1980-09-22 adjSePtember 22, 1980 (adjourned from.September 17, 1980)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 22, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 17, 1980.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr,, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy
Lindstrom and Layton R. McCann.
Absent: Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:39 P.M. Mr. Fisher said he had
spent the day at a meeting with people from Housing and Urban Development, people in the
development business and people concerned about the environment. They discussed ways to
resolve some of the conflicts in the provision of housing. After listening for four or five
hours, he felt that most of what has been recommended to the Board by the County's planning
staff and the consultants was mentioned. Discussion centered on such items as providing many
types of uses in compact areas so as not to use up large quantities of land~ provide uses
where public utilities can be provided at the lowest cost, and whether to put in water lines
in advance of development, and what benefit from this accrues to whom. The developers present
spoke about requiring performance standards rather than design standards, particularly in
reference to runoff control. On the question of providing housing for lower income people,
no one had any better suggestions for this then the density bonuses provided in this new
ordinance. Some people said there should be no development outside of the growth areas, and
that has been discussed by this Board for the last two years. In general, Mr. Fisher said
his reaction to the whole meeting is that although there may be some problems, the Board is
on the right trac~ with this new zoning ordinance.
Agenda Item No.2 Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker handed to the Board a
copy of the last sheet of the RA district which incorporated a new section X.7.2.1(8) reading:
"The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the
opinion of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
a)
c)
Occasion the need for road improvements;
Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road."
Mr. Tucker said he did not know if the Board wanted to discuss a provision for family
divisions and large lot exemptions for subdivisions. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt such a
provision would be more appropriate in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. McCann asked what size
lot would be exempted. Mr. Lindstrom said when Mr. Fisher's proposal was discussed, the
minimum size was down to 20 acres. Mr. McCann said if this zoning ordinance is to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, he could see no reason to discuss anything bigger
than five acres. Mr. Lindstrom said'if the zoning ordinance is left as drafted, it is
meaningless since people would be able to divide their land into as many five-acre parcels as
possible. Mr. McCann said he has thought about the RA district for over a year. He feels
that with the addition of section X.7.2.1(8) as set out above, this provision? will basically
eliminate subdivisions in certain areas of the County. He would like to see a draft of
provisions for an RA district that he could support. He cannot support the RA district as
drafted, particularly with the special permit aspects. He said he has seen too ~a~ special
permit requests come before the Planning Commission only to be held up by one person requesting
more information. If uses are going to be allowed by special~permit, somewhere in the
ordinance it should be spelled out as to what is needed to get approval without going through
a public hassle.
Mr. Tucker said he feels that the new draft of the RA district takes care of most of the
public comments ~eceived at the public hea~ing, and there were no other specific comments about
the text of the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he remembers that there were comments of a
general nature having to do with the mixing of performance and non-performance concepts.
Mr. Tucker said there were some comments about the bonus provisions of the ordinance. Bonuses
are provided in all residential districts including the ~illage residential districts as
incentives for growth in those areas. After reviewing those provisions further, the staff
feels that the Board might want to delete bonuses in some sections. Village residential does
not have bonuses for "locational standards" which are a carry-over from the consultants
proposal, and which appear to be difficult to apply as a bonus because it would depend on
where the land is located and whether or not the land is located near a school, library,
rescue squad, fire station, etc. If the land just happens to be within one-half mile of one
of these facilities, there is an automatic 5% increase inddensity. Dr. Iachetta said bonuses
are a way to achieve a higher density zoning, and it is not a discretionary provision. It is
a way of obtaining'a higher density without going through a standard rezoning process. A great
deal of time has been spent in deciding on uses which should take place within a given zoning
category in relation to recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Now, under these bonus
~.rovisions, an~iarbitrary 50% increase will be given for certain non-land use factors.
Dr. Iachetta a~ked if there were any ~ay to apply the incentives without an ~utomatic rezoning
being a part of the procedure. Mr. Lindstrom said when the Baard works on the zoning map, it
should look at zoning, not according to the density conventional zoning would give the property
but what density would be allowed with the bonuses. He asked if someone would be allowed to
ibuild structures of a different type than~those allowed in ~he~base zone. Mr. Tucker said no.
iMr. Lindstrom said the maximum density should be considered when setting zoning densities,
rather than the minimum. There are some good things in the bonus factors, such as the one
for provision of low and moderate cost housing. Mr. Tucker said the only way for the Board
to have any discretion would be to go back to special permits and increase densities by 50%
only after review of the permit by the Planning Commission and Board. He suggested that the
50% figure might be too high. Mr. Lindstrom asked if 50% is the percentage necessary to get
the wanted response. Mr. Tucker said this percentage was worked out by the consultants and
September 22, 1980 (Adjourned from September 17, 198C
the Planning Commission. If someone wanted to do just the minimum provisions, he could
obtain a 25% increase. Mr. Tucker said a higher percentage might be set for maintaining
existing vegetation. Also, a provision could be added to say that no grading permit would be
issued until a subdivision plat is submitted for approval. Dr. Iachetta said in reference to
the R-1 district, he would be inclined to leave section 13.5.4 (low and moderate cost housing)
to encourage a housing mix which did not require public grants. The remaining items under
"environmental standards" and "development standards" appear to be rather large bonuses. Mr.
