Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-29 adjMay 29, 1980 (Adjourned from May 21, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 29, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of~the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 21~, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher (arrived at 7:31 P.M.), J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 7:32 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at 7:33 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:34 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present- County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Assistant County Planner, Ronald Keeler; and County Attorney, George R. St. John. ~A~genda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, with a moment of silence. Agenda Item No, 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said that at the last work session on the zoning ordinance, there were two proposals presented for the rural areas zone. The first proposal from Mr. Lindstrom was to allow three, two-acre minimum size lots by right, all additional~lots to be by rezoning only, with the Subdivision Ordinance being amended to require that every subdivision be recorded, and also amended to exempt lots of 25 acres or larger in size. The second proposal from Mr. Roudabush would allow five, twoacre minimum size lots by right; six to 20 lots, or lots of less than two acres in size would be require a special use permit or rezoning. Mr. Fisher said he had thought about the two proposals. He had started with Mr. Roudabush proposal and tried to decide what kind of conditions could be drafted that would allow this concept of development anywhere in the County. If all dwellings in a subdivision were required to have access only onto internal roads that might be okay. But, if there were another requirement that the state road serving the subdivision had to be in a tolerable condition after full development of the property, it might not be possible to meev that condition if there were other properties on that state road which had received subdivision approval, but had not yet been developed. Mr. Fisher said he did not think that clustering of the units should be mandatory, but if clustering were to be allowed, the residue area should include usable areas for agricultural or recreational uses which areas would not be on slopes in excess of 15% or in the flood plain; with the residue being used for buffering from adjacent properties; and roads would have to meet objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he could not decide what density should be permitted for divisions from six to 20 lots. The Planning Commission has generally recommended a five-acre density, but that seems to be too dense within watershed areas, although outside of public watershed areas it might be wise. Mr. Fisher said he felt that within watershed areas, ten acres might be a reasonable density. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this would apply to all subdivisions, or only those up to 20 lots. Mr. Fisher said this would apply only up to 20 lots. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Fisher was recommending some type of conditional use permit scheme up to 20 lots. Mr. Fisher said that is what Mr. Roudabush talked about last week. Mr. Lindstrom said he had thought about the conditional use permit for a certain number of lots, but did not think he would want to support that concept except on a very limited basis. Mr. Roudabush said he had drafted a proposal which is slightly different from what was discussed last week. Two districts are proposed for the rural areas. The Rural Suburban would be located in the vicinity of growth areas and would be less restrictive than the Rural ~gricultural district. He then presented the following proposals: Rural Suburban Application: This district would be applied to the zoning map within one mile of the Urban Areas, Hollymead and Crozet, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Method of Development : applicant. Conventional or cluster subdivision at option of the Density: One dwelling per two acres. Special Provisions: Internal roads would be required except in cases where the physical character- istics of the property (size and shape, topography, etc.) made them impractical. This would reduce road stripping and proliferation of individual entrances. 2. Public or central water would be required for developments of five lots or more. 3. Public sewer would be required when available. Developments would be approved only in cases where the public road segment (i.e., between intersections or one'half mile each direction, whichever is less) serving the development would remain tolerable after development as determined by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. (This provision would apply to developments of more than five lots.) May 29, 1980 (Adjourned from May 21, 1980) Rural Agricultural Application: This district would be applied to the rural areas of the County not subject to the Rural Suburban district (i,e., not within a mile of a growth area). Method of Development: the applicant. Conventional or cluster subdivision at the option of Density: One dwelling per two acres by right up to five lots. One dwelling per two acres by right up to 20 lots subject to application plan approval by Commission. (Special use permit required for develop- ments of more than 20 lots.) Special Provisions: In order to develop six to 20 lots, the applicant would be required to provide an application plan reflecting the following: 1. The lots would be served by an internal road system where physically practical; Central or public water system would be required for developments of ten lots or more; Developments would be approved only in cases where the public road would remain tolerable after development as determined by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (road segment measured to the nearest intersection or one-half mile in both directions, whichever is less). Lots fronting on an existing state road would have a minimum of 250 feet of frontage. Lots on internal roads would have a minimum of 120 feet of frontage. The contents of the application plan would be in accordance with Section 8.5.1 which applies to all planned development districts: 8.5.1 APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED Applications for PD districts shall be submitted as for other zoning map amendments. Material submitted with the application or on subsequent request by the Planning Commission shall include all plans, maps, studies and reports which'may reasonably be required to make the determinations called for in the particular case, with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records. More Specifically, all of the following shall be required: Location of tract or parcel by vicinity map at a scale of not less than one inch equals 2,000 feet, and landmarks sufficient to properly identify the location of the property; An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location and type of boundary evidence; Existing roads, easements and utilities; watercourses and their names; owners, zoning, present use of adjoining tracts, and location of residential structures on adjoining tracts, if