HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 23 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
November 23,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
November 16, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Dennis Rooker;
Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior
Planner; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner. Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Absent: Mr. Rodney Thomas.
Approval of Minutes — November 9, 1999
The Commission moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the minutes as amended.
Matters not listed on the agenda
Mr. Bob Watson addressed the Commission, reading a letter to Mr. Nitchmann, thanking him for his
service to Albemarle County over the last eight years.
Consent Agenda
SDP 99-133 International Auto Sport Major Amendment (Critical Slope Waiver) — Proposal to
construct a warehouse of 48,000 square feet and an office building of 16,000 square feet, which
requires building on critical slopes (4.2.3.2). Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5F, is
located on the eastern side of Route 29 North, approximately 2 miles north of Airport road (Route
649). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in the Piney Mountain
community. The property is zoned LI, Light Industrial, and EC, Entrance Corridor.
SDP 94-077 The Blue Goose Final Site Plan (Request for Extension) — Applicant is requesting an
extension of final approval to allow for construction of a 13,740 square foot shopping center. The
property, described as Tax Map 56A(1), Parcels 53, 54, 54A, 55, 56, and 57, is located on the west
side of Route 240, between Route 240 and Carter Street, approximately 400 feet south of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. The property is zoned PD-SC, Planned Development -Shopping
Center [ZMA 90-20]. This site is recommended for Community Service in the Community of
Crozet.
Resolutions of Intent to amend Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12, Offstreet Parking and Loading
Requirements, Section 4.0 Basic Regulations, and Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations —
Allow Planning Commission modification of minimum parking spaces under Section 4.12 and
establish uniform procedure for appeal to the Board of Supervisors of Planning Commission
waivers, modifications or variances under Sections 4.0 and 5.0.
MOTION: Ms. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the Consent Agenda as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Commission— 11/23/99
Public Hearing:
ZMA 99-11 Clover Lawn Village (Sign #67)
Request to rezone 2.65 acres from R-1 Residential district to R-6 Residential to allow medium
density residential development. The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcel 107 is located in the
White Hall Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Route 250 West, across the street from
the Blue Ridge Building Supply at 5221 Rockfish Gap Turnpike. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential, recommended for 3-6 dwelling units
per acre in the Village of Crozet.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting that by -right use of the parcel would yield 2 dwellings
with bonuses; an additional unit could be added. She explained that the rezoning has a conceptual
plan which is not proffered, although one component of the plan — the joint access — is proffered.
Ms. Echols presented a new set of five proffers that arrived the day before the meeting to replace the
original proffers (Attachment "A"); the last two proffers differ from the original proffers. She added
that the applicant has provided a specific sidewalk width of 5 feet to be added to the fourth proffer.
Ms. Echols concluded that staff believes the proposal meets the guidelines in the Comprehensive
Plan, although there were concerns that a specific development plan was not offered. She said the
only remaining issue in staff s mind is how far to go with requesting a proffered plan for
development; the county cannot require a proffered plan, and staff feels the proffers offered "go a
long way to address ultimate design issues that will be reviewed potentially by [the Commission]."
Ms. Echols mentioned that if the development comes in as a subdivision plat for detached or
attached units, it is likely the Commission would see that with a private road request; staff is not
comfortable making a recommendation on the plan in the context of DISC recommendations. She
stated that staff is prepared to change their recommendation from denial to approval, given the
factors aforementioned.
Mr. Rieley asked about the "unlabeled rectangles" in the conceptual plan. Ms. Echols explained that
the shapes are dwelling units in a conventional pattern for the property. Regarding the open space
proffered, she said that the applicant is offering 4,000 square feet as a passive recreation area —
which could be located with the BMP stormwater area, but does not include that in the proffered
square footage.
Mr. Rieley's asked about a possible basis for denial if lack of a development plan was a not
sufficient reason. Mr. Kamptner responded that development plans are not required for this type of
zoning; he agreed with Mr. Rieley's summation that it is up to the applicant to convince the
Commission that the change from R-1 to R-6 is justified.
