Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 02 79 PC MinutesApril 2, 1979 Y The Albemarle Count Planning Commission conducted a work session m., Board on the proposed zoning ordinance on Monday , April 2, 1979, 4:00 p. Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Skove; Dr. James W. Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest. Absent were Mr. James Huffman and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. In the initial absence of Col. Washington, Mrs. Diehl presided. She called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Tucker passed out to the Commission a news release from the Citizens for Albemarle regarding a speaker they were sponsoring for a meeting at the University of Virginia on April 26, 1979. Commercial Office District; Mr. Tucker reviewed this section for the Commission. There was no discussion and there was a consensus to accept the proposed wording of the staff. ( Col. Washington arrived at the meeting and assumed the chairmanship. ) Planned Development - Shopping Centers - PD-SC: Mr. Tucker explained that this has been changed considerably from the KDA presentation. He presented the text proposed by the staff. Mr. McCann felt that requiring public utilities for the smaller centers in the villages might work a hardship and commercial uses certainly need to be there. Dr. Moore questioned the breakover in size of a center where there is a need for a package treatment plan as opposed to a septic field. Mrs. Diehl felt that package treatmentplants should be provided for the smaller centers. Mrs. Graves questioned if that could be handled through the BZA. Mr. Payne replied that it could not be since this is not a pre -established zone. It would be one of the criteria for determining appropriateness. Mrs. Diehl said that she could support a septic system for a neighborhood center on 3-4 acres. IJ6 Mr. Gloeckner said that in determining the appropriate size of a septic field for a shopping center, the Health Department considers the number of employees and the uses. For instance, dentists, doctors and restaurants take a great deal more water than other uses. Therefore, the Commission may not wish to hinge this on acreage. Col. Washington suggested the possibility of a neighborhood center without public utilities by special use permit. Mr. Keeler said that the county will have to review the uses at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Payne suggested the following wording for the second paragraph under Section 3.8.1: "PD-SC districts shall be located in areas served by both public water and sewer systems; provided, however, that neighborhood shopping centers may be permitted in areas not served by public water and/or public sewer systems where adequate alternative water supply and/or sewerage disposal systems are available. PD-SC districts shall have direct access to public streets adequate to accommodate traffic generated by the development." By a vote of 7-1 the Commission approved the amended wording. Mrs. Graves dissented on the basis that it will be difficult to control growth where public utilities are located, and since this is the heaviest commercial use, she favors the staff's initial recommendation. At this point Mrs. Rosenblum said that she is hopeful the Commission is considering ground water and the effect commercial uses can have on it. Col. Washington said that the county is better off if it has some control over the neighborhood shopping centers. Mr. Gloeckner said that he does not see this going on the map other than those places that currently meet the criteria. Col. Wasington also noted that these centers follow growth - they don't lead the growth. Dr. Moore questioned the acreage requirements, and felt that the maximum should be changed. The staff agreed that the maximum acreage for neighborhood centers should read "less than 10 acres", the community center should read "less than 30 acres." use permit. Mrs. Graves questioned the omission of microwave towers, etc, by special Mr. Keeler agreed that this should be included in the uses by special permit; he also noted that it had been inadvertently omitted from the CO zone and should be included there as well. There was a consensus to add the following use as a use by special permit in the PD-SC and CO districts: "Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations, and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro -wave and radio -wave transmission and relay towers, substations, and appurtenances." 19 /0/ Agricultural Forestry District: Mr. Payne discussed the text and explained the cross references in Section 3.11a.3.1 , noting they refer to the 20-acre provision. Col. Washington suggested that the wording in the table be changed from "other Divisions" to "Divisions by Right." He also questioned the maximum lot size of 60,000 square feet. Mr. Keeler said that if this area is increased, the purpose of the cluster concept is defeated. He did suggest that there could be, a greater range, but then there would be a need to have a maximum average lot size. He pointed out that the purpose is for open area. Mr. Payne noted that the smaller the maximum lot size, the larger the open space. Mr. Gloeckner said that a smaller average lot size is needed if the idea is to force clustering. Mrs. Diehl felt that the cluster lots should enter from the internal road. Mrs. Diehl then questioned the provision for housing for tenants. Mr. Payne replied that that need not even be permitted. Mrs. Graves suggested that this could be by special use permit. Mr. Payne replied that rental units are permitted by special permit. Mr. Keeler pointed out that there is a need for housing for agricultural employees. Presently, rental units are permitted by right, and the Zoning Administrator requires that people sign affadavits that they are indeed agricultural employees. Mr. Gloeckner questioned what the Commission is trying to protect against. Mr. Payne replied "commercial uses." the county Mrs. Yates Garnett said that if the provision is removed, ^may take away someone's right to live, since many of the cottages serve as housing for security people. Mr. Skove questioned if there could be a tenant house on every two acres. Mr. Payne said this is not possible. Col. Washington noted that there are many rental units on farmland in the county, and questioned what happens to the existing if the provision under discussion remains. Mr. Payne replied that they would be non -conforming. Mr. Gloeckner said that it is possible that rental units could be a way for the farms to be maintained. Mr. Skove said that he does not want to create subdivisions of rental units. Mr. Keeler stated that the Site Plan Ordinance will control that. Mr. Payne said that if it is tied to the employees, 2-acres is not a problem. l�� Mrs. Graves said that there needs to be a way to write the ordinance so that there is only 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Mr. McCann suggested language be included to permit a few dwelling units so that the farmer could make extra money, and provide for it on 5-acre cluster lots. Mr. Vest stated that he hates to seen rental units taken away, since they don't do much harm and have provided security and necessary income for farmers in Albemarle County for many years. Mrs. Diehl said that she does not have much trouble with rental units, and the language might as well be written to make them legal. Mrs. Graves said that she has no problem with them as long as they meet the subdivision by 5-acre cluster provision. Col. Washington said that there is a need to cover the existing�as well as what might be built there in the future for employees. Mr. Keeler said that the staff has a few comments to make on the text. First he said that keeping track of the number of parcels with the 20 lot provision will be time consuming in a few years, though it probably won't be in the very beginning. He suggested certification by. the owner's attorney or surveyor regarding the number of lots up to twenty that have been divided after the ordinance is adopted. Secondly he said that if the Commission intends for this to apply to all other rural land, then the provision for subdivisions of more than twenty lots by special use permit should be included in the RR District. Mr. Skove moved that Sections 3.11a.6.2 and Section 3.11a.6.2.1(3) be included in the RR District. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Messrs. Gloeckner and McCann dissenting. Mr. Gloeckner said that he could not support the motion since he feels that this provision in the AP and RR confiscates land without any compensation. The staff was requested to bring the language for the AF and RR districts back to the Commission for further review at the next meeting. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 19 /J10