any; d. Location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site; Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch. Other interval and/or scale may be required or per- mitted by the director of planning where topographic considerations warrant; Flood plain limits which shall be established by current soil survey, Corps of Engineers survey, and/or engineering methods;. ge Connection to existing and proposed Virginia Department of Highways construction and proposed comprehensive plan thoroughfares when necessary; A minimum of two data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles and correlated, where practical, to U.S. Geological Survey data; A report identifying all property owners within the proposed district and giving evidence of unified control of its entire area. The report shall state agreement of all present property owners: (i) To proceed with the proposed development according to regulations existing when the map amendment creating the PD district is approved, with such modifications as are set by the board of supervisors and agreed to by the applicant at the time of amendment; May 29, 1980 (Adjourned from May 21, 1980) (2) To provide bonds, dedications, guarantees, agreements, contracts, and deed restrictions acceptable to the board of supervisors for completion of such development according to approved plans, and for continuing operation and maintenance of such areas, facilities and functions as are not to be provided, operated or maintained at general public expense; and such dedications, contributions, or guarantees as are required for provision of needed public facilities or services; and (3) To bind their successors in title to any commitments made under (1) or (2) above; An application plan showing general road alignments and proposed rights-of-way; general alignment of sidewalks, bike and pedestrian ways; general water, sewer and storm drainage layout; general parking and loading areas and circulation aisles; location of recreation facilities; existing wooded areas and areas to remain wooded; summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities and gross floor areas for commercial and industrial uses; preliminary lot layout where subdivision is contemplated. Mr. Lindstrom asked why Mr. Roudabush had proposed the rural suburban district. Mr. Roudabsuh said he feels that there should be a transitional area between the urban and the rural areas. A two-acre density seems to be a realistic type of development for such an area. Mr. Lindstrom asked how Mr. Roudabush had decided on the one-half mile requirement in #4 under rural suburban. Mr. Roudabush said it was an arbitrary number. Mr. Lindstrom said this proposal essentially reduces the Planning Commission's criteria from two miles to one mile and then makes this a use by right instead of by special use permit. In the area recommended as a transition zone, the Planning Commission has already recommended tools for the board to use in dealing with the area. If there is a need for the two-acre lot, there are many which have already been platted. Mr. Lindstrom said that using one-half mile in each direction from the subdivision for roads, does not address the problem of tolerability. If a road is not tolerable for five miles in each direction, this would only put more traffic on a road that is not tolerable, and would also weaken the Board's ability to deal with the question of tolerability. It also puts an arbitrary burden on a developer by making him improve a portion of a road which may do nothing meaningful in terms of public safety. Mr. Lindstrom said that basically, he feels this proposal weakens an already weak rural areas zone. Dr. Iachetta said he sees no need for anything other than an urban area to take care of density. A well-defined geographic area has been provided in the comprehensive plan which can be served by public utilities. In fact, the Board is trying to encourage urban densities in the urban area, with everything else being left in rural densities. Mr. Roudabush's proposal is essentially for a two-acre density; the same as the existing A-1. If the Board is to allow the two-acre density, there is no need for a second category, especially if conditions are a~tached which involve roads. Dr. Iachetta said he felt it would be simpler to say that ouside of the urban areas, certain uses will be allowed by right, and anything beyond the minimum would have to be by rezoning. Mr. Roudabush said under his proposals, only 20 lots are allowed by right in the RA zone, and a two-acre density is allowed by right in the RS zone. He felt the two things are distinctly different. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Fisher to explain his proposal. Mr. Fisher said he had been thinking about three categories: five lots by right; six to 20 lots by right with certain conditions being met; and anything over 20 lots would be by special use permit only. Further 20 lots would be permitted only within one-half mile of the Urban Areas, Hollymead or Crozet, would have to have public water and fire protection capacilities, and nothing over 20 lots would be allowed in watersheds of public reservoirs. Also, all dwellings would have access only on internal roads, and the state roads serving the development would have to be toler- able at the time of approval of the permit and after full development. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that the simplest, most logical approach would be to.have a certain number of lots by right with a fairly detailed list of criteria which addressed such things as development~in watersheds, tolerability of roads, slopes, proximity to schools, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board goes with an across-the-board, twenty-lot exemption in the rural areas, it ignores the fact that some parts of the County are not suitable for houses. Mr. Roudabush said the County does not have any studies to show that certain areas will not support development. There is no way to zone by characteristics of land when the Board has nothing to back up such zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said one thing is obvious. In most areas of the County, the roads are not tolerable. For the County to be able to provide tolerable roads in all areas is unrealistic. But, on a case-by-case, special permit appli~ cation basis, the Board would have the ability to make decisions on soils. Dr. Iachetta said he has a problem with how to deal with the rural areas. Some people do not want to live in subdivisions and Mr. Roudabush has tried to recognize that fact. Dr. Iachetta said he does not think the Roudabush proposal changes the proliferation of small lots in the rural areas and he would suggest that the proposal be changed in two ways. 1) Have only an RA district which would lie outside of the urban areas. 2) Allow three, two- acre lots by right; four to 15 lots would have to be three acres each; beyond 15 lots go to a special use permit or rezoning. Dr. Iachetta said the County does not fund the extension of utility lines and he thinks that would help put development in the growth areas more than anything else the County could do. He also was against allowing bonuses. Mr.