Ms. Echols reviewed the history of the application, explaining that the plan originally came in as a
rezoning request with no proffers, no statements about access, etc. Staff then encouraged the
applicant to offer something so the request could be analyzed in relation to the surrounding
properties. The applicant did not agree to proffer a development plan, and offered to bring in a
unified site plan for the ARB for fear of losing certain rights they have on the adjoining properties.
Ms. Echols noted that the proffers reflect discussions between the applicant and staff. Ms. Echols
Planning Commission — 11/23/99 2
explained that initially the notice of the proposal was mailed to the wrong adjoining property
owners, and the applicant agreed to move the deferred -to date to November 23ra
Mr. Rieley asked staff to clarify the distinction between a site plan and a subdivision plat. Ms.
Echols explained that a site plan on an Entrance Corridor has mandatory ARB review; a subdivision
plat for single-family detached or single-family attached does not have mandatory ARB review. She
explained that if it is a multi -family development, not divided into lots, it would come in as a site
plan; if it is divided into lots for sale, it would come in as a subdivision plat — and maybe both. Ms.
Echols cited townhouse developments as an example of plans that would come in as both a site plan
and subdivision plat, but added that in this case the applicant could bring the development in as
single-family detached houses.
Mr. Rieley noted, "Essentially, the applicant would have control over whether it's a site plan or
simply a subdivision plan."
Ms. Echols agreed. "If it comes in as a site plan, what is proffered is that it would be a site plan with
the adjoining properties. I am led to believe that it probably will come in for site plan approval...I
think that's what they intend to do, but I don't have that firmed up. Without their firming up a
development plan, I don't know which one they plan to do." She confirmed that the applicant owns
the two parcels to the east of this plat, and the site plan would incorporate just the lots that the
applicant owns.
Mr. Rooker said, "If it comes back in the form of a subdivision plat solely, then it can be
administratively approved without coming back to us."
Ms. Echols confirmed this. "It could be — without someone calling it up. But if it comes in
generally as they've been discussing it to try and maximize density, it looks like they would need a
private road and get private road approval from you all for that."
Mr. Loewenstein noted, "But the only thing we'd be approving then would be the private road."
Ms. Echols replied, "It would be, unless you asked to review more than that."
Mr. Rooker asked if the ARB would review the plan if it came in as just a subdivision plat.
Ms. Echols said that if it comes in solely as a subdivision plat for single-family detached or attached
housing, it would not be reviewed by the ARB.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the units themselves would be reviewed under the building permit
process, but the layout of the units would not be reviewed.
Public comment was invited.
Jo Higgins, representing the applicant (Preston Stallings), addressed the Commission.
Planning Commission — 11/23/99
She stated that the proffers attempt to address all the issues that an actual proffered plan of
development would cover. Ms. Higgins said that no new entrance is planned for the property; she
stated that the recreational space offered is limited because of the proximity of nearby facilities at
Western Albemarle, Henley and Brownsville. She noted that the units planned for the development
are 1,650 square feet.
Ms. Higgins explained that the applicant cannot meet the geometric standards of a public road, and
emphasized that the Commission would have an opportunity to see the plan again under the private
road request. She noted that the applicant's plan is to proceed with the site plan on the adjacent
Highway Commercial properties; the entrance would be constructed and deeded with that parcel
development. Ms. Higgins said that they have not made final decisions on the housing units yet.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the proffers do not indicate that the plan would come back as a unified
site plan with the adjoining properties, and asked Ms. Higgins if she would agree to change Proffer
#2 to state that "a site plan will be provided for the development" instead of leaving open the
alternative that it may come back as a subdivision plat by itself.
Ms. Higgins said that the applicant wants to maintain flexibility because the decisions on how to
market the parcel and divide the parcel have not been made.
Mr. Rooker replied, "You're really speaking to the discussion that staff had about a proffered
development plan for the whole area, but bringing it back as a unified site plan is a little bit different.
