Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 26 79 PC MinutesMarch 26, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Monday, March 26, 1979, County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Charles Vest; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove. Absent were Mr. James Huffman and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Col. Washington opened the meeting by stating that the Commission is yet to reach a decision on the approach for the AGR district. He said that over the past week he had called each Commission member to discuss another alternative for the AGR and had reminded them of the previous alternatives presented by Mr. Payne, the planning staff, Mr. McCallum on behalf of the Albemarle Property Owners Association. He suggested that the AGR district provide for 10 acre lots by right, 5-acre cluster lots by right, and 2-acre lots by special use permit with distinction in the wooded, open or cropland. However, he said that he does not wish to discount the staff's proposal commonly known as Alternative D. Mrs. Diehl said that without some form of Alternative D limiting the number of lots, she cannot support the alternative. She also noted her concern for large farms divided into large subdivisions. Mrs. Graves noted that the Commission has sort of touched on the planned development approach before, and perhaps 3-10 lots could come only to the Planning Commission and anything over 10 lots would be by special use permit and go to the Board as well. She said that she feels Alternative D and its 20 lot provision is too much. Mr. Tucker said that the rationale in the twenty lots is that the Comprehensive Plan notes that over 20 lots approaches village size. He said that he acknowledges Mr. Payne's concern in having real rationale in limiting the use by right to a certain number of lots. Mrs. Diehl contended that anything under 20 lots for a farmer to be provided is still a reasonable concept, though it might not be for the larger developers. However, she noted that at this time the concern is that the farmer have some uses by right for his land. Mr. Tucker stated that for road purposes alone it is good to know the prospective densities. Mrs. Diehl questioned if the county attorney's office investigated special use permit approval by the Commission only. Mr. Payne said that he read a case on the issue of special use permits where the governing body issued them, but did suggest it might be reasonable for someone other than the governing body to issue the special permits. The Supreme Court, though has not specifically addressed the idea of subdivision by special use permit approved only by the Planning Commission of the locality. However, it has said that under certain circumstances it does not see why that would not be appropriate. Mrs. Graves noted the suggestions from the League of Women Voters that had been mailed to the Commissioners the previous week. Mr. Payne noted that it is difficult to write specific criteria for approval of special use permits and have it fit land all over the county. Mr. George McCallum said that in his opinion the treatment of the rural lands is critical to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. He said that the Albemarle County Property Owners cannot support the staff's recommendation. He said that that organization had considered alternatives to Alternative VI and could not agree on any of the Alternatives except the one they themselves have originally proposed. Also he said that he has trouble with the staff's treatment of forrested land or wooded land, and feels it should be given equal treatment to the agricultural uses. He noted the environmental, economical and aesthetic advantages of wooded land. He said that the staff's proposal will foster development in the wooded land and feels that it is less legally defensible. The reason that he feels it is less legally defensible is that one can plant pines and in 10 years have a mature woodland. This would also take land out of production, further defeating the purpose of the alternative. He said that farmers want a use by right and don't want a downward market value for their farms. He said that the special use permit process can certainly have a detrimetnal effect on the value of the land and he said that limiting opportunities to divisions by right of up to only 20 dwelling units is too restrictive. Furthermore, this penalizes the large landowners. He urged the Commission to continue studying the issue and not make a hasty decision that could affect the entire economy of the county. Mrs. Rosenblum, on behalf of the League of Women Voters acknowledged pleasure in the staff's proposal based on the Comprehensive Plan, however feels that the League's proposal is quite equitable as well. Col. Washington, noting that the Comprehensive Plan calls for standards and controls for development, wondered the reason for 2 acres if there is to be a rural residential zone. He said that the key issue is to protect the farmers and the farm lands, and he felt that this could be done by 5, 10, and 20 acres lots. He also said that he would like to see various stages for development moving from a planned development district to the special use permit process. Mrs. Frances Lee said that if the Commission adopts the concept of subdivisions by special use permit, there must be specific regulations for this process to work equitably. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that when it sees the zoning map, it must remember that a parcel might fall within the RR district except for the fact that the land around it is AGR, in which case it is advisable to zone the peculiar parcel AGR like the surrounding. Col. Washington questioned why there could not be an RPN with all this. Mr. Tucker replied that the county will have voluntary cluster. Mrs. Graves said that the concept offered by the League would be clustering with Planning Commission approval so that the county can decide where the clustering can go. She said that she feels twanty units by right is a little high and she feels that figure should be lowered. Mr. McCann said that if it is fair at all, the figure should be raised from 20 lots to 30 lots. Mr. Gloeckner said that he has given all the alternatives a lot of thought and anything that is beyond "by right" provisions is too much government for him. He said that he will not support any alternative that includes subdivision by special use permit. Mr. McCann said that he feels that 5- acre lots by right is 150% better than what the county has now. He did not feel it would be possible to implement the Comprehensive Plan overnight, but 5-acre lots by right would be a big step in the right direction. He also said that the rural exempt provision should be included and the 250' frontage requirement should be deleted. Mr. Skove said that he dikes the special permit process since it gives flexibility to look at the uniqueness of each large parcel of land that comes in for subdivision approval. He said that he can support portion A of the staff proposal. Mr. Skove said that he can certainly think of land that will be appropriate for 2-acre densities with a special permit - for instance, Lind that is surrounded by 2-acre subdivisions right now. He said that he would like to limit the scale of development, but basically can follow the staff's proposal. Mrs. Diehl said that she can support the staff's proposal with Alternative D and specific criteria for this special permit process. Mr. vest said that he can support the special use permit process, as well, and can't see that it will detrimentally affect the farm values or the farmer's borrowing power. Furthermore, he felt that this approach would protect the farmers.and their land. Mr. Skove moved that the Commission adopt the following concept for the Agricultural land in the county and that the staff and county attorney's office formulate appropriate language to implement this concept: A. Areas in the Agricultural -Forestry District could be developed in conventional 10+ acre lots and/or cluster subdivisions at a density of one dwelling unit per five acres by right; B. Divisions not provided above would be by special use permit, but in no case would density greater than .5/acre be permitted; C. Parcels in open areas and parcels on existing public roads would have a minimum of 250 feet of frontage, unless otherwise provided by special use permit; D. Cluster lots and conventional lots of less than 10 acres would front on internal roads only, unless otherwise provided by special use permit; E. Any division of more than 20 lots would be by special use permit. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. She then asked how Section E of the motion would work in the RR. Mr. Skove said that his motion addresses only the Agricultural -Forestry District at this point. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if this will be applied to what the Commission now knows as BAS on the map. Mr. Keeler said that is correct. Mr. Tucker also pointed out that the Commission has not looked at the map. dissenting. Dr. Moore established that all 147,000 acres is addressed in this motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-2, with Messrs. McCann and Gloeckner Commercial Districts: Mr. Tucker addressed the COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY ( Section 3.5 ) with the Commission, noting that the height requirement has been changed due to the Fire Marshal's recommendations. He noted that Section 3.5 will apply to all the commercial districts. He said that the C-1 will be more like a central business district, and will be located in villages and communities. Mrs. Graves objected to Section 3.6.2.1 since there is no way for the public to know when the Zoning Administrator has made a decision, and there is only a 30 day period for appeals. Mr. Tucker said that this is included since there is no way to cover every use that might be desirable. Mrs. Graves said that at least with an exclusionary ordinance any new use comes to the Commission and Board. She also asked that any standards for outdoor storage for a hardware store be added. She asked that Hospitals be added as a use by special permit in the C-1 zone and fire and rescue squad stations,funeral homes be added as a use by special use permit. She said that they are not by right now, and they do have a definite impact on a community. The special use permit process could assure access and adequate parking to begin with. Mr. McCann said that parking can be covered at the site plan level, and he also sees no reason to protect one business from another business. Mrs. Graves said that she has a concern for the bingo sessions that go along with fire and rescue squad stations. Mr. Keeler said that it is possible to write special provisions for bingo. There was Commission consensus to add hospitals as a use by special permit in the C-1 District, and that proLoer regulations be Written for funeral homes and fire and rescue squad stationsWo`t S-5 dut�stnebv 4ffsFtl y right in the C-1 district was "medical center." The Commission also changed "restaurants", a use by right, to "eating establishments." Additionally, to uses by special use permit, the Commission added"fast food restaurants." The vote on changing hospitals to a use by special permit was 5-3, with Messrs. Washington, McCann, and Gloeckner dissenting. Mrs. Diehl expressed 4for the traffic problems often created by service stations. concern The Commission reached a consensus to leave Section 3.6.2.1 as written in order to give one a right to appeal a Zoning Administrator decision to the BZA. Mr. McCann expressed concern for Section 3.5.7 MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA due to the cost of commercial land. He felt that in conjunction with Section 3.5.8.1 it is excessive. There was Commission consensus to change the first sentence of Section 3.5.7 to read as follows: ''Minimum landscaped area on any individual lot sr:all not be less than 0.10 times the area of the lot." lac) M There was also Commission consensus to leave Section 3.5.8.1 as written. The Commission then discussed the Highway -Commercial District. Mr. Gloeckner quesitoned if horse trailers would be under this. Mr. Payne felt that this was included under Section 3.7.2.1, either 22, 23, or 25. Mrs. Graves suggested that hospital be a use by special use permit as well as nursing, and convalescent homes. The Commission, by a vote of 5-3, added "hospital" and "nursing, convalescent homes" as uses by special permit. Messrs. Washington, McCann, and Gloeckner dissented. The Commission, due to a lack of time, decided to further discuss the Commercial Districts at a later meeting. The Commission also decided to cut back on the number of work sessions from two per week to one per week. It was decided that Mondays from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a break for dinner would be best. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:45. Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secr tary /a/ 19 OR ROBERT FRYE PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed division of 2 acres from larger parcel; located east of Route 680 near intersection of Route 802. There was no one present to represent this item. Mr. McCann moved for deferral until April 17, 1979 Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. NEW BUSINESS - Health Department approval of septic systems under asphalt and trees. Mr. Tucker suggested that it might be helpful to the Commission to have them meet with someone from the Health Department to speak to their criteria for approving septic systems. Col. Washington noted that it might be beneficial to have someone from the Soil Conservation Service present for this meeting, since their views seem to conflict with the Health Department's The Commission listed specific items that have concerns about. They are: 1. Septic systems - cover, location, etc.; 2. Precautions on slopes; 3. Where to site septic systems; 4. How to avoid approving unbuildable sites; 5. Cleaners, laundromats means of disposal. OLD BUSINESS The Commission discussed the media comments that appeared in the paper concerning the action taken by the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 26, 1979. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. rt W. Tucker, Jr. - S 11277 F.! 19 WA