HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 17 79 PC MinutesSeptember 17, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session Monday,
September 17, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Kurt Gloecker; Mr. Layton
McCann; Mr. James Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Charles Vest;
and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Dr. Anthony Iachetta,
member of the Board of Supervisors; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning;
and Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner.
to
Col. Washington called the meeting, order after establishing that a quorum
was present.
Col. Washington said that the first item of business is to decide the course
of action the Commission will take regarding the rural lands of the County. He
noted the proposal of Mr. Lindstrom, presented at the previous work session, and
the accompanying text prepared by the staff the previous week. Col. Washington said
that Mr. Lindstrom had told him that the views represented in the proposal were
Mr. Lindstrom's views, and not the Board of Supervisors' views as a whole. He noted
that there is a need and a desire in Albemarle County for a rural residential zone,
especially in view of the existing residential areas in the current A-1 zone.
Mr. Tucker explained a work map prepared by the staff during the previous
week, illustrating a proposal submitted by Col. Washington after the last work
session as an alternative to Mr. Lindstrom's proposal. He said that the "blue
colored" areas were areas in the Comprehensive Plan scheduled for growth. The map
shows the existing type 1 and type 2 villages with the radius of growth around them.
He said that Col. Washington's proposed alternative also shows a mile radius of growth
around the existing elementary schools in the county. These areas were shown on the
work map for Village Residential and the remainder of the county not shown for
village growth could be shown in one zone such as the AF.
Col. Washington said that once mapped his suggestion is different from what
he had envisioned. He told the Commission that he had proposed this as a possible
alternative because of the trouble the Commission had in dealing with the blank
spaces in the AF designation on the staff's map.
Mr. Tucker said that about 300 of the county would be in the AF district,
though this did not reflect the changes being made by the Board of Supervisors in
its meetings on the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. However, he pointed out
that the work map of Col. Washington's suggestion does show the changes made by
the Board.
Mr. Skove said that he is still concerned about changing the text of the AF
at this point. With a new district or with the AF as proposed by the Commission
the best agricultural soils remain to be addressed.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that he is still not confident about
the soils map he used in preparation of the generalized AF and RR districts.
Therefore he restated his position of being uncomfortable with the Commission
adopting this map.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if the work map were used, the village centers
of Ivy and Shadwell would change and the villages could be expanded to twice
the size the Commission had originally discussed.
Mr. McCann opposed additional land in the AF district. He said that
he opposes Mr. Lindstrom's proposal altogether when one considers 5-acre lots
over the county and anything over 10 lots is by special permit.
Dr. Moore once again established that it had been the opinion of the Deputy
County Attorney that the map prepared by the staff for the previous meeting is
defensible.
Mr. Huffman asked if the land use map is defensible.
Mr. Skove said that he has trouble using the land use map only as a means
for establishing the AF district, since he feels land use is a method of taxation,
and not a means for establishing zoning.
Mr. McCann said that he is equally concerned about defending the definition
of best agricultural soils. He said that he does feel a watershed district is
desparately needed, and that can be clearly drawn on the map.
Mr. Skove said that in drawing the AF district it is theoretically sound to
use the land use map, since it is the landowner himself who requests land use
taxation. However, that is primarily for tax purposes and not for zoning.
Mr. Huffman pointed out that the Commission will have to rely on something
for establishing the AF district on the zoning map.
Dr. Moore questioned how pure the district has to be.
Mr. Tucker replied that he would like to feel comfortable with the map
and have criteria on which to base the boundary lines.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that the county is involved in things it should not be
involved with. If one cannot make a living farming, one should be able to
do something without begging the county to do it. He said that he feels it is
a personal matter if aman cannot make a living, and should not be forced to tell
the Commission and all the citizens present at a meeting that he is having hard times.
Mrs. Graves said that more people, more development, more dogs, higher taxes,
etc. are the things that keep land from being conducive to farming.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the staff had received the written comments
from Mr. Lindstrom after the last work session and had drawn up textual amendments
to support his concept. He reviewed the concept for the Commission noting that
there is a five -acre minimum in the rural areas, with mandatory clustering in the
district, and no more than 10 lots by right. He said that he sees problems
with the concept, since it will be necessary to determine at the time of subdivision
it
submission the type of soils, and thus determine if.is a subdivision by right or by
special use permit. He said a soil study will be necessary from the very beginning.
Also he said that he does not know the basis for the 10 lots, since the Comprehensive
Plan addresses 20 lots as a size standard. However, he said that the staff prefers
one district for the rural areas because of the general soil study and the
lack of confidence he has in drawing the boundaries of the AF and RR, current
zoning designations in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom added to Mr. Tucker's explanation that bonuses would be determined
on a case -by -case basis with the soil study.
Mr. Skove felt that the best generalization the county has at this point is
the map prepared by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the County has data on the soils of Albemarle
County prior to the use of fertilizer.
Col. Washington said that the County grows almost no wheat now, and with the
improved soils, improved seeds, etc. the county is not producing as much as it used
to, especially corn.
Mr. Huffman said that beef and development are much more economically productive
for the land owner than wheat and corn. Mr. Huffman then pointed out that clustering
for low income housing is undermined when one has to build roads.
Mr. Lindstrom said that it was his opinion that low and moderate income housing
had the option of clustering.