There was concern expressed about ... losing some of the zoning characteristics of the adjoining
property if you brought this back as a unified development plan at this point in the process. But
simply undertaking that at a later time it will come back as a unified site plan does not put you in
that same legal situation, yet it does assure that there would be ultimately ARB review of this part of
the development as well as the other part of the development ... it would certainly give me a better
feeling about what you're asking for."
Mr. Rooker suggested changing the second proffer to state "a site plan for the development will be
provided which will cover the development plans for the adjacent parcels 56, 107A and 107A-1.
This site plan will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board." He added that he would be
more comfortable with the proposal if it were included in a site plan with the adjoining parcels, and
that that would have ARB review.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if this proposal would have an impact on the affordable housing issues.
Ms. Higgins responded that the applicant feels the compact lots and houses would provide an
opportunity for affordable homes. She said that they are trying to minimize some of the costs
involved to keep the houses down to a "reasonable range" — less than $150,000. She confirmed that
the boxes on the plan are drawn to scale.
Mr. Finley and Mr. Nitchmann asked if it would be possible to proffer that the subdivision plan be
reviewed by the ARB.
Planning Commission — 11/23/99
Mr. Kamptner said it was his opinion that it could not be proffered that the ARB could review it and
,%AWI it would have binding effect because the ARB's powers and duties are provided by ordinance, and a
proffer could not expand the powers of the ARB.
Mr. Rooker said that if the subdivision plat option in the second proffer were eliminated, and the
plan is proposed to come forward with a unified site plan with the surrounding property, the ARB
mechanism comes into play.
Mr. Kamptner confirmed this.
Mr. Cilimberg noted, "There is also nothing that prevents a single-family detached or attached
subdivision to actually be submitted as a site plan. There is not a restriction on that." He said that it
would be voluntary.
Mr. Rieley asked about the determination for using a private road.
Ms. Echols stated that there is a provision for "non single-family attached housing" to be able to
request a private road. She added that this is more frequent with a townhouse development, where
the private road acts as a driveway.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is also another provision for detached to be on private roads in the
ordinance, and that is how Glenmore was approved.
Ms. Higgins said, "On this site at this density, we couldn't meet all the other requirements and give
the separation if they were detached."
Mr. Rieley commented, "So they're attached enough to allow private roads, but not attached enough
to require a site plan."
Mr. Tom Loche addressed the Commission, stating that what is presented is "a promise not a plan."
He said that proffers are important, but should be the "supporting structure for good design, and
should not be used as a substitute for any design." Mr. Loche emphasized that the three parcels
really comprise a mixed -use development. "After two years on DISC, I know what good mixed use
development looks like, and that's not it." He said that if the applicant is serious about the plan, they
should hire an architect/planner and go to the community with a charette, and work with the
community. Mr. Loche added, "I'm just tired, fed up of seeing plans that look like they've been
done by a 10-year-old with an Etch -a -Sketch. There just not a substitute for what should be
presented to this Commission and to our community."
Mr. Richard Berman, a resident of Western Albemarle, stated that "Mr. Stallings is asking you to
sign a blank check and he's saying, `I'll fill in the amount later.' He has no plan. He just wants the
high -density zoning for this particular parcel." Mr. Berman said that the "nearby" recreation is over
a mile away, and would not likely be accessible by kids having to travel along Route 250. "It's an
incomplete plan, and I don't think it deserves rezoning right now."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Planning Commission — 11/23/99
Mr. Finley asked staff if they really felt the requirements for a rezoning request had been met.
Ms. Echols said it was up to the Commission to determine whether the plan "meets the test for
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan." She added that there is more that could be done to meet
the guidelines, although a lot has been done.
Mr. Loewenstein said he is not convinced that the proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines. "A development plan would further the purposes of the Comp. Plan considerably more
than a straight rezoning....I don't feel that I can support this."
Mr. Rooker added, "I don't think that developing this property as presented is in the public interest.
Perhaps with a better set of proffers and a better view of what will actually take place on the
property, it might." He emphasized that once a property is rezoned, the zoning stays with the
property.
