HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 09 85 PC MinutesApril 9, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, April 9, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Tim Michel.
other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Mr. James Skove and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after estab-
lishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the March 26, 1985 meeting were approved as
written.
ZMA-85-3 Douglas White - Proposal to rezone 3.190 acres from VR,
Village Residential to CO, Commercial Office. Tax Map 130A(l),
Parcel 49. Scottsville Magisterial District. Property, located
north of Scottsville on the west side of Route 20 across Rt.
726 from Scottsville Shopping Center. DEFERRED FROM APRIL 2, 1985.
Mr. Keeler gave a brief review of the application. He stated
,tire the applicant has offered a proffer which addresses the concerns
of staff and therefore staff is recommending approval. The
proffer is as follows:
1. Access to the 3.190 acre parcel shall be limited to
State Route 726 only.
2. Commercial use of the property shall be limited to the
existing residential dwelling now located on the 3.190
acre parcel.
The applicant was present but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated the proffer addressed the concerns of the
staff and the Commission.
Mr. Gould read the conditions of approval as outlined on the
initial staff report as follows:
1. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of commercial entrance. Access restricted to Rt. 726.
2. Virginia Department of Health approval of septic system.
3. County Engineer and Planning staff approval of entrance
road, parking area, and paving specifications.
4. Building and Fire Official approvals.
150
April 9, 1985
Page 2
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-3 for Douglas White be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the proffer *MOO
submitted by the applicant (as previously stated) with staff
to be granted administrative approval of a sketch plan in lieu
of site plan requirement, subject to conditions of staff (as
previously stated).
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion; which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on May 1, 1985.
ZMA-85-2 Blake Hurt/Larry McElwain - Request to rezone 1.691 acres
from R-4, Residential to C-1 Commercial. Property, described as
Tax Map 61W2, part of parcel 45, is located on the east side of
Greenbrier Drive near Wynridge, approximately 0.1 mile north of
the intersection with Whitewood Road. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. DEFERRED FROM MARCH 19, 1985.
Mr. Keeler gave a review of the application. He stated that staff
had recommended denial of this application based on a review of
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He added that
staff had recommended an alternative plan and the Commission
had deferred the item to allow time for the applicant to meet
with neighboring property owners and staff in order to address
concerns of the staff, Commission and neighbors.
It was determined that no significant discussions have taken place
between the applicant and staff and no meetings have taken place
with neighboring property owners.
Mr. Keeler stated a proffer had been received from the applicant
which dealt only with not using the property for automobile service
stations or automobile repair shops and with the intention to
comply with the new proposed landscaping requirements regarding
screening and buffering between C-1 and residential property.
Mr. Keeler stated it had been staff's recommendation that only
the pipestem of the piece of property be rezoned and the applicant
is still proposing the rezoning of the entire acreage.
Mr. Keeler stated a letter had been received from Mr. Hurt, the seller
of the property, which offered different proffers than those
presented by Mr. Wood, the purchaser. He pointed out that it
was Mr. Wood's letter which is significant to this issue.
Mr. Keeler stated the proffers, as submitted, would apply only to
that land for which the rezoning is sought at this time.
It was determined the concerns of the Commission and staff had
dealt with buffering and screening, location of undersirable
features, permitted uses, hours of operation and access to
Greenbrier Drive.
April 9, 1985
Page 3
em
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wood addressed the Commission. He stated Mr. Hurt has an
odd -shaped and seemingly unusable piece of land which wraps
around his property. He said he has contracted to purchase
this land from Mr. Hurt if it can be rezoned. He agreed that
the letter of proffer he had submitted was vague and does not
clearly express the intent of the applicant. He stated his
proffer not to allow an automobile service station or repair
shop (which he felt to be the most undesirable uses in the C-1
zone) applied not only to the property in question, but also
to the property already owned by the applicant. He stated
he is prepared to meet the requirements for a buffer between
the property and the residential area in any way the ordinance
requires.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Keeler explained
the configuration of the property. He also explained that the
50 feet buffer to which Mr. Wood had referred is a set back
which speaks to buildings, but not to parking or location of
dumpsters, etc. He said that currently the ordinance does
not require that that area be landscaped.
Mr. Wood stated the applicant has no plans for the development
of this property at the present time, so he felt it was not
possible to determine the location of the road, etc.