Lindstrom said that an alternative to environmental standards would be to require an actual
plan before grading takes place. Dr. Iachetta asked what is meant'by "pedestrian system"
under development standards. Mr. Hucker said that is for sidewalks and paths separated from
the street. In certain areas such as the R4 district, locational standards and internal road
systems should be deleted since an internal road system would be a necessity for the density
contemplated in that district. Dr. Iachetta felt that section 13.5.1 (locational standards)
favors the owner who is close to schools. Mr. Lindstrom said that the way zoning will be
laid out, if patterns for growth are followed as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, it will be
hard to place the higher densities and the land not be close to those facilities. Mr. Fisher
said it is hard to imagine that in the urban area all of these provisions could not be met
and thus qualify land for a bonus. Mr. McCann suggested that there should be no bonuses.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board decides to eliminate bonus provisions, he would suggest that the
bonus referring to low and moderate cost housing be retained. Dr. Iachetta suggested that in
some areas it would be wise to keep the provisions for an internal road system (development
standards). He feels the County may have gone too far with private roads, and now that the
State standards have dropped to require only 40 feet of right of way, that might help deal
with private roads. Mr. Lindstrom said it will not help in lower densities. If an owner has
an option between using an existing state road, or building an internal road, the fact that
state highway standards have been lowered will not give an incentive, because there is no
savings to that owner. Mr. Lindstrom asked in how many growth areas of the county this
provision would apply since most of the roads in those areas are already established. Mr. Tucke
s~aid,.~ there will be private roads for rental propertl~S~o Most private roads are in rural
areas with steeper terrain and where vertical alignment cannot be met. Mr. Lindstrom said
this provision does not speak about private or public roads, only to an internal road system.
In most of the growth areas this does not provide an incentive for anything other than conventi¢
development. Mr. McCann felt that when you get outside of the Albemarle County Service
Authority's service areas, there will not be anything other than conventional development.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board members keep their remarks to the R-l-district.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Bonus Factors are the same for all districts. Mr. Tucker
said that in the R-6, R-10 and R-15 districts there tare no locational standards and the
wording concerning the internal road system has also been removed. That is the reason the
staff has suggested that this be done for the R-4 district as well.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was substantial agreement among Board members that section
13.5.4 (low and moderate cost housing) stay as written. Dr. Iachetta said yes. He would
prefer that section 13.5.1 (locational standards) be omitted and that something other than
the scheme set forth in section 13.5.2 (environmental standards) be tried. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if a requirement about grading could be placed in other than the zoning ordinance. Mr.
Tucker said the site plan section of the zoning ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance could
be amended to require that prior to"obtaining a grading permit, approval of a grading plan
would be needed. Mr. Fisher asked the implications of such a provision. Mr. Tucker said
there would be no problem in the Urban Areas, but in Crozet and Hollymead there might be.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how a grading permit would inhibit the normal activities of a farmer.
Mr. Tucker said if it is truly an agricultural activity, it would be exempt. Mr. McCann
asked'if Dr. Iachetta was saying that he wanted to keep section 13.5.2 as written, but not
al~low the ~tated I~%. He said he would not agree to that. He felt that the Board is trying
to make sure that it knows exactly what is taking place on every piece of land in the County
and he does not feel that is the County's business. Mr. Lindstrom said the "environmental
standards" are limited to residential areas. Mr. McCann said it is often more profitable to
grade everything out and let the people who build replant. Dr. Iachetta said the intent of
this paragraph is not to say that this has to be done, but to say that if it is done, there
is an increase in density. Mr. McCann said Mr. Lindstrom said that he would like to see this
section deleted and require a grading permit before anything could be done on the land at
all. Mr. Lindstrom said that in residential areas, he would rather that no one obtain a
grading permit until after site plan review. Let the site plan trigger all other permits for
building. If a site plan is filed before grading~ there is a better chance to preserve the
features of the ground.
Mr. Fisher said in providing for an increase in population of 60,000 persons, every tree
may be important. He does see an incentive for providing some visual screening and sound
isolation. 'He suggested that the whole section be deleted. He also felt that the bonuses
for planting tree~.was too high. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was any ability during site
plan review to effectively maintain the environmental standards set out in section 13.5.2.