Mr. Rieley agreed. "I think there are far too many unanswered questions, and too many red flags
regarding things that we do see — the orientation and the relationship that are shown in the
conceptual plan which is not even proffered are not ones that are reassuring to me. While we cannot
require a proffered plan, we can I think insist that the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
are addressed. The proffers that are offered don't address any of these design issues at all." He
added that he is "terribly concerned" about an approach that is convenient for the developer, but
severs the mixed -use concept into its constituent parts. "We lose the opportunity to really design
this as a cohesive whole. I'm troubled by the fact that the developer regards that as a more
convenient route. We should be making it convenient to do the right thing." Mr. Rieley added that
he hopes the DISC recommendations will consider these situations where it is more convenient for
the developer to deal with individual pieces instead of providing a unified development plan.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded denial of ZMA 99-11.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was a way to delay the application so that the loose ends could be
taken care of between now and the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Ms. Echols replied that the applicant would have to request a deferral.
Mr. Rieley noted that if the Commission recommends denial, the applicant could bring an amended
set of proffers to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant has plenty of time to amend the proffers before the Board
meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the proffers would need to be submitted by Monday, November 29th in order
to make it to the clerk of the Board in time for distribution.
Ms. Echols asked if the Commission is looking for a change in the proffer language, or looking for a
proffered plan.
Planning Commission — 11/23/99 6
Mr. Rooker said he is prepared to say that he is not ready to support the application as presented at
this time.
Mr. Finley noted that it really boils down to rewording a proffer to make it acceptable, and indicated
his intent to vote for the application. "I'm assuming that being a site plan it would get ARB review."
Mr. Rooker said that it doesn't have to come back as a site plan if all they do is subdivide it. "They
can change that before they go into the Board. The question really before us is whether you support
this application as made with the proffers as made, not presuming that they might change them."
Mr. Loewenstein emphasized, "We're not voting on what may happen at the Board level. We're
voting on what is in front of us tonight."
Mr. Finley reconsidered, stating that he cannot support Proffer #2.
Ms. Higgins asked if the applicant could reword Proffer#2 so it could simply be amended for the
Board.
Mr. Rooker said that the minutes will go forward to the Board, and Board members can read them to
determine what the Commission concerns were.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the Board does read the Commission minutes, and he also tries to
provide the Board a sense of what happens at each Commission meeting.
Mr. Rieley stated, "Changing #2 would not satisfy my concerns about this. They go much deeper
than that. I don't think changing an `if to a `will' would take care of the fact that this is a poorly
conceived plan that should be thought of in a much broader context. It would be very difficult for
me to support this outside of the context of a development plan that takes into account adjacencies,
particularly when the land is owned by the same person who owns this parcel."
Ms. Higgins said, "So a unified site plan with the three parcels would come closer to what you want
to see."
Mr. Rieley agreed, adding that it would be in the developer's best interest to do this also.
The motion passed in a 5-1 vote, with Ms. Washington dissenting.
Mr. Nitchmann commented that developers are wary of spending a lot of money on designers and
engineers to put something together and approach the Commission, just to have it fail. "I don't think
there's enough confidence yet built up within the development community. —the path of least
resistance economically may be to do exactly what happened here tonight."
Regarding the comments on affordable housing, Mr. Loewenstein commented, "I'm often rather
appalled to find out how little attention is given to the provision of amenities whose homes are going
to be affected... trying to sell us the idea of public recreational facilities as far away as they are from
Planning Commission — 11/23/99
this development as an amenity — and particularly in connection with affordable housing is a real
injustice ... we really need to try to do a better job of defining what we really mean by affordable
housing." He noted that there are already subdivisions with single-family detached homes in a large
number of areas in the county that provide $150,000 homes. "I don't necessarily think of this as
affordable housing."
Mr. Finley said, "I guess amenities have to be balanced with what makes it affordable."
