Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 22 81 PC MinutesJanuary 22, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on January 22, 1981, at 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Allen Kindrick. Absent from the meeting were .Mr. Corwith Davis and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Keeler had sent a memorandum to each Commissioner outlining the changes the Board made from the Planning Commission's recommendations, and he was primarily going to speak to these changes. Mr. Tucker noted that the major textual change was to the RA (Rural Area) district. What appears in the ordinance is not what the Board had intended to adopt. The difference is for each parcel of record, at the date of adoption of the ordinance, that property would have five (5) development rights that could be divided into parcels less than twenty-one (21) acres in size, with a minimum lot size of two (2) acres. He also noted that one would have an unlimited division right of twenty-one (21) acre parcel or greater. One must assign which parcel gets the five (5) development rights, if one chooses to divide his entire property into twenty-one (21) acre parcels or greater. Mr. Gloeckner inquired how the residue would fit into this proposal. Mr. Tucker replied that the residue could only be created if it is greater than twenty-one (21) acres. Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that one could only have five (5) tracts on a parcel. Mr. Tucker noted that another significant change that the Board had made was in the criteria for approving a special use permit in the RA district. If one wanted to divide his property into more than five (5) parcels he would need to obtain a special use permit. Secondly, he noted that another change the Board had made was in the criteria dealing with land within the watershed impoundment area, stating that this would be significant as to whether or not the special use permit was granted. Mr. Tucker explained that the language in the RA district gives the Board more discretion in approval. The planning Commission's recommendation to the Board indicated that if all the criteria were met, then the special use permit would be granted. The Board changed the word "shall" to "may." Mr. Tucker noted that another significant change in the RA district was in the uses permitted. Churches must now obtain a special use permit, in the previous ordinance they were by right. The Board deleted from special use permit in the RA district the following: temporary horseshow grounds, hospital, profesional office buildings, sand and gravel pits, temporary trailer parks, and home for adults. 11 *26- Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt it was unfair to delete professional office buildings and veterinary offices. Mr. Tucker explained that veterinary services are provided for by right in the RA district, for off site treatment only. Mr. Tucker noted that the Board also made changes dealing with open space, adding to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Board added three uses to Section 4.7.2 which are as follows: 1) public utilities; 2) wells and septic systems for emergency use only; 3) stormwater detention and flood control devices; Another significant change is that minimum open space required for a PUD, PRD, or bonus criteria, only 30% of that minimum area required can be devoted to steep slopes, flood plain, utility easements, etc. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this seems to contradict the protection of the steep slopes, noting that if a developer is forced to include these in his development they will be used instead of set aside. Mr. Tucker stated that one could put at least 30% in steep slopes, the primary intent being to provide usable open space rather than all of the open space devoted to steep slopes and flood plain. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the developer will include this in lots and then back yards, dog pens etc., will be on the steep slopes. Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt there should be some restriction to keep from having all of the open space in the slope area. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this should be discussed further. He questioned the Board's intent, are they trying to prohibit entirely the use of putting steep slopes into open space or are they trying to protect the land? Mr. Tucker noted that on the majority of the previous plans reviewed by the Planning Commission, most of the open space had no usable area for playgrounds, ball fields, etc. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would be interested in finding out how the 30% figure was derived. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this seems to contradict the idea of open space in the RA district. Mr. Bowerman stated that perhaps the intent of the Board was a reduction of the number of lots in order to obtain the open space. Mr. Gloeckner stated that his concern was that the flood plain would be put into lots as part of the area requirements. Mr. Tucker stated that he would attempt to find out how the 30% figure was derived. M Mr. Tucker noted that in the critical slopes section of the ordinance, the Board provided an exemption clause. This exempts an existing lot of record, provided that lot does not have a building site, from the critical slopes criteria requirements. Any lot created after the adoption of this ordinance must adhere to the critical slope criteria, with 30,000 square feet building site area. Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the 30,000 square feet was for a house site and two (2) septic fields. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if there was an engineering procedure for any new lots created outside of this critical slope area. Mr. Tucker stated that with the County Engineer's recommendation one could seek modification to the requirements of building on 25% slopes, which is also one of the requirements of this section. Mr. Tucker stated that septic systems were encouraged not to be located on 20% or greater slopes, but the County Engineer could recommend modification on this also. He also noted that the applicant must seek modification from the Commission. Mrs. Graves inquired if the critical slope applies if one has a central sewerage system. Mr. Tucker replied that the building site requirements did not apply, but noted that one could not build on 25% or greater slopes. Mr. Gloeckner stated that one almost had to present architectural drawings prior to lot approval. He also stated that he did not mind the restriction, but it does not correspond with what is being done in terms of construction. Mrs. Diehl stated that looking at the general, over-all picture for construction in Albemarle County, this is the exception rather that the rule, for stilt building. Mr. Bowerman stated that there should be a note on the plat so that the buyer is aware of the type of construction he could build. Mr. Skove pointed out that the Commission could not approve this plat because there would not be architectural drawings. Mr. Gloeckner stated that a plat could be approved subject to the engineer's approval, noting, however, that the Planning Commission could be approving a parcel in this case which might not be buildable. Mr. Skove stated that he felt this would not be as necessary in a large lot subdivision, and that it would probably be on an unique parcel of land. Mr. Tucker reiterated that the changes the Board made from the Planning Commission's recommendation was the change in the slope area wheresepticfields were encouraged to be built at 20%, and the exemption clause for existing lots of record. 27 Mr. Tucker stated that the major changes in the non--conformaing section of the ordinance is that any activity, structure, or building that is lawfully in existence at the adoption of this ordinance, could be rebuilt if destroyed. He pointed out that before, the only structure that could be rebuilt that was previously IV) non -conforming was a residence. Mr. Tucker explained that the purpose of non -conforming uses is when you rezone an area and make it non -conforming you are basically saying that this is not the type of use that really belongs there, it is inappropriate. The theory is that a locality will make a property non -conforming so that when it changes use, the new use must conform with the zoning that is appropriate. Mrs. Diehl inquired if one could change the use of the property and then sell it. Mr. Tucker replied that one could not change the use of the property but could sell it as long as it had not been abandoned for two years. Mr. Bowerman inquired what was the intent of the Board, pertaining to this section. Mr. Tucker replied that the Board felt that there were some uses that could be considered spot zoning if recognized, and the fact that they could change the non -conforming section and still allow these uses to be rebuilt if they were destroyed seemed more appropriate than creating a spot zoning situation. Mr. Tucker noted that recreational requirements in the old ordinance was provided for only in the R-3 district and required fifty (50) square feet of recreational area per unit. This same standard is provided for in the R-4 district and allows four (4) units per acre. He also noted that this requirement pertains to develop- ments that have thirty (30) units or more. The reason for this is developments with thirty (30) units or more would have approximately ten (10) children, and some playground equipment etc., should be provided. Mr. Tucker noted that the Board added a new commercial district, entitled Planned Development -Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) that was not a part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. He explained that this district was added in order to provide some control on large commercially zoned property and primarily to control transportation facilities and access to the property. He also pointed out that there was only one area - Pantops - that has this zoning at the present time. This district allows for control of access and transportation circulation, in order to keep U.S. 250E from having curb cuts every 100'. The developer rust submit a transportation analysis when development occurs. He also noted that this district allows all the commercial uses that are provided in the ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner inquired what is the status of: Free Bridge, is, this part of the six year plan. Mr. Tucker replied that is proposed in the CAT Study to make improvements. The CAT Study basically is to leave Free Bridge as is, and to build another bridge from High Street to tie in with Route 20N. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this should be done before the density on that side of the river gets out of hand. f e 2" Mr. Tucker noted that the Board dropped the Conservation District because they felt there was no need for it with the criterion placed in the RA District as this district was more restrictive. Mr. Tucker explained that with reference to the map, the Board did not adopt the detailed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan until after the Planning Commission had worked on the zoning map, noting that the changes in the Comprehensive Plan would ultimately cause changes in the zoning map. The most significant change was in the Pantops area, which called for a decrease in the density of this area. There is still a significant amount of Commercial zoning in the area although there is some change in the intensity of commerciall zoning, most of this was B-1. The area is now zoned either CO, C-1, HC or mixed commercial; also a decrease in residential