Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 11 79 PC MinutesDecember 11, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, December 11, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. James Skove. Absent were Dr. James Moore and Mrs. Joan Graves. Also present were Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of July 16, July 23, July 30, August 16, October 23, November 13, November 19, November 26, and November 28 were approved as submitted. Better Living Incorporated Site Plan: Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, giving the history of the proposal and the attempt the staff and applicant had made toward working with this site plan in regard to a future western by-pass. He noted that the stormwater and storm drainage design plans have been approved by the County Engineer. Mr. Dick Nunley and Mr. John Green were present on behalf of Better Living. There was no public comment. Mr. Greene explained the storm water detention and storm drainage design plans. He said that it is possible that the septic system may be located under the front parking lot, however soils tests have not been completed, and this has not been discussed with the Health Department. He also explained the plans for fire protection. Mr. Huffman moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications; b. Grading permit approval; C. Health Department approval; d. Show septic field location on site plan; e. Staff approval of landscape plan. 2. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval per memo of November 9, 1979; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance and extension of left turn lane at the existing crossover. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Gloeckner said that he has a basic problem with condition 2(b), however if the applicant is agreeable to the condition, he sees no harm in leaving it. Northlea. Farms - individual request from the Watersons for comparable zoning. Mr. Tucker noted that the land is located west of Farmington and is currently zoned R-1. Utilities are available and the Crozet interceptor will run close to the property. Mr. Tucker pointed out that this falls outside the designated urban area and advised the Commission that the Board had reached a consensus that day to delete the watershed area from Neighborhoods 7 and 1. Col. Washington pointed out that this property is in the same watershed and he is therefore inclined to let the zoning remain as proposed. Mr. McCann pointed out that with one utility he would not really object to a 1-acre density for the property, however he has no strong feelings one way or the other. There was Planning Commission consensus for the property to remain at a rural residential designation. The Commission then discussed the recent conference on rural lands held in Fredericksburg. It was pointed out that of the means available to preserve rural lands, zoning and land use are the least effect tools. More effective are transfer of development rights and purchase of development rights. Only land use and zoning are available in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Tucker stated that to preserve rural lands it is necessary to provide incentives in the growth areas, such as water and sewer. It is also important to work with the state legislators to give localities more power so that they could employ the tools of transfer of development rights and purchase of development rights. Mr. Tucker then explained the rural subdivision activity in Albemarle County from September of 1977 to October of 1979. He noted that during this period 856 subdivision plats representing 1602 lots were submitted for approval. Of these, 246 plats( 701 lots ) have been signed for recordation, and fall into the following categories: Plats # lots % Lots 1-2 lots 231 33% 3-5 lots 139 20 6-9 lots 92 13 10-19 lots 159 23 20+ lots 80 11 701 lots 100% The average number of lots per plat is 2.85 lots. He then discussed the analysis of proposal rural districts which have been discussed by the Commission during the past year ( see attached sheets ). Mr. Huffman questioned what the problems with the existing A-1 zone are. Mr. Payne said that the A-1 zone as currently written accepts all land and land uses that are not zoned otherwise. FE Mrs. Diehl felt that the existing A-1 zones does nothing to implement the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. , 1:3- I. ACHIEVING AGRICULTURAL OBJECTIVE - This column addresses preservation of r acreage as a potential resource and does not speak to preservation of activity. Staff assumptions in evaluation are as follows: 1. Conventional lots will be consumed as building sites.regardless of size ( i.e. - 2, 5, or 10 acre ) and will be lost for commercial agricultural purposes. 2. All open space in cluster subdivisions would be available for agricultural usage regardless of acreage. 3. Cluster subdivision applies to 3 lots or more with an average lot size of 1.25 acres. 