Work Session: Historic Preservation Plan
Ms. Scala explained the process for reviewing the Historic Preservation Plan and proposed Historic
Overlay District Ordinance. She said that the Historic Preservation Committee was appointed by the
Board of Supervisors two years ago to make recommendations regarding a regulatory ordinance; the
committee has completed its work on the planned ordinance, and presented its recommendations to
the Board on October 6th. Ms. Scala noted that the Preservation Plan is an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan that provides a framework for all future preservation efforts, and one of its
recommendations is the Historic Overlay District Ordinance. She reported that the Board adopted a
Resolution of Intent to adopt the Comprehensive Plan to add the Historic Preservation Plan
component, and forwarded the ordinance to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. Ms.
Scala noted that the Board was "particularly positive" about the Plan and ordinance.
Ms. Scala said that the Historic Preservation Plan should be adopted before the ordinance is
considered, and the presentation at the meeting will introduce both the plan and ordinance. After the
plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, then staff would like to bring back the ordinance for
consideration at worksessions and public hearings. She reminded Commissioners that in March,
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan — which included a short section on historic preservation — was
adopted; the Historic Preservation Plan will supplement that chapter and will be adopted as a free-
standing document. Staff suggests that the Commission hold one additional worksession to discuss
the recommendations found in the beginning of the Historic Preservation Plan.
Ms. Scala introduced James Eddins, the unofficial chair of the Historic Preservation Committee.
Mr. Eddins addressed the Commission, presenting a slide show on the work of the Historic
Preservation Committee. Mr. Eddins said that the Committee agrees that respecting the county's
past provides economic benefits and citizenship values to the community; regrettably, Albemarle is
losing the historic resources which help residents connect to that past. He presented slides
illustrating 10 losses of historic properties — from among 56 documented — destroyed since the late
1960's; he noted that 7 of the 56 were lost to fire or flood, with the remainder lost to demolition or
neglect. Mr. Eddins referenced the complete list in an appendix of the proposed Historic
Preservation Plan, stating that the list understates the full extent of losses since there previously has
been no structured data collection to document such losses.
He stated that Albemarle County has enacted Land Use regulations to protect its farmland, its forest,
its water resources, its Entrance Corridors, its dark skies — but not its historic resources. Mr. Eddins
said that in May of 1995 the Board appointed the Committee to address the issue; in responding to
the Board's request, the Committee has drawn carefully from documents, organizations, and
Planning Commission— 11/23/99
knowledgeable individuals in Virginia and elsewhere. He noted that the Committee benefited
1144W greatly from the advice of the liaison to the Board, and to the Planning Commission, the technical
advisor, and Planning staff.
Mr. Eddins said that in Albemarle, historic preservation correlates closely with rural conservation as
most historic structures in the county are located in rural areas, with some in the development areas.
He stated that the Committee feels that the county's choices about growth and change should
consider the condition and potential contribution of any historic resources present, emphasizing that
our remaining historic resources are the only tangible evidence of the county's heritage that today's
residents can directly experience. Mr. Eddins said that people enjoy living and working in
Albemarle largely because of the character and beauty of its surroundings; historic resources and
their setting are a significant part of those surroundings and make a distinct contribution to the
quality of life. Additionally, historic resources offer economic benefits to the historic & real estate,
and tourism industries, to builders, and in attracting new businesses to the county.
Mr. Eddins said that "heritage tourism" contributes more than $11 billion to the state's economy,
with 1995 tourism spending in Albemarle County in excess of $136 million, Charlottesville with $93
million, and Nelson County with $89 million. Historic resources also contribute to the economic
value of the community through the "cascading effect" of rehabilitation projects on local
employment and commerce; because it is labor-intensive, rehabilitation creates more jobs than
comparable new construction, and more of the money circulates within the community. Other
contributions to the community's economy are seen in property values, as they are stabilized and
increased through historic preservation. Mr. Eddins noted that while national and state historic
register programs offer authoritative recognition, but little protection; there are no federal or state
regulations for historic preservation that are analogous to those for environmental protection. He
added that historic district zoning enacted by the local jurisdiction is the primary means for
providing legal and effective protection for historic resources and their settings.
