Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 25 1995 PC Minutes4-25-95 APRIL 25, 1995 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, April 25, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner. The work session began at 5:15 and a quorum was established. The minutes of the April 4, 1995 and April 11, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan Standards Mr. Benish listed those items which staff is considering modifications to: --Make the industrial service designations more flexible to allow "employment based businesses." To be added: "corporate, major office park, research and development, and information systems." --Going from 3 residential districts to 2 residential districts. --A new designation--Commercial/Residential Transitional Zone. Mr. Benish explained that staff was particularly interested in receiving Commission comments on the last two items. Mr. Dotson asked staff to point out those elements which will most influence how staff will draft the Land use Plan. Mr. Benish said the format was very similar to the previous format. He said that staff has attempted to "beef up" those sections related to in -fill development so that they are stronger and more specific. He said the major changes were those listed above. Commission comments: BLUE: Referring to No. 4 of the guiding principles - He questioned the sentence: "Of these the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities is the highest priority." He recalled that he had felt this sentence should be deleted because he felt all those items listed were of equal priority. He did not recall a vote having been taken on this particular statement. Ms. Huckle felt the statement should remain. Ms. Imhoff recalled / ,0 4-25-95 2 M that a vote had been taken on the first page, but not the page on which the statement referred to by Mr. Blue appeared. Mr. Dotson felt that page had just been for informational purposes. Ms. Imhoff said: "To me that is more the rural area element and the focus with the Land Use Plan has been more the urban uses. It seems like that discussion is still one we are going to have." Mr. Blue stressed that he felt preservation of agricultural and forestal activities was important, but he did not feel it was more important that the other items, such as water supply protection. HUCKLE: Referring to design features, she asked: "I wonder if there is some way to balance the designs?" She asked if a different type of road might be required which will not take up so much space, and then balancing that with leaving "natural" certain lots that are difficult (to develop). Mr. Benish responded that the best way to address this concern is through a planned development approach which allows for negotiations to occur. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that VDOT is currently receiving comment on the possibility of changing subdivision street standards which could result in more flexible standards which will allow roads to be built with the terrain.) IMHOFF: She suggested that the language under Residential Development Design (page 9, item 2) be "mirrored" in the commercial and industrial land standards. NITCHMANN: Referring to the discussion which had just taken place about road standards, he felt the Comprehensive Plan was not the place to get into this kind of detail. IMHOFF: "In the commercial land standards you mention, when you have an opportunity with a historic structure, incorporate it, and if it doesn't get picked up in the industrial and residential --there's a lot of that --either repeat it or do the opposite. Take all these things that apply and right up front say, 'We want infill, we want to be sensitive to our natural slopes and our big landscaping elements, we want to be sensitive to historic structures.' You can almost use our guiding principles because we have mentioned a lot of that.... I think when you take all of your land standards and put them together, you have great ideas, but what was a good idea for commercial is also a pretty good idea for the residential." NITCHMANN: He asked if there was someplace in the Plan for a paragraph alerting people that adjacent properties may at some time develop as commercial property. IMHOFF: She felt the transitional land use idea was a good one. She also felt that the Comp Plan needs to show "that we transition to the City as well." DOTSON: He suggested a paragraph which talks about building a community. "Communities have not only housing, but also areas of retailing and industry, railroad Rn 4-25-95 3 tracks and streets, waste facilities, etc. And, invariably, people will live next to uses that aren't the same as their residential area and that doesn't have to be bad." IMHOFF: Referring to the possibility of going from 3 to 2 residential districts, she asked: "Are we going to say anything about minimum and maximum residential densities?" She felt this was a significant policy question. She said she did not think there should be just Low and High, with no Medium. Mr. Benish explained that going to 2 districts --low and high --will split the medium density in half. Low density will be up to 6 units/acre. He said: "The infill policy says to try to maximize densities with low density using any unit type that the developer and community feels is appropriate for that area. What