Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 03 79 PC MinutesDecember 3, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Monday, December 3, 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; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. James Skove; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; 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. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent was Mrs. Joan Graves. order. A quorum was established and Col. Washington called the meeting to Forestry Section - Proposed Zoning Ordinance: Mr. Keeler stated that the definition in the proposed text is based on the minimum standard for land use taxation. He explained the recent letter from Mr. Tyson of the Division of Forestry, and said that in staff opinion it seems to be excessive, especially in view of the number of trees that would have to be maintained. As proposed by Mr. Tyson, the Division of Forestry would police this, and if the Commission decides to follow his proposal, the staff recommended this should be policed by the Zoning Administrator. ( Mrs. Diehl arrived at the meeting. ) Mr. Tucker said it would be practically impossible to meet the new criteria setforth by Mr. Tyson's letter. Mrs. Diehl felt it might be appropriate for Mr. Tyson.'s suggestion to apply to some of the rural areas. Col. Washington said that in some cases it is more desirable to clear-cut than to select -cut. Mrs. Diehl moved that the text be amended in the following fashion: Section 5.1.24A(3) The zoning administrator may permit exceptions to selective cutting upon recommendation of the Virginia Division of Forestry or a professional forester with at least a four- year college degree in an accredited forestry curriculum that selective cutting would not satisfactorily regenerate or meet the silvicultural needs of a forest stand. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. 04 Buck Mountain Area: Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that the Chairman of the Board of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has written the Board of Supervisors addressing the Buck Mountain Area as an appropriate water supply for the urban area. That letter suggests that a building moratorium should be considered for the impoundment area for the next two years until a complete study can be undertaken. Mr. Tucker said that the Board may consider this moratorium or it might consider a conservation district as an appropriate measure. He also suggested that the Planning Commission itself might consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on this subject. Mr. McCann said that some technical advice on protecting the area will be needed prior to proceeding in any fashion, noting that there are all sorts of concepts for protecting the Rivanna Watershed. He pointed out that there is currently very little growth or development in the Buck Mountain area. Mr. Skove pointed out that at this time the exact boundaries of a possible Buck Mountain Impoundment are not known. In view of this, he felt it a diffcult problem to deal with. Mr. Gloeckner felt the action should be taken by the Board of Supervisors in the form of a building moratorium in the impoundment area. He did not feel it a proper topic to address in the Zoning Ordinance and map. Col. Washington felt it would be appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to be aware of the Commission's knowledge of the concept. Mr. Huffman preferred some guidelines from the Board as to the direction the Commission should take. District. Mrs. Diehl said that she prefers designating the area with a Conservation Mr. Huffman moved that the Commission table the matter for the moment. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Critical Slopes Criteria: Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that it might consider making these restrictions exempt for lots of record at the time of adoption of the zoning ordinance. He then read existing provisions from the proposed text ( Section 4.0 through 4.2.1 ) which would give latitude in development on steeper slopes. He pointed out that if a special use permit is required, as had been suggested by Col. Washington at an earlier meeting, the County Engineer will be involved in every case, and the staff reports will come from that office. Col. Washington questioned if the statement that Ednam Forest and Peacock Hill could not have been built if these requirements had been in force at that time was an accurrate statement. MA Mr. Tucker replied that afer examining these two areas, it is possible that some sections of both these developments would not have been permitted. However, he pointed out that in many subdivisions it is possible to shift building and lot lines enough to have a building site that is not on slopes 250 or greater. Mr. McCann objected to critical slopes being handled through a special permit process. With certain provisions he felt it is completely appropriate for development to take place on slopes 25-40%. Additionally, he pointed out how important it is for individuals to know what they can do. Mr. McCann noted it will be necessary for the County Engineer to be involved, one way or the other. Mr. Tucker said that he saw no benefit to the special permit clause being added to this section, since the matter will be dealt with at the time of subdivision review anyway. Mr. Skove moved that the critical slopes provisions in the proposed text be maintained as originally proposed with the following amendments: (1) At the end of Section 4.2, add the following sentence: "The following provisions shall apply to lots and parcels created after the effective date of this ordinance and in any case in which a site development plan is required pursuant to Section 32.0." (2) Rewrite Section 4.2.5 to read as follows: "As part of the review of any plat of subdivision or site development plan, the Commission may modify any regulation and requirement of this section in a particular case subject to the following limitations." Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Individual Property Owners' Requests as submitted by letter to the Planning Department: (1) Letter from T. E. Wood, Betty W. Jett, and Robert A. Fletcher, requesting that the existing use be recognized with appropriate zoning. Mr. Tucker said that the only problem he sees with this request is that it might set a precedent for adjoining properties being zoned commercial. Mr. McCann pointed out that the restaurant has been in business for twenty- five years, and the people live and work there. He pointed out that country stores throughout the county have been recognized. Mr. Huffman pointed out that the economics in the future will dictate if it should continue as a business use or if the business should expand. Mrs. Diehl established that the property is currently zoned A-1. Mr. McCann moved that the Commission show this property as C-1 on the proposed zoning map. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, noting it has been used for business for so long. He pointed out that the topography limits much future expansion. �� Col. Washington stated that he prefers to see the owners of the property come forth with a rezoning request accompanied by a proffer. Mrs. Diehl agreed. The motion failed by a vote of 4-4, with Mrs. Dihel, and Messrs. Vest, Skove, and Washington dissenting. Mr. McCann said he thinks it is important to recognize existing business uses for what they are. (2) Richard Nunley request to recognize existing zoning on property located north of Melbourne Road and east of the Southern Railroad. Mr. Tucker said that the neighborhood committee recommended low density on this property and on the map the property is shown for R-4, which could be developed up to an R-6 density, with bonuses. Mr. McCann said that this would be a tremendous dowrzoning. He pointed out that the property is right in the urban area, where the county has gone on record for higher density. Mr. Gloeckner noted that a great deal of money has been spent in plans and grading of the property. Additionally, he noted that it has good access to Melbourne Road. Mr. Skove pointed out how close the property is to the city limits, and agreed that it seems appropriate for high density. Mrs. Diehl said that she favors no higher density than an R-10 district. Mr. McCann moved that the property have comparable density as far as possible, R-15. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mrs. Diehl dissenting. (3) Request from Richmond and Fishburne for Tax Map 62, Parcel 23, requesting the property be recognized for low density development. Mr. Tucker pointed out the limits of the urban area neighborhood boundary. He felt that if the Commission permits the request, approximately 80% of the property would fall within the urban area neighborhood. Mr. Huffman moved that the Commission grant the request for the property up to the boundary of the creek for low density development. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. 19 OV3 (4) Request on behalf of Southeast Limited Partnership for Tax Map 76, Parcels 46A, 54, 54A, 54M, 54N1, and 54Z for comparable zoning of business and high density. Mr. McCann pointed out that money was invested based upon the existing zoning; he said that he has problems with downzoning here just as in the previous requests. He noted that the land is right in the urban area with water and sewer soon to be available. Mr. Tucker agreed that there is ready access to water and sewer. Mr. McCann moved for comparable zoning of commercial and R-15. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mrs. Diehl dissenting. (5) Harold Hoffman request regarding the quadrant of I-64 and 29 South for comparable zoning to B-1. Mr. Tucker explained that the Commission had cut this from Neighborhood 6. Mr. Gloeckner said that the topography does not lend itself to business zoning, according to discussions that took place during the review of this area at the time of amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Skove moved that the map be left as is. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. (6) Request from Mr. and Mrs. Harry Plummer to show all their property, including their residence Tuckedaway, as commercial. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Plummers have plans for making their residence a country inn. Currently, all their land is zoned commercial. Col. Washington said that he does not know if they can develop their property as they plan, and still meet setbacks from streams for septic fields and meet the scenic highway setback. Mr. Tucker said it is his understanding that they plan to use only their residence for the country inn. Mr. Gloeckner said that he prefers to leave the map as it is shown and if they do decide to proceed with a country inn, a special permit can be applied for. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. (7) Property located on Whitewood Road west of Doctor's Court, shown as CO on the map. The owner is requesting comparable zoning to the existing zoning of B-1. Mr. Gloeckner moved C-1 on this property. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting on the basis that the uses would be too limited. (8) Property located on the corner of Greenbrier and Whitewood, shown on the proposed map as CO. The owner requests comparable zoning to the existing B-1 classification. Mr. Gloeckner moved C-1 for this property. The motion was seconded b- Mr. Skove, and carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting on the basis that the uses would be too limited. C2 7 (9) Property located beside Pizza Inn and proposed for C-1. The owner requests comparable zoning to the existing B-1 district. Mr. Gloeckner moved that this property be shown for C-1 zoning. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting, on the basis that the 1�44d uses will be too limited. (10) Property located near Pizza Inn and owned by Mrs. Mary M. Brown. The owner requests comparable zoning to the existing B-1 district. Mr. Tucker said that in the future when the Brown property develops, the staff would prefer one access with interior roads. He said that the staff recommends HC. Mrs. Diehl said that she is happy with C-1 on both sides of the _road, in this area. Dr. Moore moved that the property be shown as C-1 on the map. Mr. McCann said that this property is on the highway and should be used as much as possible. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that this is where HC designations should be used. Mr. Huffman preferred to follow the recommendation of the staff. The vote was 4-4, with Messrs. Huffman, McCann, Gloeckner, and Vest dissenting. Mr. Huffman moved that the property be shown as Highway Commercial. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which failed by a vote of 4-4, with Mrs. Diehl, Messrs. Washington, Skove, and Moore dissenting. (11) Corner of Dominion and Drive and Shoppers' World, owned by Mr. David Wood and others. Mr. Tucker explained the problems with the easement through Shoppers' World. Mr. Skove said that he cannot support anything that means access onto Dominion Drive. Mr. Gloeckner moved the property be shown as Highway Commercial. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by a vote of 5-3, with Mrs. Diehl and Messrs. Skove and Moore dissenting. Agricultural lands and 20 lot limit: Col. Washington began the discussion by saying that the AF and RR as two districts are not viable because of the arbitrary application and the fact they are not legally defensible. Mr. Tucker said that at this point he is not prepared to address the 20-lot limit, since he has not completed his research on the topic. He said that the staff could support the general concept of one rural zone as presented in the AR text drafted by Mr. Payne, since it gives the county the review over subdivisions that would have an impact on the rural areas of the county. He said that he has been concerned about the large lot provision and eating up the county more quickly. -Z2.5 t Mr. Lindstrom asked the Commission to once again consider his one rural zone as proposed earlier in the year. Mr. Skove said that if the county is stuck with a 2-acre zone, the county will be opened up to some development that is undesirable. He said that some clear decisive evidence is needed with regard to roads in its further deliberation of the rural areas. Mr. McCann said that it appears that some are looking for ways to deny subdivisions. He pointed out that it is only fair that the landowners know exactly what they can and cannot do, and that these provisions be setforth very clearly in the ordinance. Mr. Skove agreed that it is desirable to keep discretion to a minimum. Mr. Huffman said that he feels the Commission should get away from the guise of trying to preserve and protect agriculture. He pointed out that in its deliberations of the Historic District it was determined that agriculture and land use taxation protect historic areas. He said that he objects to protecting the protectorate. Mr. Gloeckner felt that when land is overcontrolled, property is devalued. Dr. Moore said that land can likewise be devalued by undercontrol. Mr. Skove said that subdivision ordinance is a poor tool for controlling - development. Mr. McCann said that the AF district has been a smokescreen for controlling development all along. Mr. Lindstrom stated.that he is concerned with the split rural district, however he feels the concern to protect and preserve agriculture is sincere. He said that the latest proposal for the rural lands does away with any ability to deal with the agricultural land. Most of the subdivisions in the county are less than 20 lots; if the Commission changes its position, the Board will be left with nothing to work and the entire concept of the zoning ordinance will have been gutted. Col. Washington said that he is impressed with the fact that there is incompatibility between large farms with subdivisions in the middle. Mr. Vest said that the special permit process for subdivisions is good, but it will be necessary to determine how many lots are not an encroachment on farmland. He said that 5 and 10 acre lot sizes will certainly not maintain the farms. Mr. McCann said that he would just as soon stay with the two district concept as follow Mr. Lindstrom's original proposal. He said that he would really like to see mandatory clustering provisions after a certain number of lots and get away from the road stripping problems. Mr. Skove said that a 2-acre lot size has not worked in the past. Mr. McCann emphasized that when the demand is there, lots will occur. He did not object to rigid development guidelines, as long as all the rights are not taken from the landowner. 4- Mr. Vest stated that if controlled growth is to occur, the special permit clause must exist. Again he pointed out the importance of determining when a subdivision encroaches upon agriculture. Col. Washington said that he had originally faulted Mr. Lindstrom's proposal because there are many areas of the county that merit a 2-acre density. Mr. Lindstrom said that without two rural zones, one concept or the other is lost. He pointed out there are approximately 6,000 undeveloped 2-acre lots. Mr. Skove said that sometime in the future the county should establish two rural zones, and therefore the staff should continue working on this concept in the next few years so that the necessary criteria is available to properly map the land. Mr. Gloeckner said that whatever the Commission does, specific standards should be set so that people know what they can do by right. He said that it is important to realize quality cannot be regulated or legislated. And quantity is dictated by the desires of the people. Col.Washington said that if there is one rural zone, ideally a conservation district should be applied to the steep slopes. Mr. Skove felt that eventually that could be achieved as well. Mr. McCann said that the farmers are telling the Commission that they want to keep the farmland as long as possible, but want to be able to do something else with the land when farming is no longer possible. He stated that he hopes there is no desire on theCommissionor Board to do away with the possibility. part of the Mr. Gloeckner said that he could not support the concept setforth in Mr. Payne's latest proposal becuase there is no specific criteria for approving special permits and too many things would be arbitrary. He said that the county could deny a subdivision proposal after the owner has spent a forture providing various information that is open-ended in the draft. Mrs. Diehl said that it is impossible to please everybody. Mr. McCann said it would be good to please some of the people who will be radically affected. 6:35 p.m. There was no additional discussion, and the Commission adjourned at GIZR