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission. He stated that all
three parcels could be developed separately, but he felt
planning would be easier if it were developed as one parcel,
eliminating the possibility of three separate entrances. He
also stated that if left with this odd -shaped parcel, he
would have to develop it at a higher intensity than what
it will be developed at if added to Mr. Wood's property.
Mr. Keeler stated that Mr. Hurt's letter had requested that
the Commission consider this proposal as a consolidation of
three separate parcels into one.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Jim Garmey, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission. He stated he was speaking on behalf of himself
and his neighbors and read the following statement:
60
April 9, 1985
Page 4
My name is Jim Garmey and I was asked to speak on behalf of my
neighbors. My remarks tonight are the result of a meeting we had
last night to discuss the rezoning of parcel 2MA-t5-2. At that
meeting, we discussed both the original proposal and staff report
presented last month. From this discussion we determined some
conditions we would like you to consider in your decision. They
are as followsi
1 Permit only the rezoning of the "Apipestem to C-1.
Th?'s rezoning would increase usable building.. space
by 44% and .increase the development potential of
.lots 46 & 41,.
2- Maintain the upper triangular areas in their present
state as common ground. This area would act as a
buffer strip between the residential and coruoercial
communities.
3. Plant supplemental evergreens against the buffer
strip to more clearly define the separation between
these two areas.
4. Limit the use of the property in order that it be
consistent with our family oriented residential
ccmmunity. We suggest admin.tstr-.— e et professional
o i.ces which would limit their operations to normal
weekday, daytime hours.
�. Desipz 'the buildings to be in keeping with the st le
of the current development.,
We hope you can see from these conditions we ask you to cc•nsi;ler,
that our primary interest is in preserving the nature, integrity,
and stability or our neighborhood.
In ad6l tion to these proposed conditl,)ns, several other ronr.erns
and frustrations surfaced at our meeting last night. We. would
like to present jome of these at t ifs time.
1. It was suggested Inst month that the developer meet
with us prior to this moeting tor.igi,t• No ap hire;rt
rttHmpt was raurde by the developer too arr�Ynh;e Uii,,e
meetinal.
2. As we expressed at the last meeting, several of ua
were told when we bought property in Wynridge, that
the woodland behind our homes was cos,mori ground which
was to remain in its natural state. We bought our
property with this understanding.
3. Already we have noticed an increase in pedestrian
traffic from surrounding neighborhoods. Commercial
development of the property behind Wynridge could
potentially increase this and the problems associated
with this traffic.
Finally, we have tried to inform ourselves of your intentions
for the highest and best use of our neighborhood. In the
Comprehensive Plan Wynridge is liated as low density residential.
We surmAse from this information that the zoning for parcels 46 &
47 predate the Comprehensi.-.re Plan. Therefore, we realize this is
a problem for both of us. However, we respect the work you have
done th'.as far and would like to sae you continue with your recom-
mendatiatis put forward in the Comprehensive Plan to "limit
developwi!at west of 29N to primarily residential areas.*
We all have purchased property in Wynridge subdivision because .
we found .it a nice place to raise a family, retire, or j.:at
simply call home. Please help us in m:-A n.tai%ing 3 stable, resi-
dential neighborhood as we understood its original intention
to be.
April 9, 1985 Page 5
Mr. Frank Jones addressed the Commission and read a statement
�40 of opposition from Mr. Martin Beakman and Ms. Dorothy Tarl.eton.
Mr. Phil Braun, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission and stated he was interested in knowing what the
plans are for the property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated it was the Commission's intent that the
applicant meet with the neighboring property owners
to discuss their concerns. He said it does not appear that any
concerns have been addressed, and the request is the same as
it was when originally presented to the Commission on March 19.
He said he could not support the application in its present
form since this a sensitive area adjacent to a residential area.
He stated he felt this property deserved better treatment
than what was currently being proposed.
Ms. Diehl indicated she was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman and
felt the rezoning would create an untolerable situation for
the residential area.
Mr. Michel indicated he was opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was opposed to the rezoning and stated
°fir.► he felt more information was needed as to the future plans
for the property.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-85-2 for Blake Hurt/Larry McElwain
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on April 17,
1985.
ZMA-84-24 Crozet Kiln Drying Company, Inc. - Request to rezone
5.37 acres (woodyard) from C-1, Commercial to HI, Heavy Industry.