we specifically talked about is in the high density, the zonings that are consistent with those--R10 and R15--to take out the low residential type of units that would correspond to the high density zoning. So we couldn't get underutilization of those areas we designated as High. Son't get single-family detached development in an area we designated for density. The only unit types permitted through that zoning would be the unit types that would tend to maximize (development)." Ms. Imhoff commented: "If we're really serious, and the Commission wanted to keep the flexibility of 1-6, we should have a strong policy statement that we don't want to be coming in at the low end, and when we re -do the Zoning Ordinance, you should be required to do a special permit to go low. It should be by right and easy to go high, but if you want to come in at below 2 du/acre density, you should have to apply for a special permit." Mr. Benish said staff has discussed the idea that the R1 density is intended to be for existing residential communities. It is really to reflect what is there. Mr. Benish said the districts could be called Residential One and Residential Two, rather than Low and High. DOTSON: He asked if there were some term, other than High, which could be used for 6 units/acre. BLUE: He questioned how the public could be sold on the idea that an adjacent development has to be developed at high density. (Mr. Dotson felt it might be more acceptable if it had some label other than "high.") IMHOFF: She suggested the inclusion of photographs in the Comp Plan which will show examples of residential densities. The photographs would be of developments in this area which people could visit so that they could understand the densities better. HUCKLE: Ms. Huckle felt it was important that residential developments provide play areas for children of all ages. BLUE: "If we seriously encourage maximum densities, does that mean there is no place for a transition from a high density growth area to the adjacent use, whether it be agricultural or the sprawl?" 4-25-95 4 cm IMHOFF: She expressed the strong feeling that no more of the growth area should be developed at 1.9 du/acre. She felt 2 du/acre should be the minimum. DOTSON: He raised the issue of the Village policy. He suggested: "Maybe we should preserve, in the text if not on the map, the option of having villages in the future. A lot of people really want to live out in the countryside. If they really want to and they can afford it, then that tends to mean you get scattered, large lot development. But if you have a Village, it might mean you can live surrounded by the countryside, but in a Village setting. At the same time some people like the pedestrian and the Village core idea --it's almost more urban in that sense. If somebody could propose something like that in a package, wouldn't we want to be able to consider it and actually put something in the Plan to maybe encourage developers... to think about that. My suggestion here is, if we do take them off the map, and I probably support that, then let's have a discussion about a Village policy that says under certain circumstances we would entertain them. It doesn't obligate us to approve them. We will judge each one on its own merits." He asked how other Commissioners felt about this idea. Ms. Huckle felt that this can already happen without any special encouragement. (She gave as an example the Glenmore development, the developer of which had been economically able to provide for utilities to serve the development.) She expressed concerns about private waste treatment plants which have been problems in the past. She wondered if it was fair to give people the expectation that these were possible. She said she did not want to see a wheel re -invented that had been disposed of. She indicated that perhaps the removal of the sentence referring to "alternative means" of providing utilities would address her concerns about false expectations. Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about villages being a "floating zone." She said: "I think if we think a place should be a Village, then I think we should say that. The Zoning Ordinance sort of allows you to have a floating zone. I'm not sure I want to encourage it any further in the Comp Plan." Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that the idea of rural community centers had been considered in the past, but the Board had decided the concept was not to be pursued. He said the Commission should let staff know if they wanted staff to study that concept again. No Commission support was expressed for studying this concept again. Mr. Cilimberg said the village designation would be kept in the Plan. (One Village-- Rivanna-- does exist which meets the criteria). But there will be a recommendation to remove the designation from North Garden and Earlysville. IMHOFF: She suggested that staff could use some of Mr. Dotson's suggestions, comparing them to some of the existing language. She said she liked some of Mr. Dotson's design ideas. She suggested some design guidelines for villages might be useful. (Ms. Huckle felt design was the most important part of the entire issue.) ER rm 4-25-95 5 DOTSON: On the Village issue, he said he wanted to be "out front," and say to developers: "We would like to entertain