Mr. Huffman pointed to the recent amendments requiring frontage improvements
and how these would be carried over into the new text.
Dr. Moore said that he supports Mr. Skove and feels that some of the spaces
could be filled in on the staff's map; besides Mr. Payne feels it can be defended
and that makes him comfortable.
Mr. Vest said that he still does not see the advantage of developing 5-acre
lots as opposed to 2-acre lots. He said that does not make sense for the developer
or the land user.
Col. Washington pointed out that one does not have to be producing crops
to be eligible for land use taxation.
Mr. Vest again stated that many people don't want, nor can they afford, five
acre lots. He said that he does not favor excluding all potential homeowners from
this county simply because of the lot size. He felt that 5-acre lots will chew up
the county's land faster, and if the growth is going to be limited through the special
permit process, why not limit with 2-acre development.
Col. Washington pointed out that with no Rural Residential district,
one man wanting to build a low/moderate cost house on two acres would have to apply
for a special use permit.
Mr. Huffman then questioned how much land is planned for development in the
areas with good roads.
Mr. McCann said that if roads are a guide, development will have to occur on
Routes 29, 250, and 20. He said that he does not believe these rules have been
made to preserve the agricultural land, but have been made only to maintain open
space and hold down growth. He once again stated that he could support a district
for a watershed impoundment. Mr. McCann also said that he feels if the demand is
there, the county will grow in spite of the AF district.
O5
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that the AF district is a basis on which to stop
growth, but when the demand is there, the land will develop.
Mr. Tucker at this point noted that the Watershed Management Committee
is planning to recommend certain textual changes in the CVN District of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission proceed as it was prior to the
Lindstrom proposal for one rural zone.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves said that she is glad the Board of Supervisors has considered
an alternative to the Commission's proposal.
Mr. Huffman said that he is not happy with the 10-acre limitation, but it
was the consensus of the Commission. However, in his opinion the Commission is
restricting any type of development past the urban area to two to three roads
in the County: Route 20, Route 6 and Route 29 South.
Dr. Moore felt that if the county wants growth, it needs to be in the water,
sewer and road business.
Mr. Tucker then requested some direction from the Commission on how to
proceed with the drawing of the zoning map. Again he stated that he is not
comfortable with the map because of the data on which it is based.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he does not feel the map is defensible. He questioned
how the county can deny zoning requests when the soil is probably the same on
parcels that have different zonings. Furthermore, he noted that if the county
follows the Comprehensive Plan, approximately 90% of the county should be zoned AF.
He asked that someone show him land which is not good for forests; even the mountains
are good for forest.
Mr. McCann said that he is not about to support something the staff is
not comfortable with.
Mr. Tucker replied that the data the staff has used for the preparation of
the general map is as good as it can be unless every parcel in the county is
viewed individually.
Mr. Skove moved that the Commission accept the map prepared by the staff
as a generalized guide, and if more specific information is available at a later
date, changes can be made.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried by a 5-4 vote. Messrs. McCann,
Huffman, Vest, and Gloeckner dissented.
Crozet:
Mr. Tucker explained the proposed zoning map for Crozet, and some of
the outlying areas.
Col. Washington suggested that the line near Jarman Gap be pushed up to
the railroad tracks, especially in view of the fact that houses are already there.
��
Mr. Tucker noted some commercial uses on Route 250 that he had not
recognized. She felt that perhaps they should be recognized after all.
Col. Washington felt that the commercial land should have sufficient
depth. Furthermore, he felt that commercial uses should be permitted at the
interstate interchanges.
Mrs. Graves established that the interstate right-of-way is shown on the map.
Mr. McCann felt that anything currently used as and zoned B-1 should have
commercial designation on the new map.
Mr. Tucker agreed that this was probably correct.
Col. Washington asked that the staff check the access to Orchard Acres prior to
deciding on high density designation.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the tax schedule for a piece of property that is
upzoned, yet the utilities are currently unavailable. He asked that the staff
check to see if the tax schedule would be at the upzoned rate, or would be raised
only when the utilities became available. He also asked what would happen to B-1
property that might be rezoned to a less intensive use. What happens to the
landowners personal rights and vested interests?
Mrs. Diehl said that she would like these questions answered in a written
memorandum from the Real Estate Office.
Mrs. Graves said that only in the past few years have the taxes reflected zoning.
Mr. Huffman said that at some point the Commission will need a ballpark figure
of the ecnomic impact on the county of the entire zoning map.
Mr. Tucker said that he needs direction on recognizing existing uses that are
conforming. He suggested that if the land on Route 250 West is left commercial,
the County might want to ask the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to do a study on Route 250 West similar to that one done on Route 29 North in terms
of transportation needs.
Col. Washington felt that the trucking terminal/service yard a few blocks
east of Morton in Crozet should be recognized.
Mr. McCann said that dependent upon what the tax accessor says, he moved
approval in general of the concept shown for Crozet, exclusive of the 250 area.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Commission asked that the staff supply them the amount of B-1 property
on Route 250 West, the depth of commercial zoning that is reasonable to recognize,
and asked that the staff recognize existing uses along Route 250 West.
With no further business, the Coz0bert-W.
n adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Tucker, Jr. A Sec t
9