Property, described as Tax Map 56A2, parcel 71 and 71B is located
on the south side of Route 240 in Crozet (Barnes Lumber Company).
White Hall Magisterial District. DEFERRED FROM APRIL 2, 1985.
The Chairman stated the applicant has requested indefinite
deferral of this application.
It was determined there was no public comment on the application.
Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-84-24 for Crozet Kiln Drying Company,
Inc. be indefinitely deferred.
*W Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously
approved.
April 9, 1985 Page 6
Cookenour Site Plan Waiver - Located on east side of Route 722
approximately one-half mile south of its intersection with Route 6.
Proposal to locate third dwelling unit (mobile home) on a 42
acre site. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 127, parcel 45.
Scottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report.
In was determined the special permit that had been obtained by
the applicant was subject to the usual conditions of approval.
Mr. Cookenour, the applicant, was present, but offered no
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Joseph stated she had not reviewed the special permit
application in relation to location of the mobile home, but
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the special permit applications usually
do show the proposed location.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Cookenour Site Plan Waiver be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the
following conditions of approval have been met:
a. Health Department approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Cronemeyer Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 20.4 acres into
4 lots with an average ±5 acres. Two lots to be served by
individual entrances off the state road, and request a waiver of
Section 18-36f of the Subdivision Ordinance to do so. Two lots
to be served by proposed private road off an existing private road.
Property is located on the north side of Route 676 East, approx-
imately 0.2 mile east of its intersection with Route 614 at
Ownesville. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 43, parcel 6, Jack
Jouett Magisterial District.
It was determined staff was requesting that this item be deferred
until April 16 to allow additional time for review.
It was determined there was no public comment on this application.
Mr. Michel moved that the Cronemeyer Preliminary Plat be deferred
until April 16.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
.�63
April 9, 1985
Page 7
At this point the meeting was running ahead of scheduled agenda
times; therefore, rather than proceed with the next agenda item,
Mr. Bowerman stated a discussion of the items listed under
"Old Business" would take place at this time.
1984 Annual Report - The Commission discussed the Annual Report
as prepared by Mr. Cogan and Mr. Wilkerson.
Mr. Gould moved that the annual report be adopted with the following
changes:
--The last two sentences of the paragraph beginning "New
projects..." on page 2 shall become a separate
paragraph, beginning with "The commission acted..." and
ending with "...Site Review Committee."
--The second sentence of the fourth paragraph on page
3 shall be changed to read: "Toward the end of 1984 the
commission acted upon the revision of the R-4 and greater
density zones to incorporate a minimum lot size: that
issue will also be coming up for public hearing."
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion and the annual report was unanimously
adopted.
Mr. Bowerman commended Mr. Cogan and Mr. Wilkerson for their work
on the report.
Mr. Bowerman directed that the report be re -typed with the above
changes and sent on to the Board under his signature.
Joint Meeting with the Board of Supervisors (April 2, 1985) - Mr.
Bowerman gave a brief review of this meeting and offered the
following comments:
--Messrs. Bowerman, Michel and Wilkerson and Ms. Diehl had
attended the meeting.
--Regarding the possible deletion of the bonuses for low
and moderate cost housing, Mr. Fisher had indicated lie
hated seeing this dropped.
--Regarding the East-West Connector, the Commission had
recommended that the section from Avon Street to Rt. 631
be dropped, but the Board had deferred action.
--Regarding the Highway Department's sidewalk policy, it
was determined the Highway Department is not accepting any
additional sidewalks. There had been a brief discussion
of a special assessment zone covering just the maintenance
of sidewalks in a given area since more people benefit
from the sidewalks than just those living in a particular
development.
M
April 9, 1985 Page 8
Cross Roads Wrecker Service and Garage Site Plan - Proposal to
locate a one-story building of 1,920 square feet for an automo-
bile, truck repair shop and wrecker service, to be served by 11
parking spaces on a 29,882 square foot parcel. Property is
located on the north bound lane of U.S. Route 29 South, adjacent
on the north side of the Cross Roads Store. Zoned C-1, Commercial.
Tax Map 99, Parcel 1A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report and stated staff was recommending
deferral in order to allow the site time to stabilize and to allow
the County Engineer time to submit a report.
It was determined the applicant was nctpresent, but had been under
the impression that he was not required to be present.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Eleanor May presented a written statement to the Commission.
(Ms. May did not read this statement.)