4. All special use permits would be denied% obviously, assumptions 1 and 2..are of questionable validity. II. ACHIEVING OPEN SPACE OBJECTIVE is evaluated on the basis of perceived open space ( i.e. - low density development ) in addition to ordinance -defined open space. Since this aspect deals with the rural aesthetic, evaluation is difficult. For example, in public hearings, cluster development is at times viewed as "high density" compared to conventional development at the same density. Staff's subjective evaluation employs the existing 2-acre lot as providing moderate satisfaction of perceived open space and assumes denial of all special use permits. III. LIMITING RURAL DEVELOPMENT assumes a continuance of the historical lots/plat distribution of rural development. No change in the rate of rural development is employed. Values given are maximums which assume denial of all special use permits. IV. PRIVATE COSTS relates to expense incurred by a property owner seeking to develop and to reduction in yield as compared to existing A-1 zoning. Depending on ordinance -administration and :market, costs may be real or perceived in certain cases. V. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS relates to staff, Commission, and Board time and expense of administration as compared to existing A-1. Noticeably missing from the evaluation table is Public Costs. Assessment of this topic would require extensive study of costs for provision of public utilities, facilities, and services associated with development in particular context of Albemarle County. -23S s ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED RURAL DISTRICTS Existing A-1 A-1 w/20 lot limit A-1 w/5 lot limit 10+ acre parcels exempt A-1 w/mandatory cluster conv. by special permit; no limit family division exempt 5 acre: conv. lot w/10 lot limit 5 acre: mandatory cluster w/10 lot limit A-1 w/10 lots conv. 11-35 mandatory cluster special permit for 35+ lots BENEFITS COSTS Achieve A ric. Achieve Open Space Limit Rural Dev. Private Cost Admin. Cost 0% mod. 0% low low 11% mod/high 11% low/mod low/ mod 47% high 47% high high 0% 0% high low 25% mod/high 0% low/mod low/-.oc 0% 0% 34% high 34% high high 59% high 34% high 16% mod/high 5% low/mod low/ mod Mr. McCann felt that it is possible, after a year's discussion on the rural lands, to reach the conclusion that the Comprehensive Plan is wrong. Mr. Skove agreed that this is possible, but did not feel this is the appropriate time to discuss that issue. Mr. McCann said that there is nothing wrong with having high goals, but it must be recognized that these goals might be impossible to achieve. When land is productive enough, it will stay in agricultural use and won't be developed. He felt the Commission is trying to regulate something because a small segment of the County population wants to preserve open space. Mr. Huffman pointed out that economics will determine whether a farm is viable or not. Mr. Lindstrom disagreed, noting that after talking to many landowners in the county, the vast majority of citizens want the new zoning ordinance with its goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gloeckner said that theoretically he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom, however he noted that in trying to preserve the agricultural land the county is destroying the farmer economically. Mr. Skove pointed out that the public has inflated the value of the farmer's land by the development rights that exist in the current zoning ordinance. He said that the real estate values are far above the true value of the farms. Mr. Huffman said it is important to remember that the farmer has borrowed money on that value, whether it is an inflated value or not. Mr. Vest said that the Commission has heard very little from the rural farmers, but mostly from the farmers close to the urban area. He said that the rural farmers object to development next door to them, and said that to move away from and give up a way of life, farmers have to have something very attractive presented to them. Mr. Skove said that he has no basic problems with the proposal submitted to the Commission from Col. Washington. Mr. Gloeckner said that in his opinion lot size has nothing to do with the matter. Mr. Payne stated that the lot size depends on the market and who is going to buy the land. He said that 10 acre lots aim at individuals of higher income. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the county might become more attractive with 10-acre lots because the county would become more exclusionary. Col. Washington explained that his proposal employs the concept that sociological conflicts develop between farms and residents of larger subdivisions. He felt that it is possible for farms and subdivisions of 5 lots to co -exist. Mr. Lindstrom explained the proposal he had submitted to the Commission earlier in the year. He felt it is important to have some very specific criteria for granting special use permits, and that these requests would need to be studied on a case -by -case basis. If the topography and soils are found to be best agricultural soils, there would be mandatory clustering of 5-acre lots. If the soils and 0?3 �, topography show that the soils do not fall within the best agricultural soils, there would be no mandatory clustering. Mr. Lindstrom felt that his proposal recognizes that there are best soils in the county, and attempts to preserve them. He said that he recognizes the need to determine on the special permit level the adequacy of soils, topography, roads, and ground water. Additionally, it gives the county the ability to consider two rural zones at a later date when the soils study .is completed in 1981. Mr. Lindstrom felt it is important to minimize growth .in the best agricultural land, and it is important to have a utilities plan for growth in the designated growth areas. Mr. Gloeckner felt the Commission should consider employing the RPN concept for the rural lands. That wale the open space could be made to be more than land that is simply not usable for