Mr. Tucker said that on site plans, there is some control over landscaping. Dr. Iachetta
asked why the requirements for site plan, soil erosion control and stormwater detention where
not enough to control. Mr. Tucker said there is no control over'this in subdivisions,
although many developers are finding it is to their benefit to maintain as many treees as
possible.
Mr. Fisher suggested that section 13.5.2 be changed to read:
"For maintenance of existing wooded areas important to the existing landscape
character of the area, a density increase of 10% shall be granted; or
If not wooded for provision of significant landcaping in keeping with the
character of the areas and/or to minimize impact of new development on the
existing character of the area, a density increase of 10%, shall be granted.
Deciduous trees shall be .... "
September 22, 1980 (Adjourned from September 17, 1980)
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board discuss section 13.5.3 (development standards). He
asked how the members felt about the 5% increase for pedestrian systems. Mr. Tucker said
that is the provision he suggested could be deleted. Mr. Fisher suggested that the following
wording be deleted: "For pedestrian system separated from vehicular rights-of-way, a density
increase of 5% shall be granted." Dr. Iachetta agreed.
Mr. Fisher spoke about the next paragraph of section 13.5.2. He asked if it was the
feeling of the staff that the 20% bonus should apply whether it is a public road or a private
road in the urban area. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. If the wording stipulates that it
must be a public road, there will not be any for apartm:em~ or townhouse developments which
are rental properties. Mr. Fisher felt that in other types of housing, this may encourage
private roads and people will get bonus densities for providing private roads. Mr. Tucker
said the County does not have to approve private road systems. Mr. Lindstrom said the concern
about private roads needs to be addressed differently. The Board certainly does not want to
give bonuses to stop road stripping by encouraging private roads. Mr. Fisher said he can
contemplate a grave problem with private roads in the growth areas. Mr. Tucker said the
problem is caused because the Highway Department will not take a road into the system unless
it is built to the ultimate standard. Mr. Lindstrom said if roads are built to those standards
in a residential area, they are ugly, wide, encourage fast travel, and the cutting down of
all trees within 50 feet of anything. They have no business being in a residential area.
Mr. Fisher said he did not think the County could rely on these roads being maintained through
homeowners agreements. Mr. Henley said there may still be some places where the County would
want a private road. Dr. Iachetta agreed that in R'i you might want some private roads, but
in R-2 and higher densities you might not want private roads.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board's feelings about the language in section 13.5.3 allowing a
20% bonus for internal road systems. Mr. Lindstrom asked if 20% is a meaningful bonus as
opposed to road stripping. Mr. Tucker said the language could be changed to state: "For
serving all lots with an internal road system .... " The Board members concurred..
Mr. Fisher then referred to the next paragraph of section 13.5.3 which begins: "For
dedication of land for public use, not otherwise required by law, .... a) density may be
increased by 15%; b) the acreage of land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by twice
the standard level gross density and the resulting number of dwellings may be added to the
site." Mr. Fisher said he assumes that the language intends that the bonus be either (a) or
(b), whichever is less. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Paragraph (b) gives the County
the option to decide whether the land will be accepted, but there is no discretion in paragraph
(a). Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the paragraph be changed to say "For dedication and acceptanc
of land for public use .... " Mr. Fisher asked if the Board really wanted to encourage the
dedication of land by giving density credits. Mr. McCann said that some of the sites which
have been dedicated are not very good. Dr. Iachetta said the developer who is going to
dedicate land is obviously going to dedicate the land that is the least valuable to his
overall plan. Dr. Iachetta said it does not appear that the impact from this will be very
great. Mr. St. John asked who elects between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b); the county or
the developer. Mr. Tucker said it is based on whichever calculation is less. The Board
members agreed to Mr. Lindstrom's proposed change in language.
At 9:16 P.M., Mr. McCann announced that he had to leave the meeting. Mr. Fisher said
Mr. McCann had notified him that he had a nominee for the Planning Commission and needed to
set up a time for an interview. Mr. Fisher suggested a supper meeting at 6:00 P.M. on September
before the next work session on the zoning ordinance. The other Board members agreed.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board discuss Village Residential bonus factorso(Section 12.5).
Mr. Tucker noted that the locational standards had been deleted from this section. Also, the
bonus for an internal road sYstem is listed at 10% instead of the 20% given in other districts.
He also said that the Board might want to delete the paragraph referring to pedestrian systems.
If the Board makes these changes, the maximum density factor obtainable would be 50%. Dr.
