Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200700005 Legacy Document 2012-08-16COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale DATE: November 8, 2007 RE: ZTA2007 -00005 Crozet Downtown Zoning On October 30, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above -noted item in a work session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296 -5832. RR /S M Crozet Downtown Zoning A review and discussion of the Crozet Downtown Zoning project, with a focused discussion on a recommendation for a single Downtown Crozet Zoning District and the zoning regulations to be established for that district, including building setbacks, building height, land uses, the requirement for mixed use, parking requirements, sidewalks, landscaping, buffer /screening requirements. (Rebecca Ragsdale) In summary, the Planning Commission held the third work session on Crozet Downtown Zoning. The primary purpose of the work session was to focus on the actual zoning regulations. The slide show presented by staff reviewed the following zoning requirements: building and parking setbacks, building height, parking, land uses, the requirement for mixed use, sidewalks, landscaping and buffer /screening requirements. The Commission discussed the zoning requirements, made comments and provided feedback and answered the questions posed by staff. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. An additional work session will be scheduled in the future to discuss implementation and a possible comprehensive zoning map amendment initiated by the County The Planning Commission made the following comments: The proposal for shared parking through use of trading agreements should be modified. The goal is to make shared parking easier to achieve; however, if an owner loses parking spaces as a result of a change in an agreement, both the owner and the County need to be protected. It was agreed, however, that the viability of the businesses and mixed use over time will rely heavily on the adequacy of parking. Since the proposed regulations require fewer spaces than under current ordinances, the Commission asked staff to address any potential problems due to the lack of parking for the downtown area. The Planning Commission suggested that the minimum number of parking spaces for 2- bedroom residential uses should be 2.0 instead of 2.5 and that staff should look at the minimum number of spaces for other uses to see if they can be further reduced. Regarding the land uses, the main goal is to allow flexibility to achieve the mixed use. The proposed regulations from the consultant would require that each building have a mixture of uses. Members of the public were concerned that requiring all buildings to have mixed use would be too onerous. Planning Commissioners were concerned that commercial and residential uses might not be achieved in the downtown without some requirements. The Planning Commission asked staff to pursue other exemptions or incentives for mixed use, such as the tiered approach as suggested by staff. The Planning Commission was receptive to looking at the tier approach and other possibilities to encourage mixed use and allow additional flexibility for businesses in Downtown. The recommended 1,000 sq ft maximum average for residential units needs some work and substantiation that this is the appropriate size. Staff was requested to work on this issue and provide additional information to the Commission. • The buffer regulations for parking areas need to be reviewed to ensure the safety of the public, so that cars are screened but parking areas still visible. • It was questioned whether the proposed 1' setback, which was measured from the back of the curb, would present problems particularly if there were road improvements. • It was questioned if ARB feedback has been solicited. - Staff has met with the design planner, but not the ARB. This would be something that would allow closer setback and would require adaption to ARB guidelines. As suggested by staff, the Commission will set the vision for the area before taking it to the ARB. • Several Commissioners had problems with allowing buildings of more than 2 to 3 stories, primarily due to concerns about loss of views. It was acknowledged that some economic considerations in establishing business districts were related to the number of stories allowed. Staff noted that while some community members voiced concerns about loss of views, that the majority of the community had accepted the recommendation of a 2 story minimum and 4 story maximum, with the opportunity for special use permits for up to 6 stories or 1 story. It was the consensus of the Commission that 2 to 4 stories would be acceptable since it has been part of the community's feeling and within the guidelines of the Crozet Master Plan. The following public comment was taken: • Cliff Fox voiced concerns about the mixed use requirement. They should try to relax the restrictions in a constructive way so that this is a viable thing that can occur over time. There is a need to allow flexibility and not more restrictions. • Sandy Wilcox, President of the Downtown Crozet Association (DCA), addressed the following concerns of his group: • The Downtown Association is not in support of the proposed mixed use requirements and the average residential unit size. • Incentives need to be provided to encourage mixed use. • There were concerns with the parking regulations as proposed. If have grandfathered uses that don't have allocated parking and impose a new restriction for new businesses to submit a written parking easement it will present problems. Other alternatives need to be found such as the adjoining church could pave their parking lot and rent out spaces to adjacent businesses. There are potential problems with trading and sharing parking that need to be addressed. • Mr. Marshall asked that the restrictions and message not be too complicated for the downtown area, with the result being that developers and builders would not understand the rules. He encouraged the Commission to move forward and not spend too much time imagining every potential future situation. The Commission has the ability to make additional changes in the future if it is found to be necessary. Staff will follow up on how to approach the next steps. There will be a separate work session on the implementation and further discussion on the rezoning. Topics for the next work session include: Follow - up on the parking trading agreements, requirement for mixed use and average residential unit size and a discussion on implementation of zoning changes, including a possible comprehensive zoning map amendment initiated by the County.