Mr. Ronald Cutwright, an adjoining landowner, addressed the
Commission and referred to a letter he had written opposing
the application.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
It was determined the Commission is required to take action on
the application within 60 days of its submittal, and there are
currently 24 days left of this period.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the matter be deferred for three weeks
in order to allow time for the site to stabilize and to allow
the County Engineer time to submit a report.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Cross Roads Wrecker Service and Garage
Site Plan be deferred until April 30.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
The meeting recessed at 8:30; reconvened at 8:50.
ZTA-85-4 - The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent
to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for automobile body
shop as a use by special use permit in the LI, Light Industrial
District, as a use by right in the HI, Heavy Industrial District;
also to provide a definition of automobile body shop, automobile
truck repair and automobile service station.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
It was determined Mr. Payne had not assisted in the wording of
the amendment, but Mr. Tompkins, the Zoning Administrator, had
made suggestions for some of the wording.
April 9, 1985
Page 9
A discussion of the definition of Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental
took place since there was some question about the words "...and
including as accessory to such use ... bodywork, carriage straight-
ening and spray painting...." Mr. Cogan stated he felt there was
a very fine line between body work that takes place at an auto-
mobile dealership and that which takes place at an automobile
body shop. Mr. Payne stated the key word was "accessory" but
agreed there really was no difference. It was determined the
Commission did not wish to preclude body work that takes place
at dealerships.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Wood, representing the Taylor Body Shop application, (which
had instigated this amendment), addressed the Commission and
stated a grim picture had been painted of auto body shops which
he did not feel was justified, since the processes now used are
not as objectionable as they once were.
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission and stated he was in
favor of allowing dealerships to do body work.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about buffering between
Highway Commercial and Residential, Mr. Keeler stated in some
*40, cases Highway Commercial goes right into Residential. He
referred particularly to Rt. 29N.
Mr. Bowerman stated the only differences he could see between the
two situations were in relation to the scale of the operation
and the amount of land that goes with a dealership, the amount of
inside space available and the security that goes with a
dealership. He also stated he did not think there were any
dealerships in the County which are adjacent to residential areas.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt that was the main issue, i.e. having
the body shops in the industrial zones since they are generally
much better buffered from residential districts than are C-1
zones.
Mr. Payne stated it seemed to be the feeling of the Commission
that they were not opposed to properly run auto body shops
in appropriate locations. He suggested a way to deal with their
concerns was to amend the definition of Motor Vehicle Sales
and Rental by deleting the words "bodywork, carriage straightening
and spray painting of the same" and by adding auto body shops
as a use by special permit in the Highway Commercial zone.
It was determined the proposed amendment would be changed as
follows:
*'"" • Under 3.0 DEFINITIONS:
Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental: A place where motor vehicles
April 9, 1985
Page 10
are offered for sale, lease, or rent and including as
accessory to such use the inspection, maintenance and
mechanical repair of such vehicles.
e Add the following:
7) Amend the HC, Highway Commercial district to include
by special use permit:
24.2.2.12 Automobile Body Shop
Mr. Cogan moved that ZTA-85-4 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
provide for automobile body shop as a use by special use permit
in the LI, Light Industrial District, as a use by right in the HI,
Heavy Industrial District, and to provide definition of automobile
body shop, automobile truck repair and automobile service station
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for adoption as follows:
1) Add to 3.0 ULFINITIONS the following:
Automobile Service Station: A place where gasoline, oils, gre..ases are dispensed
to motor vehicles, including sale of automobile sundries and/or for the inspection,
maintenanc.e,mechanical repair and equipping of motor vehicles, Including one or
more of the following: engine, ignition and electrical, exhaust, suspension and
steering, brake, clutch, drive shaft and axle, and fuel systems, glass, upholstery,
and installation/repair of tires but excluding recapping and vulcanizing of tires,
bodywork, carriage straightening, and spray painting activities.
Automobile Body Shop: A place where motor vehicles, in addition to activities
under Automobile Service Station, may receive bodywork, carriage straightening,
and spray fainting.
llotor Vehicle_Sales and Rental: A place where motor vehicles are offered for
sale, lease, or rent and including as accessory to such use the inspection,
maintenance and mechanical repair of such vehicles.
2) Repeal from the C-1 Commercial district:
22.2.1(b)22 Automobile, truck repair shops.