development. Furthermore, it would place the open space next to what could be a farm. He objected to the special permit because even with the strictest guidelines decisions can be arbitrary and promote corruptness, which the county has had experience with. He said that he believes in uses by right, and the RPN concept could assure that the best agricultural soils would be maintained in the open space. Conditions would be set on a case by case basis. Mr. Payne felt that a by -right RPN is nothing but a cluster subdivision. Mrs. Diehl questioned how one would distinguish between an RPN in a best agricultural soils area and an RPN in another zone as far as open space. Mr. Gloeckner replied that in a best agricultural soils area the open space would have to be the best agricultural soils and the houses would have to be clustered off of those soils. If it is not in a best agricultural soils area the ususable land could be used for the open spare, as it is currently done. Mr. Payne pointed out that not infrequently those are the same thing, and cited the flood plain area as an example. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that it could be the same. The RPN was the first attempt at preserving the character of Albemarle County and it was the first concept at permitting open space. Now the county has the concept of best agricultural open space, and there could be rules for the RPN that would incorporate not only the best agricultural soils, but also the internal roads and clustering. Mr. Payne said that this would provide several alternatives, and he would use this concept which is in a sense a rezoning. He saw the alternatives as having practically no development by right and only development by RPN as a rezoning. In that case the county would have all carefully reviewed development. That is legally sustainable, and takes away the problem farmers have with uses by right. That is the ideal. The other alternative where there is not really an RPN at all, but clustering by right is permitted - in other words it looks the same as if there is an RPN but no rezoning is required. That is why he would not term this an "RPN." Mr. Gloeckner felt that the two concepts could work together. Mr. Payne noted that the way it is now is something in the middle of those two alternatives, because there is the alternative concept of conventional development at whatever density. One problem with that concept is that the developer can threaten conventional development if not permitted the RPN type development. Mandatory clustering would provide the same result as an RPN, and there would be no alternative for larger scale developments.One would have to cluster. Mrs. Diehl saw no advantage to either of these with the 2-acre zoning. She could see an overall advantage only if the size of the zone is changed to 5-acres. That way a significant amount of land would be left for the agricultural area. Mr. Gloeckner said that he was thinking more in terms of three acres. He noted there is quite a bit of distance between units if two 3-acre lots are pushed together. He felt that five acre lots are very exclusive type lots, since they are just not that attainable for the average person. Col. Washington noted that when the Commission was discussing the AF district, it came very close to voting in a 5 acre lot size. The RR district had already been adopted with a 2-acre basis, and it covered approximately 2/3 of the county. He noted that the concept of the best agricultural soils has been lost, as noted in its application on the map and the fact that it might not therefore be legally defensible. He felt there is a legitimate need, county wide, for a 2-acre lot size in small scale. He noted the criteria for approving special use permits, and said that it breaks down in the statement regarding "other data which the Commission may wish." He felt that the restrictive measures applied to the AF, when applied to the entire rural area of the county, is a matter of "overkill." That is why he supports the concept of five two -acre lots as a use by right. That will take care of even "little people" who cannot afford the five acres. Then additionally, there is the family division. Col. Washington felt the Commission would be wrong not to provide for the ordinary citizen. Mrs. Diehl said that she is not sure how much is there for the ordinary citizen now. Mr. Gloeckner said that he could support the Colonel's concept. Mr. Huffman said that if up to 10 lots were addressed, the Commission would be taking care of up to 66% of the kinds of subdivisions that have been approved in the past two years, that have been recorded. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that in earlier discussions, the Commission has talked about addressing the number of lots that would be compensurate with the Comprehensive Plan as well as lelall.y defensible. She noted the chart in the Plan that speaks to small subdivisions, which is 5-20 parcels. In her opinion the cutoff should be 5 parcels, and that would be a defensible base on which to start. Mr. Gloeckner suggested five by right with staff approval, and 10 by right, but reviewed by the Planning Commission. He said that he is attempting some sort of compromise from all the previous discussions. Then the larger subdivisons could be addressed through the special permit stage. Anything over that size subdivision would be an RPN, or a rezoning. Mrs. Diehl questioned where the criteria would fit in. Mr. Gloeckner said that the criteria would be everything