarle County may reduce the permitted intensity of use of a piece of property from that which currently exists without compensating the property owner threatens the economic stability of our citizens and our community. We urge that existing zoning rights be recognized except in those cases of clear mistake or fraud. Once the Planning Commission has more clearly defined the changes in the zoning ordinance and zoning map which it feels are appropriate, we urge that the Planning Commission notify each landowner regarding the impact of the proposed changes on his or her particular parcel, and that the Planning Commission conduct thorough and detailed public meetings on the proposed changes. February 26, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Wednesday, February 26, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Layton McCann; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jim Skove; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; and Mr. Charles Vest. Those members absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-Officio. Other Officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Don Gaston, Senior Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. DECISION ON THE AGR DISTRICT Col. Washington stated that the Commission has four alternatives, which are: 1. Adopt the consultants proposal; 2. Special Permit Uses; (Mr. Payne's suggestion) 3. Rural Residential and Agricultural; 4. Leave A-1 zone as is. Col. Washington noted that in 1968 when zoning was first adopted in the County the Zoning Ordinance had many compromises through necessity. He noted that in 1975 when a previous ordinance was under consideration, serious consideration was given to the 5 acre minimum lot size. He noted that he feels that things other than a 5 acre minimum lot size was the reason that ordinance was never adopted. He stated that he tends to lean toward a minimum lot size of 5 acres. Col. Washington stated t hat he feels some recognition should be given to the importance of forestry. He suggested that the County be divided between best soils and forestry with a minimum lot size of 5 acres, and have small development as an overlay. Mr. Tucker stated that he feels Col. Washington's proposal could be supported, but with a 5 acre density the land will be used up much quicker. He noted that if incentives are provided in areas designated for development the developers will move in that direction. Mr. McCann stated that it appears the Commission is trying to insure open space. He, noted that he is not sure eliminating the BAS District is the answer. He noted that he would like to be sure of the best approach before reaching a decision. Dr. Moore asked if would be possible to get a statement from the Tax Assessor noting how these zoning changes will affect property value. Mr. Keeler noted that he had spoken with one of the Assessors and they had stated that they would determine how the market value is demonstrated prior to placing an assessment on the property. Mr. McCann stated that if the price of property goes down, so does taxes. He noted that this will affect the County as well as the property owner. The Commission's consensus was to delay making a decision on the AGR District. Col. Washington suggested that a decision on the AGR District be placed on the February 28, 1979 agenda. Mr. McCann noted that not enough divisions by right are allowed in the AGR District as proposed. He stated that he feels this district is too restrictive. Mr. Payne noted that he feels it is important that the Commission act on the AGR District as soon as possible. He also noted that they need to reach a decision that they will not back away from. Mr. Tucker noted that because of the Staff's workload it would be best to reschedule this item on March 5, 1979. There was no further dicussion. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Mr. Payne stated that he sees potential for problems with the Planned Development Districts legally. He noted that these districts as proposed in.the Proposed Zoning Ordinance (blue book) is trying to encourage commercial growth in its designated area, but the district, as written, acts as a disincentive. Mr. Payne noted that conventional growth should be allowed with the -Planned Development Districts as an alternative. He stated that Planned Development Districts would best serve shopping centers, where an overall plan is a benefit. Mr. McCann noted that he feels the concept is good but the developer is limited in what he is allowed to do. He noted that he is not sure this district is even needed. Mr. Payne noted that he feels it would be beneficial for shopping centers and some of the large scale residential developments. Mrs. Diehl stated that the Planned Development District would allow t:he Commission to limit entrances. She asked if the Commission has any other means of limiting entrances, other than the Planned Development District. Mr. Lindstrom stated that in established commercial areas the character of the area has already been established. He asked if other areas are to be designated as commerical would the Planned Development District be feasible. Mr. Payne noted that there will not be any significant differences between development in a commercial zone with a good site plan and in a Planned Development District with an overall plan. Mr. Tucker stated that he feels the County has done a good job of controlling access on Route 29. He noted that if access is limited it will probably be downzoning. Dr. Moore asked if there are other means of controlling piecemeal development without an overall plan. He used as an example the industrial park. Mr. Payne stated that the Planned Development District would apply to items such as industrial parks. Mr. Tucker noted that the proposed zoning map recognizes commerical property as either a Planned Development District or as C-1. He noted that to have a Planned Development District in these zones acts as a disincentive. Mr. Huffman stated that he feels the Commission should go with the Staff's recommendations. 51c) Mr. McCann stated that he would rather eliminate the Planned Development Districts from the Ordinance. Col. Washington stated that he would like to keep the Planned Development Districts, mainly for use with shopping centers. Mr. Payne stated that he feels the Planned Development Districts would be useful for the development of shopping centers. He noted that this would allow for a higher density with incentives. Col. Washington asked what type of incentives are proposed. Mr. Keeler stated that the Staff has not written any incentives into this section. He noted that the Staff would like some guidance from the Commission on what they would like to see. Mr. Vest stated that he does not feel this type of development would work in the existing commerical zones, but it could possibly work in new areas being designated. There was no further discussion. SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Mr. Tucker noted that the Staff feels supplementary regulations would remove many of the uses now allowed by special permit only. He noted that this would allow items that previously required a special permit to become a use by right, if they complied with these regulations. Mr. Payne stated that a site plan is used to show implementation of the ordinance and the supplementary regulations are the physical means of acheiving this end. Mr. Lindstrom stated that what concerns him about the number of special permits is that the importance of individual special permits are diminished. Mr. Keeler noted that the Staff would like some idea of the uses and regulations the Commission would like to see. There were no suggestions from the Commission. There was no further discussion. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Ro rt W. ucker, Jr. - S ret y 5-1 19