3) Repeal from the HC, Highway Commercial district:
24.2.1.2 Automobile, truck repair shops.
-�6-1
April 9, 1985 Page 11
4) Change in the HC, Highway Commercial as follows:
24.2.1.25 PIotor vehicle sales, serviee and rental
5) Amend the L1, Light Industrial district to include by speclrit use permit:
27.2.2.11 Automobile body shop
6) Amend the H1, Heavy Industrial district to include by right:
28.2.1.23 Automobile body shop
7) Amend the HC, Highway Commercial district to include by special use permit:
24.2.2.12 Automobile Body shop.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
It was determined the Board date has not yet been set for this
matter.
"fir+ ZTA-84-08 - To amend the Zoning Ordinance to include minimum lot
size provisions in the R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 zones; to amend
the definition of cluster development/ and to amend 2.2.3
Minimum Open Space required to require common open space in cluster
developments in conventional zoning districts.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She explained that the new
language is that which is underlined. Mr. Payne added that the
charts deal only with the densities/minimum lot size. He
stated the charts in the ordinance now deal also with provisions
for minimum yards, etc. which are not intended to be amended by
this.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission. He expressed confusion
as to what would qualify as cluster development. He felt at
times odd-shapped lots must be allowed because of space limitations.
Ms. Scala explained that there will be no minimum lot size for
the clustering.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
rr.P Mr. Bowerman stated that the proposed amendment does what the
Commission intended it do.
B
April 9, 1985
Page 12
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-84-08 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
include minimum lot size provisions in the R--4, R-6, R-10.and
R-15 zones; to amend the definition of cluster development; and
to amend 2.2.3 Minimum Open Space required to require common open
space in cluster developments in conventional zoning districts
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for adoption as
follows:
Amend Article 15.3, Residential R-4 Area and Bulk Regulations
to add the following:
Requirements Standard Level
Conventional Development Cluster Development
Minimum Lot Size 10,890 square feet l!/A
Amend Article 16.3, Residential R-6 Area and Bulk Regulations
to add the following:
Requirements
Gross Density
Minimum Lot Siz
Standard Level
Conventional Development Cluster Development
6 dwelling units per acre 6 dwelling units per acre
��,268-agnate-Eeee�dwell#sg} (:�;p6A-sgeseee-€eeb�dr.�llfng)
7,260 square feet
11iA
Amend Article 17.3, Residential R-10 Area and Bulk Regulations
to add the following:
Requirements Standard Level
Conventional Development Cluster Development
Gross Density 10 dwelling units,per acre 10 dwelling units per acre
44;356-yjnaee-€eet: dwelling} {47356-aqueee-€eet/dWellisg}
Minimum Lot Size 4,356 s-jcuare feet tt/A l
Amend Article 18.31 Residential R-15 Area and Bull-, Regulations to
add the following:
Requirements Standard Lovol
Conventional Development Cluster Development
Gross Density 15 dwelling units per acre 15 dwelling units per acr
�2;994-egaere-€ee���lwellin�} Ep;994-sgaeee-€eet�dWe11�R�}
Minimum Lot Size 2,904 square feet H/A
April 9, 1985
Page 13
Amend Article 3.0 Definitions as follows:
Cluster Development: An arrangement of structures on adjoining lots in groupings allowing
closer spacing than would be generally permitted under ordinance requirements for lot
widths or area with the decrease in lot width or area compensated by maintenance of
equivalent -epee epeee a+thee elsewhere on she lee or in the form of common open space.
To amend the Zoning Ordinance Article 2.2.3, as follows:
2.2.3 Minimum Open Space Required
Except as otherwise provided in the PRD and PUD districts, a minimum of twenty-
five (25) percent of the total land area of the cluster development shall be in
common open space, subject to Section 4.7, regulations governing open space.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
It was determined a Board date has not been set for this matter.
ZTA 85-3 - To amend the Zoning ordinance -to delete all references
to density bonus factor provisions; to amend the Zoning Ordinance
to provide for increased residential density for dedication of
land to public use; and to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article
1�ftw 19.1 Planned Residential Development, Intent Where Permitted, to
reflect the change in maximum density by right.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She presented two alternatives
(A and B) for the amendment. She stated a provision will be
maintained for increasing the density under Alternative A, but
it will not be called a bonus. Under Alternative B, she
explained that the general bonus factor language is maintained
and "Dedication of Land" is kept as the only type of bonus avail-
able. She stated Alternative B anticipates the possible addition
of other types of bonuses in the future. She stated both alterna-
tives include procedural changes recommended previously in staff
reports on bonuses.
