Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 09 79 PC MinutesApril 9, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on the proposed zoning ordinance text on Monday, April 9, 1979, 4:00 p.m., in Lhe County Executive's Conference Room. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; Dr. James Moore; and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Absent were Mr. James L. Huffman, and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. was present Col. Washington established that a quorumhand called the meeting to order. The Commission discussed the revisions of the AF District, and Mr. Tucker noted the underlined changes and additions since the previous presentation. Mrs. Graves stated that she has no problem with the home occupation provisions by right in the AF district, however she said that in the smaller lot districts they should be differentiated as they are now. She asked if the Commission wished to discuss this matter now or at some later date. She said that the county has no way to control architectural appropriateness in line with the main dwelling and this raises concern for the adjoining property owners. She suggested that home occupations could even be addressed in the ordinance like the provision for mobile homes in the agricultural district. Mrs. Diehl :suggested addressing noise level and electrical interference from home occupations in the performance standards, and perhaps this would arrest Mrs. Graves concerns. Mr. Tucker said that the home occupation could be split into the current A and B classifications and addressed in the supplementary regulations. Mr. Vest and Mrs. Diehl expressed no concern with the home occupation provision in the AF and RR districts as proposed. Mr. Tucker said that he had been under the impression that the Commission had addressed the concept at an earlier date, and that with the necessary supplementary regulations the use would be by right in all districts. Mr. McCann said that he objects to the Commission reaching a concensus and then on the suggestion of one member taking another vote. When the Commission addressed MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, Mrs. Diehl said tYetltshe supports couidmethod for the county to know the applicant's proposal, however, that the concept, be presented with as little expense to the applicant as possible. Col. Washington said that it will be necessary to have at least some sort of schematic plan for the Commission and Board to review at the time of special use permit review. Col. Washington said that even a sketch of the area to be developed would be helpful. There was Commission consensus to expand the wording of Sec. 3.11a.6.2.2 to include the provision for a schematic or conceptual plan. Mr. Skove questioned if Section 3.11a.6.2.1 could ever address ground water. Mr. Tucker replied that it would have to be included at the time there is qualitative answers regarding this, and this does not currently exist. The Commission asked that they again review the text for the AF after the few changes they made have been addressed by the staff. RR District: Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the main change in text is the provision for subdivisions of more than twenty lots requiring a special use permit. He said that the 250 foot frontage provision is included, and the statement of intent has been changed somewhat. The Commission addressed the provision for critical slopes in the statement of intent for this district, and changed the wording as follows: "RR districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendments of the official zoning map to permit a limited amount of lower density residential development in rural areas of the County not designated as AF. It is intended that development occur in locations and at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of the area and it is further intended that impact of roadside strip development be minimized through the various design requirements contained herein." Mr. Skove said that the AF district addresses agricultural land and its preservation and the RR addresses all other rural land, including forests. He said that he feels any change would just be a name change. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the general provisions address critical slopes throughout the county, regardless of the zone. Mr. Gloeckner stated his opinion that once again this district addresses the preservation of open space and feels that should be included in the Statement of Intent. Mrs. Diehl agreed, and read a pertinent section from the Comprehensive Plan supporting this opinion. Mrs. Diehl suggested that the word "vegetation" be removed from Section 3.11.7.l(1). Mr. Tucker agreed that this would be appropriate, since it would be difficult,j8dress in the RR. With the changes that were to be made by the staff at the direction of the Commission, the Commission agreed to once again look at the RR district. AIJ MR Medium and High Density Residential Districts: Mr. Keeler addressed his memo of March 29, 1979, with the Commission. He stated that the staff is proposing a simplified version of the PDR and additional conventional districts for the medium to (low) high density ranges. Since the R-4 with bonuses would permit 6 dwelling units/acre, the staff proposes an R-6 as follows: DENSITY District Base Bonus (50%) R-6 6 du/ac. 9 du/ac. R 10 10 du/ac. 15 du/ac. R-15 15 du/ac. 22 du/ac. He said that except for the maximum bonus under R-15, developments of 20 du/ac. would be by the PDR approach with a maximum density of 35 du/ac. Each district would contain requirements for active recreation as encouraged by the Parks and Recreation Commission and uses would be generally the same as in the R-4 district with a greater variety of residential types. There was Commission consensus to proceed with this suggestion. zoning Map: Col. Washington suggested that when the Commission reviews the zoning map that it remain much as it is now, assigning comparable zoning to what currently exists. He then cited possible problems with downzoning by using a section of roadway on Route 250 West. He said that he sees little reason for downzoning unless there is clear evidence and reason to do so. Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove felt that it would be better to review the map prior to making any sort of commitment on this suggestion. Mrs. Graves said that she supported no upzoning in the 1976 zoning proposals and she does not intend to support any upzonings this time. Col. Washington then suggested that the staff formulate some ways for funding the printing, editing, possible notification, etc. of the ordinance, once the Commission has completed its work and is ready to hold another public hearing on the matter. The Commission asked that Mr. Tucker convey to the Chamber of Commerce a desire to attend its meeting on the 17th of April, however noted its conflict with a regularly scheduled Commission meeting. They asked Mr. Tucker to suggest changing the meeting to another day other than Tuesdays. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 with no further business. rt W. Tucker, Jr. - /; l cretary 19