high quality proposals that are at a sufficient scale that they could work from a utility standpoint and which will not only be developments, but which will incorporate a permanently preserved green area around them, and that is every bit a part of the development. That, it seems to me, is sort of what balances and offsets the more compact development in the center and makes the thing a Village. " Ms. Huckle responded: "Well, it sounds like a good idea. I expect if it were properly written out so that it did convey those things you just said, that would be fine. Tell them to come and bring their money." IMHOFF: Still commenting on the Village issue, she said not having a sense of scale made it difficult for her to judge how it would fit into the question of how much land should be added to the growth area. BLUE: Referring to the Rivanna Village, Mr. Blue pointed out that it had appealed to one particular "strata of people." He said it actually did not fit the Village definition because it did not have any commercial uses. Mr. Cilimberg agreed, saying "It didn't really end up being a village as called for in the Comp Plan. Mr. Blue said he felt Keswick could have come closer to the Village concept, though the Keswick residents would not have supported the idea. He noted that Keswick has a sewage treatment plant and could potentially have the extension of public water, plus it is a large piece of NOW land which is all under one ownership. IMHOFF: Referring to industrial standards, she asked if there should be something added saying that "we are looking for campus -type settings, low water users, new age industry." She wondered if there should be some type of "vision" for the type of industrial development we want to attract. DOTSON: On the issue of a new industrial/office designation, he recalled previous discussions about the need for more manufacturing type jobs (rather than office, service or retail). He said: "It seems to me that just as we ought to say we'd like some minimum density in residential areas, we shouldn't be giving away our industrial areas either, that we need to hold those for manufacturing use." Mr. Benish agreed there was a "down" side to the idea. He said: "We would want to be cognizant of not robbing our manufacturing and industrial sites for all office. The thought process is we don't want a bunch of offices necessarily for doctors and other services. This is an employment base.... But, maybe what we need to do is be cognizant of some distribution within those industrial service areas." Mr. Dotson wondered if "office" might not be the correct term. He gave as an example a use like Microsoft, which is not actually an office. Mr. Nitchmann suggested the term "technology center." Mr. Cilimberg summarized what he believed to be a consensus on the industrial/office designation: "What we're hearing is that's O.K. if we're making sure that it is office that 09 4-25-95 6 is associated with industrial, research development, and technology type of activities." Mr. Dotson added: "And then maybe you go with the term 'industry related activities' which you then define." On the concept of 2 rather than 3 residential designations, Mr. Cilimberg summarized: "I didn't hear a problem with going that route as long as we term it something different and focus upon maximum utilization of densities." HUCKLE: (Referring to page 2, Summary of Changes) - She said she was happy to see coordination of access for commercial uses addressed. She was also glad to see a statement about the "desirability of connections being made between residential developments." She suggested that statement be made stronger, i.e. that it be considered "a requirement and a necessity." IMHOFF: Following Ms. Huckle's statement, she said one of her concerns with industrial development is not to get office parks which want to isolate themselves. "We want roads connected; we want bikeways connected (etc.)." On the concept of a Commercial/Residential transitional zone, Mr. Cilimberg said he had not detected any opposition from the Commission. Ms. Imhoff commented: "I think the only thing you will want to be carefulof is to include standards because it sounds ``"' like it will be the most flexible so people will really want to go for it." Mr. Dotson expressed the opinion that zoning will be a key as to how this idea is implemented. On the Village designation, Mr. Benish clarified that it will remain in the Plan, not only because one village does exist, but also because there may be future requests. He asked if the Commission felt there should be standards for villages included, and, if so, staff would try to incorporate some of Mr. Dotson's suggestions. Mr. Blue understood the major change had been the water and sewer issue. Mr. Blue also felt the other issue to be considered should be off -site transportation. Mr. Benish noted that staff will need some guidance from the Commission as to how to treat those areas which have had, or may have, the Village designation removed. That topic will be discussed at some later time. The work session ended at 6:45. [No regular 7:00 p.m. Commission meeting was scheduled. The Commission was invited to attend the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and School Board, to be held at 7:00 in the Auditorium.] M 4-25-95 m W. On 09 / YC?-