Ms. Scala stated 49 letters have been received (primarily from
builders and realtors) opposing the deletion of the bonuses.
In response to Ms. Diehl's request for an explanation as to how the
density increase is arrived at, Ms. Scala explained that the formula
is to multiply the number of acres dedicated for public use by
twice the gross density. Example: 100 acres, zoned R-10, with
5 acres dedicated for public use would mean 2 x 10 (density) = 20 x
5 acres = 100 extra units or 10% increase (1,000 units permitted
by right). Ms. Scala pointed out that the wording is the same
in the present ordinance.
Mr. Payne pointed out
so as to qualify for
a proportionate share
that the idea is to
the 15%, but if less
of increased density
dedicate enough land
is dedicated, then
is allowed.
�1�
April 9, 1985 Page 14
Regarding Mr. Wilkerson's question about the dedication of land
being irrevocable, Mr. Payne explained that once acceptance of
the dedication has taken place, it is irrevocable. He stated
that the act of acceptance consummates the transaction.
Mr. Gould asked if that was the reason the words "...shall be
accepted by the Board prior to the final approval" are included.
Mr. Payne responded affirmatively and stated a second reason is
because the Board may choose not to accept the dedication if
the land proposed for dedication is of no value for public use.
Mr. Payne added he did not feel it would be appropriate to
add that the dedication was irrevocable.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission and read the following
statment in opposition of deletion of the bonus factors:
As I stated at the Planning Commission Meeting
of October 9, we are opposed to the recision of the
bonus factor provisions of the zoning ordinance. Our
opposition springs from several causes. We believe that
this change in the ordinance will contravene the original
intent of the Comprehensive Plan, further increase
the required time for site plan approval, lower land-
scaping standards, act as a disincentive for moderate and
low cost housing, and cause the deterioration of private/
public relations.
The bonus provisions presently offer a variety of methods
by which an owner or builder can increase the number of
homes he can build on a particular piece of property.
Without bonuses, fewer lots can be made. Decreasing the
number of lots means future lots will be more expensive.
As a builder who is already concerned with present
lot costs, we believe that a vote to eliminate bonuses
is a vote to increase the price of houses. We think that
the cost of housing is already too high for many people and
this action will just put it further out of reach.
When the zoning map was initiated, these bonus provisions
were touted as a reason much property was being downzoned.
The County Attorney says that the bonuses were experimental,
meaning, I suppose, that the residents should somehow expect
them to be eliminated. We say that if the bonus provisions
were experimental, so was the downzoning of the people's
property and if you are going to do away with the bonuses,
then rezone the property back up to its higher density.
For too long in this area our building community has
labored under increasing weight of regulations. (At this
point the taping system failed and the rest of Mr.
Hurt's statement was barely audible.)
Mr. Hurt felt that the bonuses should be improved, rather than
eliminated.
_�17/
April 9, 1985
Page 15
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., a Board member of the Piedmont Environmental
Council read the following statement in support of the deletion
of the bonus factors:
10: AIBMARIE COUM PLANNING C"ISSION
FROM: Piedmont Environmental Council
DATE: April 9, 1985
FUR: Public Hearin¢ to amend Zoning Ordinance to delete density bonus
factor provisions; emend Zoning Ordinance to provide for increased resi-
dential density for dedication of land to public use; amend PRD, Planned
Residential Development, Statement of Intent.
We support your resolution to delete density bonus factor provisions
for the reason expressed in the staff report that the bonus factors have
not satisfied their original objective to encourage improved design and
low/moderate cost housing.
The original intent of the bonus factors was to create residential
development that reflects the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. In fact some developments have done just the opposite. The increaseJ
density that results from the use of the bonus factors has permitted
developments on steep land and in areas where the public facilities do not
support it.
By using a PRD or a rezoning, an applicant can still increase the
density of a project in areas where the comprehensive plan recommends
higher densities than the existing zoning_ of an area. The Plan illustrates
density levels for broad areas but warns that "in reality public facilities
and infrastructures may be inadequate to reach such densities."