Mr. Eddins reported that many Virginia localities have concluded that the survival of their cultural
heritage requires local protection of historic resources, and regulation and the local level is the best
way to ensure that protection. Seventy Virginia localities, including 17 counties, have adopted
historic preservation regulations. The Committee acknowledges that an enduring and equitable
program to protect historic resources should balance any regulatory measures with incentives and
educational initiatives; the Historic Preservation Plan recommends a wide range of preservation
tools, techniques and incentives to help property owners in selecting options that are practical,
historically consistent and affordable.
Mr. Eddins said that the Committee also believes that education is a key component of a successful
preservation program; the primary goal of the education component of the plan is to communicate to
the community the value of Albemarle's remaining historic resources, and to engender in the
community a sense of common responsibility for those resources. The Committee has focused its
educational recommendations in three areas: school programs, adult programs, and community
events. He emphasized that the preservation of historic resources cannot rely solely on voluntary
action, as illustrated by the ineffectiveness of volunteer efforts since the county was created in 1744,
and especially in the context of rapid growth and development. Despite the evidence of good
Planning Commission— 11/23/99
stewardship in the past, a regulatory program is now necessary to ensure the survival of the county's
historic resources for future generations.
The Committee believes that an important recommendation of the plan is the adoption of an Historic
Overlay District Ordinance to ensure protection of outstanding resources, and has drafted an
ordinance that focuses on the "big picture" of historic preservation in the county, with an emphasis
on the survival of historic resources — not their aesthetics. The ordinance proposes a thoughtful,
practical and affordable review of proposed demolitions and exterior alterations to historic
structures. Based on enabling legislation in the Code of Virginia, the ordinance establishes
procedures to forestall the demolition of designated historic resources pending a rational and
informed discussion of demolition alternatives; due process for the property owner is retained
through the appeals provision and the right to make an offer to sell. If the sale or other alternatives
prove unsuccessful within a specified time period, the owner may then demolish the structure by -
right. To minimize the burden on property owners, there is no regulatory requirement for review of
new construction projects, interior alterations or for maintenance — the Committee finds these
important, but recommends educational initiatives to achieve historically appropriate and compatible
actions.
Mr. Eddins concluded that the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Plan — including the
establishment of a Historic District zoning ordinance — would help protect and encourage the
preservation of the county's remaining historic and cultural resources. The Committee recommends
inclusion of the Historic Preservation Plan in the county's Comprehensive Plan, and the Board
approved a Resolution of Intent to do so on October 6`h. The Committee further recommends that
the Historic Overlay District ordinance be considered through the normal staff review and public
hearing processes.
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Eddins and the members of the Committee for their work over the last 4%2
years. He asked about the recommendation that the county seek designation on the Virginia and
National Registers for the six potentially eligible villages, and asked staff to explain what it means if
an entire village is designated historic.
Ms. Pickart said that in a Historic District, both contributing and non-contributing buildings would
be included in the district. She confirmed that the proposed ordinance would not impose regulations
on non -historic buildings within a historic village.
Ms. Scala noted that both Proffit and Batesville took initiative to become listed on both the state and
national historic registers as Historic Districts.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that there is an ancillary effect on other non -historic buildings when a
Historic District is created.
Mr. Eddins explained that the Historic Overlay Zoning District can include just one house, or a
farmhouse and outbuildings, or a larger district such as Proffit which consist of many buildings with
different owners. He said that there is a provision in the Committee's recommendations that there be
an advisory review for construction within or adjacent to a Historic Overlay District, but it is
intended not to be overly restrictive.
Planning Commission — 11/23/99 10
Ms. Scala noted that the Committee did not choose to review new constructions, but felt it was more
important to get an ordinance passed that would address just the protection of the historic buildings
themselves; the Historic Preservation ordinance reviews just demolition of historic buildings and
exterior additions or renovations of historic buildings. She said that the Plan calls for applying
existing regulations to protect the Monticello viewshed, but does not impose any new requirements.
Mr. Rooker asked if the viewshed had been defined.
