HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 13 79 PC MinutesDecember 13, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on
Thursday, December 13, 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. Charles Vest;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; and Mr. James Skove. Absent were Mr. James Huffman; Dr. James
Moore; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Also present were Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio;
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director
of planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Doug Eckel, Senior
Planner.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum was present.
Rural Areas - proposal from December 11, 1979
Col. Washington began the meeting by stating that he would like to take
a final vote that day on the zoning text and zoning map and forward both to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Tacker reviewed the latest proposal on the rural lands and explained
the various densities.
Mr. Gloeckner established that these provisions would apply on the date of
adopticn of the zoning ordinance by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Tucker then explained to the Commission that a landowner can accomplish
each of these divisions only once.
Mr. Vest established that the development rights run with the land, and not
the property owner.
The Commission added the following use as a use by right in the rural
district- "17. Tourist Lodging."
Mr. Tucker recommended taking the 32 uses from the RR district and making
them,the special permit uses. There was Planning Commission consensus to do this.
Col. Washington questioned how the historic commercial agricultural productivity
of a property since 1950 is determined.
Mr. Tucker agreed it will be difficult to determine this, except through
hearsay.
Mrs. Diehl felt that the term "agricultural use" should be substituted
for"agricultural productivity", as long as it means forestry, grazing, crops, etc.
There was Planning Commission consensus to do this in those places where
"agricultural productivity" appears in the text.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the distances referred to in Section X.7.2.1 should
be measured from the geometric center of the property in question.
Mr. Tucker said that is the intent.
Col. Washington stated that he feels any proposal of subdivision would
violate the rules of #7 in Section X.7.2.1.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that it is her understanding that school district
lines are changed where there is overcrowding in certain schools.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he interprets #7 as just criteria for consideration
in the review of a subdivision request. For instances, if a new school bus would be
required because of the subdivision, this would be a "minus" in terms of approval.
If it did not necessitate a school bus, this would be a "plus" in terms of approval.
Mr. McCann said that he disapproved of 7(a) under Section X.7.2.1, because
the county really has no control over the busing of students. He said that is not
an item even worth consideration.
Mr. Skove said that he does not think the Commission could deny a subdivision
simply because a new school bus would be required.
At this point Mr. Lindstrom suggested a clause in the preamble addressing
availability of facilities.
Mr. Skove agreed. There was Commission consensus to reword the last sentence
of the first paragraph of X.1 to read as follows: "It is intended that development
occur in locations and at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of the
land and availability of public facilities and it is further intended that impact of
roadside strip development be minimized through the various design requirements
contained herein."
There was additional discussion regarding 7(a) of X.7.2.1. Mrs. Diehl
moved that the Commission retain 7(a). Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried
by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting.
Mr. Gloeckner then questioned if 7(b) is part of the Capital Improvements
Program.
Mr. Tucker said that the county does receive monies from the state from
the gasoline taxes.
Mr. Gloeckner felt 7(b) should be deleted because it doesn't come under
the county's budget expenditures.
Mr. Skove said that he has a lot less problem with this clause because of
the Hilton Enterprises case.
Mr. Payne said that with this provision it is possible to require a developer
to maintain a road at a "tolerable" status.
Mrs. Deihl. then established that if a road is inadequate, the subdivision
would not be denied, rather it would be approved subject to road improvements.
Mr. Skove moved that 7(b) of X.7.2.1 be retained. Mrs. Diehl seconded
the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-2, with Messrs. Gloeckner and McCann
dissenting.
Mr. McCann said that he sees no need for 7(c), since this will become
the county's fire department with increased population in the urban area..
Mr. Gloeckner said that the kind of subdivisions that will be considered
don't warrant this kind of consideration ( for fire companies and/or rescue squads ).
Mr. Vest agreed, noting this would be a poor reason to deny a subdivision.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it would have to be a very large subdivision to
impact these services. He moved that 7(c) be deleted from X.7.2.1.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1 with Mrs. Diehl dissenting.
to
Mr. Skove said that he would like to be able consider if property is
under land use taxation.
Col. Washington felt this would be a part of the historical use of the
property.
Mr. McCann said that it is important to remember that open space is preserved
by land use taxation.
Mrs. Diehl asked that the Commission add to the list of criteria water
resources, mainly because of the cluster concept.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the availability of any scientific data for
determining water resources.
Mr. Skove agreed it is not an exact science, however, he feels it could be
a consideration in large scale development.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed it is a legitimate concern, but did not feel it belongs
in the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl said that she knows there are areas of the county where there
would be no dispute on this matter, and she would like to be able to consider it.
Mr. Payne pointed out that if the occasion arose where there were two
experts with conflicting evidence, the Planning Commission would have to make a
decision based on what information was presented.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Commission could consider things not listed
in this section for approval of a subdivision.
Mr. Payne said that it could not, since that was the idea of the specific
criteria being spelled out.
Mr. Keeler noted that a Certificate of occupancy is not issued by the
county unless there is water. And he noted that the information from the Division
of Mineral Resources cannot be used as a determining factor.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that not even the State Water Control Board can
give specific information on water in this area. He noted that the county is past
the days when it had no control over central wells.
Col. Washington said that he feels this issue can be considered only in
probabilities, and that no exact tools are available for determining water resources.
Mr. McCann said that he does not feel it should be a criterion if it can
be considered only in probabilities.
0y
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission not add water resources as a
criterion for special permit approval of subdivisions.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-2,
with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove dissenting.
Mr. Vest pointed out that this item could always be considered under
the "general health, safety, and welfare" clause.
Col. Washington then said that he realizes that there have been some
split votes throughout the discussion of the zoning text and map, however he feels
it is time the Commission took action to forward both to the Board of Supervisors.
He said that if any individual Planning Commission members have reservations about
certain matters, they could. make individual comments to the Board.
Mr. McCann said that everything seems to be at an impasse. He said that
there are many things he does not like and does not agree with, however he moved
the ordinance be forwarded to the Board.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the Board would like a recommendation one way
or the other.
Mr. McCann withdrew his motion, noting he could not support
a recommendation for approval.
the Commission
Mr. Payne reminded that regardless of the vote, assuming it is a
majority one way or the other, it speaks with one voice.
Mr. Skove moved that the Commission recommend approval of the
zoning text, bearing in mind the individual member reservations on certain items
which may be subject to separate comment.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. McCann said that he feels the ordinance is too restrictive, at this
point in time. He said that perhaps in twenty years this is the kind of ordinance
the county will need, but not now.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that he disagrees with many parts of the zoning text,
however feels it is probably for the good of the county.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting.
Col. Washington asked that the staff notify landowners with individual
zoning requests of the Planning Commission recommendations.
Mrs. Diehl moved the Commission recommend approval of the zoning map,
bearing in mind the individual member reservations on certain items which may be
subject to separate comment. She said that this motion includes replacing the AF and RR
Districts with one rural district, i.e., the Rural Areas District.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that he could not support that motion, because the
Commission has not heard from all the individual landowners in the county.
He said that some areas should be recognized for more intensive development, and the
county needs to change its concept of development only in the north and northwest
directions of the county. He felt that some development should be channeled to
the southern part of the county. He pointed out his problems with dQwnzoning in general.
��S
Mrs. Diehl said that she objects to some portions of the map
because of all the rezonings in the urban area.
Mr. Skove noted that he too has some minor reservations.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion for approval, which carried by a vote of 4-2,
with Messrs. Gloeckner and McCann dissenting.
6:50 p.m.
IR
N
There was no additional business, and the Commission adjourned at
19