that the Commission has talked about, i.e., if there were a cluster subdivision after 10 lots, a certain part of that subdivision would have to be open space. So much open space would have to be set aside at the time of clustering, though this would be a use by right. MrR. Diehl said that she has problems with the uses by right if the Commission is using the criteria of the roads, available amenities. She said that she is addressing such things as off site road improvements where the road is determined to be inadequate. Mr. Gloeckner said that he does not feel there will be better roads until there is a demand. To use roads as a criteria, when there is no one available, except oiit of intuition, to say whether a road is safe or unsafe is not right. What is important is that the interior roads are adequate. Mrs. Diehl said that she sees no way to improve the roads unless there is a way to create a strong lobby to get funds released from the state. And she said that she does not see that happening unless developers are somewhat restricted. Mr. Gloeckner noted the chart on previous subdivision activity, and pointed out that it seems apparent that not that many large subdivisions are going to be proposed. What the Commission should be concerned about is controlling the sprawl down at the lower level of development. Lot size will be established and there will be a maximum lot size as well. Mr. Payne said that the law is becoming more specific in terms of what can and cannot be required for special permit approval. Mr. Skove said that a special permitstateswhat is permitted under certain circumstances. Mr. Lindstrom said that in determining the appropriateness of a special permit, the county has to be able to determine if the criteria have been met, such as soils, topography, water, etc. and it is the County that should bear the burden of analysing this data. If all uses are by right, there is no way that the county has the ability to deny subdivisions. He said that he has talked to members of the property owners'sassociation and had them say they are willing to hay=e 10 lots and anything more with special permits with specific criteria. Mrs. Diehl said that she has heard the same remarks, and she too agrees that the criteria for special permits must be specific. She said that the special permits must be .judged on criteria because it is the only way one can properly address the best agricultutal soils. Mr. Lindstrom stated that clustering addresses best agricultural soils. And only special permits can address the infrastructure. He said that the county has a right to modify one's property rights because the public has invested in the utilities in the county. Additionally, he felt that there is a lot of land in Albemarle County that is not suitable for development. He said that he is concerned that. the Board of Supervisors have as much flexibility as possible in dealing with the issue of rural lands and some of the proposals he has heard the Commission discuss lend no flexibility to the Board. He said that any compromise reached at this time would not represent the various views expressed in the last few months while the issue was under discussion. He suggested that the best alternative might be to send all the prnpoGals ever discussed by the Commission to the Board and let them take it from there. Col. Washington felt that it is important the Commission forward the ordinance to the Board, if possible, with a recommendation on what amounts to 90% of the county. Mr. McCann felt the Commission should forward some recommendation on the rural lands so that the Commission, as planners, has had some input into the ordinance. He felt it is important to have uses by right. Mr. Gloeckner felt that there would be a basic weakness or infirmity in the ordinance if the Commission had made no recommendation on the rural areas that would be more easily challenged in court. He felt the Commission should do away with as many adversary positions as possible by compromising. Mr. Gloeckner made the following motion: 1. Up to five 2-acre lots to be permitted by right, with staff approval; 2. From 6-20 lots, with a 5-acre density, and mandatory clustering, to be permitted by right with Planning Commission review; or from 6-20 lots, at 2-acre density by special permit with specific criteria for approval; 3. Anything over 20 lots by special permit, with a five acre density. 4. RPN concept to be applicable throughout. Mr. Gloeckner felt that part (1) of this motion would address everyone's ability to own their own land. Part (2) speaks to clustering and subdivision by right and will maintain the farmland and open space. Mr. Tucker clarified that when one moves to the special permit ( the t-20 lots ) a conventional subdivision would necessitate a special permit. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that this is correct. This provides opportunity for everyone. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, to keep it on the floor. Mr. Gloeckner again, at the request of Mr. McCann, explained the motion. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-2-1, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove dissenting, and Mr. McCann abstaining. Mrs. Diehl said that she voted against the motion because she does not know enough about it at this time. Mr. Skove said tht he would like to take a further look at the proposal prior to making a final decision on it. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. with no further business. 9