Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-03 adjDecember 3, 1980 (Adjourned from November 24, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors o~ Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 3, 1980; said meeting being adjourned from November 24, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J..T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 3:45 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, iJr.; County Attorney, George R. St. Joh~ and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1) The meeting was called to order at 3:04 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. ~ish~ Agenda Item No. 2) Work Session: Zoning 0rdinancei and Zoning Map. Mr. Tucker said the staff had received several suggiestions from the public between the date of the public hearing and today. The Planning !Staff endorses all of the recommended changes. The first recommendation is for a change in thie definition of "family" which would be similar to the definition adopted in September,! 1978, which is presently in the ordinance: Family: 1. An individual; or Two or more persons related by blood, marr!iage, adoption or guardianship, and/or not more than two unrelated persons living as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling or dwelling unit; or For the purposes of this ordinance, the foillowing shall not apply to the R-I, R-2 and R-4 Residential districts: al group of not more than six persons not related by blood, marriage, adloption or guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling or dwelling unit. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to adopt this defiaition into the ordinance. motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the fol!lowing recorded vote: The AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss! Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Tucker recommended that Sections 27.4 and 28.4,! entitled "Number of Permitted Uses'! in the Light Industry and Heavy Industry districts, respectfully, be deleted. These provisions were originally recommended by the consultantls, but with the requirements for maximum area depending on available utilities, maximum filoor area, maximum land coverage, and minimum landscaping and setbacks from residential di!stricts, Mr. Tucker said the staff finds no need for these requirements. Motion was offere~ by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to delete the recommended sections (27.4 and 128.4). The motion carried by the following recorded votE: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Tucker suggested that "auction house" be added as a use by special permit in the i!HC, Highway COmmercial, district. This use is provided in the existing B-1 zone. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann to add auction house as Section 24.2.2(9), as use by special permit, in the Highway Commercial district. The motion Was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Tucker recommended adding as a use by special use permit, Section 22.2.2(6) in the C,1 district, and Section 24.2.2(10) in the HC district, reading as follows: Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, USES PERMITTED in Section 18.0, Residential R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to Section 31.2.4. Mr. Tucker said the current ordinance has a provision to allow high density residential uses by special use permit in the commercial districts. Mr. Tucker said an owner would always have the option of applying for a rezoning, but with a special permit, the Board could place certain conditions such as buffering and road improvements, options the County would not have otherwise. Mr. Keeler said when this idea was first.introduced, it was ~ased on the fact that there was a lot of vacant, commercial land in the county, and this would provide an alternative to that use. There have been some applications for this use under the existing ordinance. Mr. McCann said he thought that with this new ordinance and map, uses would be placed in 'the areas they should be placed and past mistakes corrected, iilhowever, he did not feel strongly about this recommended addition to the ordinance. Dr. ?!Iachetta said he was not partial to having even more items approved through the special iluse permit process. He asked if the staff felt the provision has been useful. Mr. TuCker ?said that all applications to date have been advantageous to the area in which located. !!Dr. Iachetta said since the Board will have the final say, he would offer motion to include lithe two sections recommended. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the !following recorded vote:~ i~AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. iABSENT' Mr. Lindstrom. 445 December 3, 1980 (Adjourned from November 24, 1980) Mr. Tucker asked that the Board consider recognizing those high density residential developments with densities above 20 dwelling units per acre as PRD's (Planned Residential Development), which would make these developments conforming. By doing this, problems mentioned at the public hearing concerning financial lenders should be avoided. Dr. Iachetta said that is one problem raised by the Blue Ridge Home Builders which he felt was valid considering what the Board has tried to do in recognizing uses which are already in place. He then offered motion to accept the staff's recommendation to designate on the zoning map as PRD's, those residential areas where the density is 20 dwelling-units per acre or above. ~ The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Tucker said the staff had recently been requested to add a Section 30.3.5.2.2, reading "Electrical transmission lines and related towers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers" as a use by special permit in the Floodway Fringe of the Flood Hazard Overlay District. He said there is no such provision in the existing ordinance, however, he had discussed this with the County Engineer, and Mr. Bailey does not feel that these towers would pose a problem in the floodway fringe area. Mr. Tucker said he had also talked with people at the Federal Emergency Management Administration and no objections were expressed to this use being included. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to accept the staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said one of the questions brought up at the public hearing had to do with the bonus levels for low and moderate income housing. The developers did not feel it is likely that there will be any more than 20% of such units built even with federal subsidy programs. The County's standard requires that these units not be less than 1/2 of the number of units achievable under the standard level of density. The question is whether the County's standard should be amended to allow developers to use federal programs for low and moderate income housing while these federal programs last. Mr. McCann said he did not feel that changing the County's ordinance will make much difference because the County will not see the type of housing mix anticipated through use of this bonus provision. Mr. Tucker said this provision has nothing to do with low income people, but is for low and moderate cost housing and that is a criteria where income is proportional to income in the total county. It is a different criteria. Mr. Fisher suggested that the wording for this bonus be left as it currently reads, but the staff try to make an adjustment in the language to encourage utilization of this provision. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other parts of the text which should be discussed. Mr. Tucker said~there was a request to add "hotels and motels" by special use permit in the C-1 district. The request came from George McCallum on behalf of Mary P_atricia Brown. Mr. Tucker said he had previously given the Board as an example the little motel in Ivy which is presently zoned B-1 and is being recognized as HC in order to make it a conforming use, although the remaining commercial area in Ivy is shown as C-1. M~. Fisher asked if there are other such places in the County. Mr. Tucker said he thinks this one in Ivy is the only one. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 3:45 P.M. and Mr. Fisher explained the matter being discussed.) Mr. McCann said this request came about because the land in question is suited for HC uses, but is being shown on the map for C-1. He said, if the applicant is willing to live with a special use permit, he felt this use should be included in the ordinance. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann to add Section 22.2.2(7), "Hotels, motels and inns," as a use by special permit in the C-1 district. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messers. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The Board next returned to discussion of the RA, Rural Areas District. Mr. Fisher asked for a report from the committee which was to resolve some of the issues raised at the public hearing. Dr. Iachetta said there are probably some things in the proposal that Mr. Lindstrom will take exception to, because it was finalized after Mr. Lindstrom went on vacation. X.4 APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record on the date of adoption of this ordinance: X.4.1 Category I. Parcels greater than 42 acres in area may be divided in accordance with the regulations of X.6 provided that no lot or parcel resulting from such division shall be less than 21 acres in area. X.4.2 Category II. Parcels of 42 acres or less but greater than 21 acres in area may be divided in accordance with the regulations of X.6 provided that no lot or parcel resulting from such division shall be less than six acres in area. X.4.3 Category III. Parcels of 21 acres or less in area may be divided in accordance with the regulations of X.6 provided that no lot or parcel resulting from such division shall be less than three acres in area. December 3, 1980 (Adjourned from November 24, 1980) 446 X.5 BONUS PROVISIONS Category II: For serving all lots with an internal road system which is the sole access to the existing state-maintained road system, the director of planning may permit reduction in the minimum lot size to 2.0 acres and required frontage on internal private or public roads to 150 feet. Cluster development shall be mandatory. Required open space shall consist of 21.0 acres or more. x.6 Category III: For serving all lots with an internal road system which is the sole means of access to the existing state-maintained road system, the director of planning may permit reduction in the minimum lot size to 2.0 acres and required frontage on internal private or public roads to 150 feet. AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS: Standard Level Bonus Level ~ CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT GROSS DENSITY Category I 1 du/21 acres .... Category II 1 du/6 acres -- NA Category III 1 du/3 acres 1 du/2 acres -- MINIMUM LOT