~Lindstrom said he did not think the problem of rural sprawl would be stopped by providing utilities, but it might be curbed. He was concerned with Dr. Iachetta's proposal because he felt it still creates a vast number of subdivision lots by right. He feels there are an ample number of lotS already platted and available for people who want to live in the country. Mr. Fisher said if utilities are provided in the urban area and there is still development occurring in the rural areas, the sprawl continues and a public debt, which is not being repaid by developers is being incurred at the same time. Dr. Iachetta said any scheme set up to "front-end" utilities would have to be self-supporting, so no public debt would be incurred. May 29, 1980 (AdjOurned from May 21, 1980) Mr. Roudabush said he would be willing to take Dr. Iachetta's proposal to public hearing, but it is not what he would personally propose. He feels there must be a reasonable compromise or the County will end up in court. Mr. Lindstrom said a few people have said that the Board will be voted out of office if a proposal which is too restrictive is adopted, but he has talked to a lot of citizens and he is not willing to make decisions "under the gun" that he does not think are in the best interest of the county, its taxpayers, or future citizens. He said it is interesting that a number of people speaking in favor of the ordinance are people who have lived in areas where they have seen what happened under a zoning Scheme similar to that one presently in existence. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Roudabush's proposal contains a number of specific items which he had been thinking about, but it also contains some things which he could not support under any condition. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned that both the Roudabush proposal and the Iachetta proposal appear to weaken what the Planning Commission recommended in the form of densities for a majority of the county. He did not think the Planning Commission's recom- mendations were strong enough to accomplish what is needed. Dr. Iachetta said the reason he did not have a hard proposal is that he was trying to get a copy of a Rutgers University study relative to developments in watershed areas, which was referred to in the Sunday newspaper. He would like to read this study before deciding on definite special provisions. Mr. Henley said he could support Dr. Iachetta's recommendation. He has been against having two rural districts from the beginning, so is not willing to go back to that concept. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not ready to jump on this band wagon, and would prefer to look at Mr. Roudabush's proposal in more detail and compare same to the original Planning Commission proposal. Mr. Fisher said the Board needs to come to some consensus and suggested another work session be held on the rural areas on June 9 at 7:30 P.M. At 9:05 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Literary Fund Application - Red Hill School. Mr. Agnor said the School Board will go to bid within six weeks on this project and after that bid is received they will have 30 days to accept or reject the bid. It takes longer than that time period just to process a Literary Fund application, so the School Board adopted the following resolution on May 12, 1980: BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County School Board does hereby join the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in making application for a Literary Fund loan of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the purpose of remodeling the existing Pod, adding classrooms and ancillary facilities on the Red Hill Elementary SChool property. The clerk and the chairman of the Albemarle County School Board are hereby authorized to prepare and sign the necessary documents. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the School Board for the County of Albemarle, on the 12th day of May, 1980, presented to this Board an application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $1,000,000 for adding to or improving the present school building at Red Hill, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at three per cent paid annually. RESOLVED, that the application of the County School Board to the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $1,000,000 from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said amount for the purposes set out in said application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4. Set public hearing date on an ordinance to vacate a plat. following letter was presented: The "May 19, 1980 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia County Office Building Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Miss Neher: Would you please put on the agenda for the next possible meeting of the Board, a vacation of a subdivision plat affecting Land Parcel 4!-A as shown on Tax Map 61, the plat being recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 435, page 215. This request is being made by John J. Randolph in order to redivide Lot B. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Fred S. Landess" M~y 29, 1980 (Adjourned from May 21, 1980) Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to set a public hearing date for June 11. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. St. John noted that this public hearing would not be necessary if the owner'would obtain the signatures of all of the adjoining property owners consenting to vacation of the plat. (Note Mr. Landess later called to ask that this public hearing be cancelled.) Agenda Item No. 5. Take Road into Secondary System. Mr. Agnor noted letter dated December 7, 1979, from Larry J. McElwain, representing the owners of lots in Windsor Subdiviso asking that the roads be accepted into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Windsor Subdivison: Brighton Drive: Beginning at station 0+14.64, a point common to the centerline intersection of Brighton Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 743; thence with Brighton Drive in a southeasterly direction 786.44 feet to station 8+01.08, the end of the cul-de-sac of Brighton Drive. Warwick Place: Beginning at station 0+10.00, a point common to the centerline intersection of~Warwick Place and station 5+46.42 of Brighton Drive; thence with Warwick Place in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction 818.18 feet to station 8+28.18, the end of the cul-de-sac of Warwick Place. Bradford Drive: Beginning at station 0+10.00, a point common to the centerline intersection of Bradford Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 743; thence with Bradford Drive in a southeasterly direction 1,037.48 feet to station 10+47.48, the end of the cul-de-sac of Bradford Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 641, pages 658-661. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Set hearing date for plat appeals. Mr. Fisher suggested that an appeal of the Monticello Wesleyan Church Site Plan be scheduled for June 11 and that an appeal of the Garlick Tract Site Plan be scheduled for July 16. Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. No other matters were presented. Agenda Item No. 8. At 9:30 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting until June 4, 1980, at 2:00 P.M. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None.