Ms. Scala replied that Monticello has prepared maps to define their foreground, mid -ground and
background, but the Committee decided that anything visible from Monticello was in the viewshed.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be helpful if the viewshed were defined.
Mr. Rieley said that when the Monticello viewshed was done 15 years ago, the art of computer
analysis of landform was not perfected, and today's technology might make it possible to provide
better information about what can be seen.
Ms. Scala explained that a Historic Overlay District would be put into the Zoning Ordinance just as
the Flood Hazard or Entrance Corridor overlays are, and the second part of the process would be to
actually designate districts. "A district is adopted just like any other rezoning .... it goes through the
same procedures as any rezoning. All the property owners are notified. It gets advertised, it goes
through public hearing process ... before the district is proposed, we would have done the research as
to which buildings are contributing, which are not. Anybody that is proposed to be within that
district would know ahead of time if their property is considered to be historic or not." She added
that the Historic Preservation Committee could make recommendations as to which area of the
county the Board of Supervisors should consider.
Ms. Scala and Mr. Eddins also mentioned that there are archeologically significant sites within
Albemarle, but the Committee did not focus on them in detail.
Commissioners and staff discussed the role of the Historic Preservation Committee, which would
provide information regarding historically significant sites and would serve in an advisory capacity
only to make recommendations about historic areas.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested that there should be "defined years of service" on Boards such as these so
that members are not able to create their own agendas.
Mr. Rieley said he was impressed with the Preservation Plan's advice on education, voluntary
action, and regulatory components. "I just think it's a wonderful start, and I hope that it will become
a part of the Comprehensive Plan quickly." Regarding standards for adding onto historic structures,
he suggested developing county -wide standards that use a better, more current and tailored standard
than the outdated federal laws. Mr. Rieley added that it is going to be important to identify
properties and establish their historic value, which will take time and money.
Planning Commission— 11/23/99 11
Ms. Scala suggested one more worksession to focus on the Preservation Plan and make sure the
recommendations are written as the Commission would like them; comments from development and
planning staff are also being sought. She commented that the Ordinance will not protect every
historic building in the county, but would hopefully choose some of the best; the rest will have to
rely on voluntary efforts and education.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Planning Commission — 11/23/99 12
ATTACHMENT A
3
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 4.12, Off -Street Parking and Loading Requirements, of the Zoning
Ordinance establishes the regulations applicable to off-street parking, including the minimum
number of parking spaces required for specific uses; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 4.12 to allow the minimum number of -
parking spaces to be modified in particular cases where multiple uses are proposed for a single
lot, and the cumulative minimum number of parking spaces that would otherwise be required for
each use separately may result in an excessive number of parking spaces; and where the proposed
development is within a developed area and the ability to comply with requirements of Section
4.12 is limited, but there are other suitable parking opportunities within the vicinity of the
development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance
as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at
the earliest possible date.
on
ATTACHMENT B
OF jNTENT ante establishes
VTjpN lig ordin Regulations, of
RES�L o f the Zo 5 pplen1e ern uses and
eneYal Regulate a Section 5 ppllcable to c
ection �'� and stacuce rregulations ow the appl s zed to
ASS S ail uses pleYne 5 p all It is de d of
WgE cable to tabl- 'hes s p ns 4 p and issi°n, 'd to the B°a�
o„s ap V,ce es oth Sectlo Col decisions
,ate ee$ b plarzi�ng a1 such
jj�o$t . dby the e to appe lc necessity,
��1� _gin C .Tail ,.o.dt c4%, _rt
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 4.0, General Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes
regulations applicable to all uses and structures, and Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, of
the Zoning Ordinance establishes supplementary regulations applicable to certain uses and
structures; and
WHEREAS, in certain circumstances both Sections 4.0 and 5.0 allow the applicable
regulations to be waived, modified or varied by the Planning Commission, and it is desired to
amend both Sections 4.0 and 5.0 so that the procedure to appeal such decisions to the Board of
Supervisors is uniform.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at
the earliest possible date.
ORM