density has been provided. Mr. Tucker noted that the Board added a portion of the Biscuit Run area to the southern part of the Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan. He also pointed out that it did not extend as far as some of the Biscuit Run plans that the Commission has seen, it runs basically to an east -west flowing stream and the Board recognized everything to the north of this stream as part of the urban area. Mr. Tucker noted that Lake Reynovia was in the Conservation District, now it is zoned RA (Rural Areas). Mrs. Diehl inquired if the Board had removed any of the high density, R-15 District, that the Planning Commission had recommended in the area near I-64 and Rt. 631. Mr. Tucker replied that the Board did not change the zoning surronding Sherwood Manor or across the interstate, however, the land between the interstate and Rt. 631 was changed to R-2. He also noted that the Planning Commission had recommended R-6 and more commercial zoning in this area. The Board only recognized the area where the Seven -Eleven Store and the Oak Hill Store is located as commercial use. Mr. Tucker noted that the most significant change was in the area of the watershed. The Planning Commission recommended a down -zoning, using the old urban area line, which was Ivy Creek and the reservoir as the boundary of the urban area, proposing one acre density. The Board deleted the watershed from the urban area, noting that existing uses would be the only zoning recognized. The remainder of the area was changed to RA (Rural Area) district. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the commercial zoning was removed in the following areas: 1) the vacant commercial area at Interstate 64 and Route 616 (Black Cat Road Area); 2) the vacant commercial area on 25OW (Crozet) from Rt. 240 to and including Interstate 64 and Route 250W; 3) the vacant commercial zoning east of the interchange of I-64 and Rt. 250E. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the commercial zoning at the interchange itself was removed. 2� Mr. Gloeckner inquired as to what is recognized as Natural Resource. Mr. Tucker replied that Luck Quarry and Martin Marietta properties were recognized as Natural Resource District Overlay. Mrs. Diehl inquired if the parcel of land on the south side of Rt. 708, which the Planning Commission rezoned as Industrial, is shown as Natural Resource. Mr. Tucker replied "yes." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had recommended R-10 zoning for the vacant area along the SPCA Road, because of the medium density shown in the Comprehensive Plan, The Board reduced the density to R-6. Mr. Gloeckner asked if there was a change in the village area. Mr. Tucker replied that this remained the same except that country stores, not within a village growth area, were not recognized. Mr. Skove ascertained that country stores were considered non -conforming. Mr. Gloeckner inquired if there were any changes in the Proffit Road area. Mr. Tucker replied that the Commission had recognized the existing subdivisions (Terrybrook, Springfield, etc.) as R-1. The Board changed this to non -conforming because they are outside the Hollymead growth area. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Tucker to explain how the bonuses work into the plans that the Commission reviews. Mr. Tucker noted the following points: 1) Environmental Standards - for the maintenance of existing trees and other significant natural features that conform to the existing landscape character of a village, the density can not exceed 10% per dwelling unit per acre; 2) Development Standards - for serving all lots within the internal road system which is the sole access to the existing state maintained road system, one could get a 20% density increase. Mr. Bowerman questioned the 20% increase for internal roads. Mr. Tucker replied that the purpose of this was to act as an incentive against road stripping. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he did not understand why the developers were not using bonuses but getting lot size credit. Mr. Tucker replied that the Planning Commission had to decide whether this was appropriate. He also stated that the staff looked at it from the point of view that the developer had achieved the bonus, but did not take advantage of the increase in density but wanted the lot size credit. Mr. Tucker noted that there was no requirement that stated one had to utilize the 10% bonus in order to obtain the cluster provisions. Mrs. Diehl stated that this should be discussed further, at a later date. Mr. Bowerman stated that there should be some tie-in between the number of bonus points and the down sizing of the lots from conventional to minimum lot size. Mr. Tucker noted that the developer could submit this as a PRD and achieve the same thing. Mr. Tucker stated that minimum lot size can only be achieveable where there is water and sewer. He also noted that some different language might be added which would allow the Commission to decide if the bonus was appropriate. Mr. Gloeckner gave a brief presentation of engineering aspects of site development. He explained to the Commission the procedure for drawing a topographical map, and noted the amount of work required for preparing a plan. Manis Sullivan or Daniel Yoder Estate - Request to change an easement. Mr. Tucker presented copies of a plat approved by the Commission in August, signed by Col. Washington and Mr. Tucker. He also presented copies of a plat showing the requested amendment. Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant wanted to change the easement and remove the sharp curve of the road, bringing the easement up and tying back into the existing road. Mr. Skove moved for approval to accept the amended plan. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. art W. ►-- Too- ( e. v(. Tucker, Jr.,