Iachetta said he felt that village residential areas may be those areas where people will
want to go to get aWay from the crunch of higher densities. He did not want to see the lot
sizes get below 60,000 square feet, although with one public utility, the size could go down
to 40,000 square feet.
Mr. Fisher said there is now a base density of 60,000 square feet per lot in this ~'~
ordinance. He asked if~a developer took advantage of the bonuses, if he could get the full
50% bonus and go to a one-acre lot without any public utilities? Mr. Tucker said the way the
ordinance-'is presently written, 40,000 square foot lots are allowed with individual wells and
septic systems. In fact, with one public utility, the lot size could drop to 30,000 square
ifeet. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board deal with the question of minimum lot sizes
iseparately and asked how the Board felt about the 50% bonus. Dr. Iachetta felt it was too
!high for the village residential district. He said he can go along with the bonuses in areas
liwhere there will be water and sewer, but in village residential, the County is looking for a
itransition between urban and rural areas and at the same time recognizing the limitation on
providing utilities. He was not sure that any bonuses, other than the one for low and moderate
i/cost housing, should be allowed in village residential.
Mr. Fisher said there is a 10% bonus listed for internal road systems, and he felt there
might be a need for that bonus. Mr. Tucker suggested that this bonus be increased to 20%.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that the rural atmosphere will be violated by a 50% density
bonus, and felt some incentive might be needed to encourage people to live in villages. Mr.
Fisher said he was inclined to make the same changes in this section, as were just made in
the R-I, in other words: Under section 12.5.1 environmental standards" add the word or
after the first paragraph. Change the second paragraph to read: "If not wooded, for provision
of significant landcaping ... a density increase of 10% shall be granted. Deciduous .... "
In section 12.5.2, "development standards" change the first paragraph to read: "For serving
all lots .... " Delete the second paragraph pertaining to pedestrian systems. He said the
question is really one of minimum lot sizes and how to deal with cluster development. Ail
the way through the ordinance, cluster development is allowed by right in all residential
zones and that is an issue the Board should discuss. Dr. Iachetta said he can go along with
clustering anywhere there are two utilities. Mr. Lindstrom said the only places where clusterir
will be able to take places are where there are utilities. Mr. Fisher said that could apply
!iin any of the major growth areas eventually, however, at this time, in the village residential
September 22, 1980 (Adjourned from_Se~_t~__~~
district there are bonus factors and cluster development provisions. Dr. Zachetta suggested
taking out the cluster provisions if the bonuses are allowed. Mr. Fisher referred the Board
to section 12.4 "area and bulk regulations" and the minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet
listed under cluster development. He asked if that was changed to 40,000 square feet, if
that would be consistent with the Board wanting to have minimum lot sizes of 60,000, or
40,000 square feet with only one public utility. Mr. Lindstrom said if the "general regulations
are changed so that there cannot be a lot smaller than 40,000 square feet, this 25,000 provisior
would automatically change also. Dr. Iachetta asked if the 40,000/60,000 square foot provision
does not essentially eliminate the cluster development category in section 12.4, even though
he felt there is a potential for cluster development with a bonus. Mr. Tucker said the
consultants felt there was a need for an incentive ~o]~.lower the lot size, and the Health
Department has said they will support the lower size if two drainfields are required for each
lot. Mr. Fisher said he had been unable to find the requirement for two drainfields in this
ordinance, and suggested that Mr. Tucker furnish that section number at the next work session.
He said the Board needs to think about the minimum lot sizes and how the problem should be
addressed since it seems that public sewage disposal is what the Board should be concerned
about.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Tucker needed to discuss the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Mr.
Tucker said that a few months ago, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
General Emergency Management Administration sent legislation to Congress concerning localities
that have flood insurance and flood plain ordinances. These agencies now say that localities
with these provisions must amend their flood plain ordinances to reflect the new legislation.
The staff had drafted the flood hazard overlay thinking that possibly the new zoning ordinance
might be adopted before this legislation was required to be adopted. Now, the staff requests
a resolution of intent to amend the current, existing ordinance because the County only has
until December 16, 1980, to adopt the new provisions or it will loose its flood insurance
eligibility. Mr. Fisher suggested that instead of taking this up as a separate issue that the
flood hazard overlay be incorporated into the ordinance for public hearing, hopefully on
November 19, 1980.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are two other issues that he would like to talk about. One is
the provision concerning 25% critical slopes and 2) the concept of holding rezoning hearings
on some periodic basis instead of each time a petition is filed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would
not be present at the October 6 work session. Mr. Fisher agreed to discuss these items later.
Agenda Item No. 3. At 10:00 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting until September 29, 1980, at 6:00 P.M. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. McCann and Miss Nash.
C~r~an