SIZE Category I 21.0 acres .... Category II 6.0 acres -- 2.0 acres Category III 3.0 acres 2.0 acres -- MINIMUM FRONTAGE (2 to 1 ratio) except Category I which is 2.5 to 1 ratio Existing Public Roads Category I 500 feet Category II 450 feet Category III 400 feet -- 450 feet 400 feet -- MINIMUM FRONTAGE (3 to 1 ratio) except Category I which is 3.5 to 1 Internal Public or Private Roads Category I 350 feet Category II 250 feet Category III 200 feet (3 to t ratio) (3 to 1 ratio) -- 175 feet 175 feet -- MINIMUM OPEN SPACE Category II 21.0 acres Dr. Iachetta said the idea behind this proposal was to keep the divisions still eligible for the land use tax preference. Mr. Lindstrom said he has some reservations about the bonus provisions, but he has no strong objections. He believes that tieing the number of divisions to the acreage is the only way to eliminate the recordkeeping that everyone seems to be worried about. Mr. McCann did not feel that all of the recordkeeping can be eliminated. Mr. Lindstrom felt it should be because the owner would only be required to bring in a plat showing the acreage and the Planning Staff would be able to determine without reference, how many lots could be divided out of that acreage. Mr. McCann said if land were divided into parcels of 42 acres, an owner might then come back to further divide those parcels, so some record would be needed. Mr. Fisher suggested that if he had 50 acres and divided that into two, 25-acre parcels he would be in Category I; then he could divide those parcels into four, six-acre parcels under Category II; and then further divide those parcels into lots of three acres each under Category III. Mr. Lindstrom said there should be some provision to keep someone from moving from one category to the next without a special use permit. Dr. Iachetta said that was correct. Mr. Tucker said there would have to be some record of the number of divisions made, but this proposal would certainly be better administratively than the current proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said when he had last looked at this proposal, there were only two categories, or what is now shown as Category I and Category III. A parcel could be divided into as many 21-acre parcels as could be created, and if the parcel was less than 21 acres in size, it would be divided into as many three-acre parcels as could be created. There would be no recordkeeping involved. An owner could not go from a 21-acre category to a 19-acre category without a special use permit. By adding Category II, it puts the recordkeeping requirements back into the ordinance. The informal committee was trying to work out something so that no recordkeeping would be required, particularly through the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Mr. McCann said there was also a concern expressed at the public hearing about the five lots by right, the present proposal, and the fact that owners of large parcels have no more rights than the owners of smaller parcels. Mr. McCann said there is nothing in this proposal for the owner of a parcel in excess of 42 acres. If a person had a parcel of 60 acres, he would not be able to do anything with that parcel. Dr. Iachetta said that was not correct. He feels that any parcel in excess of 42 acres is large enough to warrant a rezoning if someone wants to change that parcel to a residential density from an agricultural use. Mr. McCann said he was referring to what would be allowed by right. 447 December 3~80 (Adjourned from When a person with 21 acres can get 10 lots by using bonus provisions, and the person with 60 acres can only divide by obtaining a special permit or a rezoning, the person with 60 acres has nothing by right. Mr. Fisher said the person with a large acreage can divide as many 21-acre lots as possible, and these lots would still qualify for land use taxation. Mr. McCann said the 21-acre lot size is based on forestry use and it will create a lot of open space, but this parcel size will not preserve land. Mr. Lindstrom said that Dr. Iachetta had finally convinced him that parcels of less than 20 acres are not really agricultural properties. Mr. Lindstrom said the proposal he has been urging adoption of has some fairly severe restrictions of parcels that are less than 20 acres in size. Mr. Lindst: said he could go either way, but he was disappointed that all of the recordkeeping aspects could not be eliminated. Mr. Fisher asked if this new proposal would be better or worse to administer. Mr. Tucker said it is probably less burdensome than the present proposal. Whether or not the present staff is able to handle the work depends on the economy and how much development occurs in rural areas. Mr. McCann said it was stated at the public hearing that if a man's rights are to be limited, they should be limited to something reasonable. With the road frontages required, he did not think that many lots will be cut off on public roads. Mr. Henley said he hates to see the ordinance tied to three-acre lots, but he does not have anything better to offer. Mr. McCann said the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve agricultural land and it cannot be done with 2!-acre parcels. Dr. Iachetta said there is a second intent in the Comprehensive Plan, and that is to get the growth out of agricultural areas. Mr. Fisher said it seems that the Board will need another work session. The staff has told the Board that unl'ess the Flood Hazard Overlay District is adopted by December 16, ~e C~un~y'~..l~e~s ~igibility for flood insurance. At this point, Miss Nash offered motion to adopt the proposal presented today for X.4, X.5 and X.6, with the idea that the language may be prettied up. if necessary without changing the substance of the proposal. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not totally sold on this proposal, but the problem this Board is facing is that it seems the entire Board will never agree on the same proposal. After a short argument between Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. McCann as to the exact meaning of the proposal presented today, Mr. St. John asked the results of the motion if same passes. Mr. Fisher said the motion intends that what has been presented today will become a substitute for Section 10.3 that deals with development by right in the RA district, and that the provisions of 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 dealing with special permits will remain basically as they are, but be modified to get rid of the language that gives a maximum Of five lots by right, and replace that with language stating that for any development in excess of the densities permitted by right, a special permit application will be required. Miss Nash said that was the intent, as did Dr. Iachetta. Mr. McCann said he would like to state that he will support this proposal today, but that does not mean that he will support it when it comes time to vote on the entire ordinance. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said the issue of not building on 25% slopes was raised again at the public hearing. The Blue Ridge Home Builders believe it is unnecessarily prohibitive and should be revised. Mr. Henley said he did not feel there should be any restrictions on structures, but there could be some on location of septic fields. Mr. McCann said he also does not believe there should be restrictions on structures. Mr. Tucker said there is a new section in the ordinance which allows the Planning Commission to modify regulations; Section 4.2.5. Mr. Fisher said he had forgotten that that section was in the ordinance. At 5:05 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 5:08 P.M. When the meeting reconvened, Mr. Fisher said the staff was given directions for recognizing on the zoning map developed B-1 lands; also directions for recognizing B-1 lands where there are approved site plans. A problem has arisen as to what should be done when a parcel of land is not being used, but is completely surrounded by other parcels shown for commercial usage. The staff has asked some guidance on those parcels. Mr. Tucker said there are two parcels on Rio Road (Tax Map 45, Parcels 25A and 25F) of about one acre each near TACCO, in the watershed, which are between industrial uses. Also, Tax Map 60A, Parcel 9-29 is a triangular piece of property completely surrounded by Old Salem Apartments and is being shown as RA. At the present time there is a single-family house on that property. Another problem is the Henry Javor property (Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B) which is bounded on the south by Route 250 West, on the north by the C&O Railway, and on either side by beer distributors. Then there is the property at the corner of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads next to the Hop-In Store (Tax Map 60, Parcel 75). Mr. Fisher said he had looked at the Javor property and agrees that there might be a problem with the RA zoning. The property is subject to the scenic road setback, the terrain on the back of the property is not good, and the property is separated from residential uses by the railroad. Mr. Fisher said he could support a change in the zoning on this property. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the property is in the watershed. Mr. Tucker said about 1/2 of the property drains to the watershed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be hesitant to zone a property in the watershed for a more intensive purpose. Mr. Henley said if he decides not to support the zoning ordinance, it will be for a reason like that just stated. Mr. Lindstrom said if someone can convince him that this type of decision will not cause a problem in court someday, he will not be concerned. Mr. Henley said if there were five acres surrounded by Light Industry and the zoning was changed to RA, if he were the judge, he would think that all six members of the Board were crazy. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the County Attorney for an opinion. Mr. St. John said he has no way of knowing what some judge will see as an inconsistency. However, he did not think that zoning a given piece of land to a category to fit with the current trend in the area, even though the property is in the watershed, will cause the filing of numerous such requests. om December 3, 1980 (Adjourned from N~vember 24, 1980) Mr. Tucker said he had skipped one parcel which fits the criteria. The property was mentioned in a letter from Ed Bain on behalf of Benton Patterson (Tax Map 45, Parcel 22). The property is located behind the Rock Store on Hydraulic Road. There is a cabinet shop on the parcel now and that use should have been recognized as industrial, however there are two or three different uses on that one large parcel and there is no way to define just the portion under the cabinet shop. There are also some scattered parcels which are 3resently zoned R-3 which will be nonconforming lots under the RA district. Mr. McCann ~aid he felt these parcels should be made to fit the zoning pattern in the area in which the parcels are located. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the parcels mentioned are already served by water and sewer. Mr. Tucker said water can be extended from Ednam to the Javor property. The parcel at Old Salem is now served by water and sewer. Water and sewer are available to the property at Hydraulic and Georgetown. Water service is in the road beside the Benton Patterson property. Miss Nash said she felt the Javor property was different from the others being discussed. Dr. Iachetta agreed that RA was not the proper designation given the location and sUrrounding uses. Mr. McCann said he feels the same about the parcel at Old Salem and also the parcels on Rio Road. Miss Nash asked how the Benton~Patterson property could be developed if the cabinet shop was not on the property. Mr. Tucker said the property is being shown on the zoning map as RA, but it is currently zoned M-1. The Rock Store is on the front of the property, and there is a mobile home court on the north and east sides of the property. At this time, Miss Nash offered motion to place a zoning category on the Javor property which is equal to the neighboring properties, for the reasons stated, and because only one-half of the property is in the watershed and the property would not be usable as RA. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. McCann then offered motion to place R-15 zoning on the property at 01d Salem. Mr. Lindstrom asked if water and sewer service are already in place. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if both utilities are shown for this property in the Service Authority's jurisdictional areas. Mr. Tucker said he did not believe this triangle of land is shown for sewer service. Mr. Fisher did not think this change should be made because the property is shown consistent with its present use (single-family dwelling) and the owners would always have the right to apply for a rezoning should the need arise. There was no second to Mr. McCann's motion. Mr. Tucker said the Board might want to consider showning the property for R-1 since water service is available. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to designate the property as R-I, which is consistent with its present use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, who said that although he had seconded the motion, he did not really think the property would be switched in use to four dwelling units an acre and he really felt it should be left as RA until someone requests a rezoning. Mr. Agnor said the zoning administrator would probably have a tough time with some of the uses allowed in RA right in the middle of Old Salem Apartments. ~Dr. Iachetta said that R-1 would eliminate that problem. The roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and McCann. Mr. Tucker then mentioned the property at the corner of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic that is presently zoned B-1. Mr. Fisher asked if the ProPerty would require sewer service. Mr. Tucker said he thought it would for any use. Miss Nash offered motion to leave the property as shown for RA. The Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Mr. Tucker then mentioned the two parcels between TACCO and Daily Craig's offices on Rio Road. Mr. Fisher asked if the properties behind these parcels are shown for RA. Mr. Tuckei said yes. Miss Nash asked if these parcels are in the watershed. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher asked the Planning Staff's recommendation. Mr. Tucker said the surrounding uses are industrial, and it appears that a similar type of industrial use could be located on these properties. Dr. Iachetta asked why the parcels were not recognized under the Board's policy. Mr. Tucker said they are vacant. Miss Nash then offered motion to leave these parcels as RA in view of the watershed situation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstr¢ and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and McCann. Mr. Tucker then mentioned the Benton Patterson site. Mr. McCann said he thought the policy the Board voted on was to show a parcel according to its existing use. Dr. Iachetta said he could see no problem if the parcel fits the policy. Mr. Tucker said the only reason he brought this up is because there is no way to determine a boundary for just the cabinet shop. Mr. McCann said when the Board voted on the policy, it did not split acreages. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any single zone that would fit all the uses on that acreage. Mr. Tucker said no one district would fit all. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. McCann had a point about the policy, but he questioned which of the uses on the parcel is the nonconforming use that the Board should respond to. Mr. Tucker said the staff understood the policy to be based on .the existing zone, and at the present, the parcel is zoned M-i, however, the only use on the tract that conforms to M-1 zoning is the cabinet shop. The other uses would still be nonconforming. December 3, 1980 (Adjourned from November Mr. Fisher said the Board would have to end this work session in order to have time for supper before reconvening for the regular night meeting scheduled for 7:30. At 6:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. The motion was s'econded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. -- ~airman