During a PRD or rezoning application, the Planning Commission can,
therefore, take a closer look at each project to determine whether the
broad Comprehensive Plan density recommendation or the reality of the
1%w situation (typography, availability of public facilities, etc.) supports
the proposed density of the application.
PEC also supports the intention to retain the increased density
for the dedication of land and the rewording_ of the PRD statement of
intent.
Ms. Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed
the Commission and read the following statement in support of the
deletion of the bonus factors and in favor of staff's Alternative
A:
LATEST
IN RESPONSE TO THE/PROPOSAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, STATED ABOVE, THE LWV SUPPORTS
THE RESOLUTION TO DELETE BONUS DENSITY FACTORS. WE AGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT THE INTENT OF THE BONUS CONCEPT IS NOT BEING MET.
THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME REASONS FOR OUR POSITION. IN SOME CASES DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN
PLACE AT INCREASED DENSITY ON LAND WHICH IS NOT SUITABLE OR IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURES ARE NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE INCREASED POPULATION.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS HAS BEEN DIFFICULT. ONE OF THE BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE
8014US FACTOR PROVISIONS WAS THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING BUS,
ACCORDING TO THE STAFF, THERE HAVE BEEN NO REQUESTS FOR THIS BONUS FACTOR TO DATE.
THE LEAGUE BELIEVES THAT ALTERNATIVE "A," WHICH DELETES ALL PROVISIONS FQR BONUS
FACTORS AND MAKES "INCREASED DENSITY FOR DEDICATION OF LAND A NEW SECTION IN EACH
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT" IS THE BETTER APPROACH TO THIS CHANGE. ALTERNATIVE "A" WOULD
REDUCE CONFUSION FOR DEVELOPERS AND REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE STAFF. ON THE OTHER HAND.
ALTERNATIVE "B," WHICH REFERS TO THE INTENT OF BONUS PROVISIONS BUT LIMITS THE APPLI-
CATION TO ONLY ONE FACTOR, IMPLIES THAT OTHER BONUSES ARE POSSIBLE AND THUS COULD LEAD
TO MISINTERPRETATION AND FRUSTRATION FOR BOTH APPLICANTS AND STAFF.
WE AGREE WITH THE NEW WORDING OF ARTICLE 19.1 ON P.R.D.-S AND NOTE THAT DEVELOPERS
WHO HAVE SUITABLE LAND IN AN AREA WHICH CAN SUPPORT INCREASED POPULATION CAN APPLY
FOR A P.R.D.
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS CONTINUES TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF LOW AND MODERATE
INCOME HOUSING IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, AND ENCOURAGES MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ADDRESSING
THAT SITUATION.
SUE LEWIS, PRESIDENT
April 9, 1985
Page 16
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Blue Ridge Home Builders
Association, addressed the Commission. Mr. Wagner stated
he was concerned that he had not been able to obtain a
copy of the staff report for this item until shortly before
the meeting, though Ms. Cromwell had secured a copy several
days before the meeting. He stated he had been told by
someone in the Planning Office (he did not know whom) that it
would not be available until 3:00 p.m. on the day of the
meeting. Mr. Wagner read the following statement opposing
the deletion of the bonus factors.
The Blue Ridge Rome Builders Association made clear
its posisition on the bonus factor question during
previous public hearings on the subject. We, along
with other local organizations, have opposed the
suggestion that bonus factors be done away with, and
have supported our position with what we feel are
compelling facts.
We will not take the time to repeat all our arguments
again, but want you to understand that we have not
changed our position and are prepared to continue our
active opposition.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan, Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Gould and Ms. Diehl indicated
there were in agreement that Alternative A should be adopted,
it being preferable to deal with the issue on a parcel -by -parcel
basis.
Mr. Michel indicated he was also in agreement except that he
did not want the deletion of the bonuses to be interpreted
as discouraging low-cost housing. The Commission agreed and
requested that staff look at ways to address the situation of
low and moderate income housing, including identifying the
problems and suggestions for remedies.
Mr. Payne again pointed out that a bonus for low-income housing
would be one of the most difficult to enforce.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Alternative A
be adopted.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-85-3 (Alternative A) to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to delete all references to density bonus factor
provisions; to provide for increased residential density for
dedication of land to public use; and to amend Article 19.1 Planned
Residential Development, Intent Where Permitted, to reflect the
change in maximum density by right, be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for adoption as follows:
S Z6
April 9, 1985
Page 17
1. Delete 2.4 Intent of Bonus Factor Provisions.
2. Delete 2.4.1 Application of Bonus Factors.
3. Delete 2.4.2 Procedures - Generally.
4. Amend 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations
RA District by deleting the words,
"Conventional Development" and
"Standard Development."
5. Amend 12.1 Intent, Where Permitted - VR
District... Provides incentives for residential
development by allowing variations in lot size,
density, and frontage and�er-yard requirements;...
6. Amend Intent, Where Permitted
13.1 R-1 District
14.1 R-2 District
15.1 R-4 District
16.1 R-6 District
16.1 R-10 District
18.1 R-15 District
...Provides incentives for clustering of
development and-pravlsfen-a€-leeet#en;-envtenmental
and-development{al3-amenitles...
7. Amend Area and Bulk Regulations
12.3 VR District
13.3 R-1 District
14.3 R-2 District
15.3 R-4 District
16.3 R-6 District
17.3 R-10 District
18.3 R-15 District
a) By deleting the words, "standard level" and
"bonus level";
b. By deleting columns 3 and 4 under "Bonus
Level" entirely.
M
April 9, 1985 Page 18
8. Delete:
Bonus Factors (Reference 2.4)
12.4, 13. 4, 14.4. 15.4, 16.5, 17.5, 18.5
Locational Standards
13.4.1, 14.4.1, 15.4.1
Environmental Standards
12.4.1, 13.4.2, 14.1.2, 15.4.2, 16.5.1, 17.5.1, 18.5.1
Development Standards
12.4.2, 13.4.3, 14.4.3, 15.4.3, 16.5.2, 16.5.2, 18.5.2
Low and Moderate Cost Housing
13.4.4, 14.4.4, 15.4.4, 16.5.3, 17.5.3, 18.5.3
Cumulative Effect
12.4.3, 13.4.5, 14.4.5, 15.4.5, 16.5.4, 17.5.4, 18.5.4
9. Amend the wording of 16.4, 17.4 and 18.4 from'Area and
Bulk Regulation Options for Bonus Levels" to "Cluster
Development Option Regulations" and re -number as 16.5,
17.5, and 18.5, respectively.
Change the nurAbers of 13.4.6 (Cluster Regulations) to 13.5
Change the numbers of 14.4.6 (Cluster Regulations) to 14.5
Change the numbers of 15.4,6 (Cluster Regulations) to 15.5
Change the numbers of 15.4.7 (Recreation) to 15.6
Change the'numbers-of 15.5 (Building Separation) to 15.7
10. Add new sections:
12.4
13.4
14.4
15.4
16.4
17.4
18.4
INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR DEDICATION OF
LAND TO PUBLIC USE.
For dedication of land for public use not otherwise
required by law, density may be increased in either of
the following manners, whichever shall be less:
a) Density may be increased by fifteen (15) percent; or
b) The acreage of land dedicated and accepted shall be
multiplied by twice the gross density and the
resulting number of dwellings may be added to the
site.
S75.
April 9, 1985
Page 19
In the case of either a) or b) above, (frontage)* and lot
size requirements may be reduced proportionately to the
density increase. Minimum yard requirements shall be
maintained. (*12.4, 13.4, 14.4 only).
The resulting density shall not exceed the recommended
density shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
The density increase may be applied at the time of
subdivision or site development plan approval, whichever
is applicable. The dedication shall be accepted by the
Board of Supervisors prior to final approval. Following
approval, such density increase shall be designated with
an appropriate symbol on the Official Zoning Map.
11. To amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article 19.1
Planned Residential Development, Intent,
Where Permitted, as follows:
..vlR reeegaltlea that development at seep
densities generally requires eare€al planning
with respeet to Impeet, It is also Intended
that the PRR be employed In areas where the
Comprehensive Plan reeommends densities +n
eneess of twenty 429) dwelling units pet.aere:
...While a P_RD approach is recommended for
developments of any density, it is specifically
intended that the PRD be employed in areas where
the Comprehensive Plan recommends densities in
excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre,
in recognition that development at such densities
generally requires careful planning with respect
to impact.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
No Board date has been set for this matter.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this proposed change to the ordinance
was not recommending any change in the direction of development.
It was determined that the Board would be made aware of the
Commission's concern regarding low-cost housing. '
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:10 P.M.
all
James --A. lly, Secretary
DS