Loading...
1980-09-29 adjSeptember 29, 198~ (Adjourned from September 22,1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 29, 1980, at 6:00 P.M.; said meeting being adjourned from September 22, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Agenda Item No. 1.. The meeting was called to order on or about 6:00 P.M. at the Con- tinental Italian Fisherman, Route 29 North, Charlottesville, Virginia. On motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Miss Nash, the Board went immediately into executive session for a discussi of personnel matters. The Board reconvened into open session and adjourned the meeting to the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was called back to order at 7:40 P.M..with the following officers present: County Attorney, George R. St. John and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, arrived at the meeting at 8:35 P.M. Mr. Fisher announced that he would give testimony before the Joint Finance Commission in Richmond tomorrow on the question of continuing service charges on tax exempt properties. There is a provision in the State Appropriations Bill that would delete that provision at the end of this biennium. This provision is worth about $100,000 to Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher also announced that there is a hearing on the Airport Master Plan on Thursday at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from the Executive Vice President of the University of Virginia in which he states that the University does plan to begin incineration of low level radioactive wastes this week. The State Attorney General has rendered an opinion on what powers the County has in this matter. Several reporters have inquired today as to the status of the County's ordinance, and Mr. Fisher said he stated that the ordinance stands until it is repealed by this Board or struck down by the courts. Mr. Fisher said that on Wednesday of next week, there will be a'visit by a delegation from Italy. The Board and City Council will entertain these visitors at a supper to be held on Friday night, October 10, at 6:30 P.M. at the Sheraton Inn. These persons are bringing the stained glass window for the First Baptist Church which Wes commissioned in 1977. At this time, Mr. McCann said he would like to offer the name of Allan Kindrick for appointment to the Planning Commission as the representative from Rivanna District. 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. Fisher brought to the attention of the Board members a Summary of Building Activity in 1979, prepared by the planning staff, which he said really contains information about building in Albemarle County during the entire decade. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he has asked Mr. Tucker to focus the discussion tonight on public comments received on the text of the ordinance Mr. Tucker said he had sent a packet of letters out with the agenda last Friday. Only one letter from the League of Women Voters really contains comments about the text; the other letters were in reference to the zoning map. Mr. Tucker noted that corrected sheets had been forwarded to the Board from last week's work session. Mr. Fisher said he felt there was an error in section 12.5.2. He thought the Board had decided on a 20% density increase for internal road sYstems. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Tucker returned to the letter from the League of Women Voters, a paragraph referring to "environmental standards" which read: "Present environmental standards are geared to provide almost all the total 50% density increases allowed, but the standards are too vague. For example, how many existing trees must be maintained? What is meant by signficant land- scaping?'' Mr. Tucker said there is a definition of "wooded area, forested areas" on page 35 of the ordinance. This standard would be used in all of the residential districts to determine if an area is already wooded. Mr. Fisher next commented on the League's mention of bonuses: "Bonuses for the ordinance' standards are much too high because they are given for doing things which should be required. If bonuses' are to be meaningful, they should be incentives to actions on the part of the developer which are more costly and affect the health and safety, as well as the aesthetics, of the people who will live or work in areas to be developed." Miss Nash asked if bonuses are given for items which should be required. Mr. Tucker said no. At last week's Board meeting, all bonuses were discussed and any questionable bonuses were eliminated, especially for items that may be required by other ordinances. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board also intends to amend the Subdivision and Zoning ordinances so that site plan or subdivision review are a prerequisite to a grading permit. Mr. Fisher asked if the members felt there should be density bonuses given in the RA zone. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not believe they should. Mr. McCann said, with the intent of what is being done in the rural areas, bonuses would not make any sense. September 29, 1980 (Adjourned from September 22, 1980) Mr. Tucker said in reference to the League's suggestion that open space requirements be added for clarity, there is a definition of open space in the ordinance that is geared to be used in a cluster plan, PRD or PUD. Mr. Tucker said he was not quite sure what the LOWV's felt should be added. Mr. Fisher said in section 20.8~2, it states that "Not less than 25% of the residential area of any PUD shall be in open space." He asked if there was similar languag~ in the PRD section. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked if there was a requirement for open space in any clustering that may occur in any of the residential areas. Mr. Keeler referred the Board to section 2.2.3 which states: "Except as otherwise provided in the RA and PRD districts, a minimum of 25% of the cluster development must be in open space exclusive of lots, roads and parking areas." Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission had evidently taken out any references to flood~plains and slopes. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any requirement that the open space not be in ravines or on the steepest slopes. Dr. Iachetta said he felt such a provision should be included. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that if the Board decided that 25% is a justifable minimum, there should be some meaningful value to the land for recreational purposes. He then offered motion to change section 2.2.3 to read: "Except as otherwise provided, a minimum of 25% of the cluster developm must be in open space exclusive of lots, roads and common parking areas. Not more than 30% of open space required hereunder may be composed of flood hazard areas, lands over 25% in slope, or areas classified as having permanent or seasonally high water tables." The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this language would automatically apply to any areas that have open space requirements. Mr. Tucker said section 2.2.3 is actually part of the provisions for cluster development. It would be better to put the suggested language in the "Definition" section of the ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if it was the intent of the motion that this provision apply wherever there are open space requirements. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker mentioned an item in the LOWV's letter about developmental standards which read: "Pedestrian systems are not defined. Does the term include walkways, sidewalks and bikeways?" Mr. Tucker said the Board had deleted the bonuses for pedestrian systems last week. Also, the Planning Commission has the authority to require such items on site plans. Mr. McCann said he has heard a lot of complaints from citizens about bikeways. There are a lot of instances in this ordinance where the language states "the commission may require", and he feels an ordinance is needed that will say what is required. He does not like open-ended language. Mr. Fisher said the bike plan is a part of the Comprehensive Plan and is the only place where there can be any requirement for bikes. Mr. Tucker said the bike plan has been updated and will be brought back to the Board at a later date for adoption. Mr. Lindstrom said when that plan is updated, if it is the policy, it should be uniformly applied. He has trouble with making absolute statements which preclude any flexibility whatsoever. There were no suggestions for changes. Mr. Tucker referred to the LOWV's letter where it stated: "We recommend adding a bonus incentive to put in a central well system especially in areas where public water will be available in two to five years." Mr. Keeler said there is no direct bonus incentive included, but small lot sizes could be obtained if a central well system were employed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a requirement is ~ncluded in the Subdivision Ordinance to require that a development above a certain number of lots have a central well system. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that number is established by State Code or local option. Mr. St. John said it is a local idea which came about after problems had occurred in certain subdivisions. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the significant part of the request is that part referring to "where public water will be available in two to five years." He said he did not feel that should be an incentive, but should be a requirement. The cost of going back in later years to trench and connect houses is much larger than if it were done at the time of initial instaltati~ In areasw~efa~Sufficient dwellings are now being developed to constitute a residential area, even on two-acre lots, the County would be ahead of the game if the distribution system were installed now. Mr. St. John said if central well systems are encouraged in areas where it has never been envisioned to have public water, and one of these systems fails, the pressure will be on the County to help remedy the situation. The County does not approve individual wells, but in approving a central well system, tests are run and someone passes judgment that the system is adequate. If that judgment is wrong, whoever is in office at the time will be called on to remedy the situation at the taxpayer's expense. Mr. McCann said most people who move into the county are kind of independent and want to look after their own needs. Mr. Fisher referred to the League's letter where it states: "Would it not be desirable to require transportation impacts for all districts as required for commercial districts?" Mr. Tucker referred the Board to the "Statement of Intent" for commercial districts, generally, on page 153 of the ordinance. He said the only other place the ordinance deals with trans- portation impacts is in the RA district where the reference to road tolerability was added. Miss Nash asked the meaning of the words "serviceable transportation system" in the sentence reading: "It is further intended that commercial development shall contribute to a serviceable transportation system including particular attention to potential congestion, impacts on safety and on convenience of accessibility." Mr. Tucker said the language tries to establish some guidelines so that any commercial districts created will not automatically impact the transportation network. Mr. Keeler said the idea is to put people on notice when making application for a commercial district that the County will look at the traffic to be generated from that district. In the highway commercial district, additional frontage is required in the shape of the district to discourage small parcels. In the planned development-shopping center district, a transportation analysis plan is required which the Highway Department will review. Mr. Fisher said when zoning is changed from a lower to a higher density, he feels that traffic patterns should always be a part of the concerns. Mr. Tucker said that is not specifically written in the language at this time. Miss Nash asked if there were any reason to include a sentence that does not say anything and does not make any sense and suggested deleting same. Dr. Iachetta agreed and said the next sentence should begin: "A review of transportation impacts .... " Miss Nash then offered motion to delete the sentence written above. ~t September 29, 1980 (Adjourned from September 22, 198©) Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board wanted to put applicants on notice that transportation impacts will be looked at on all rezonings in the R-t through R-4 categories. Mr. Lindstrom said if it is mentioned in one place and not in another place, there is the presumption that it is not as ~important in the other place. It might be just as well to take the whole thing out. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. McCann said that traffic patterns can always be considered in a rezoning. M~ Lindstrom said if there is going to be a general statement, he would prefer that it be brief and include as much reference as possible to the State Code. Mr. McCann said the problem he has had with the ordinance is that it is so general. There are a lot of words included that do not really mean anything when you read the ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he was really not happy with the language under section 21.1. Mr. ~narz~smggested that section 33.0 might be changed to read: "The board of~supervisors may amend, supplement, or change the regulations in the zoning ordinance, or the zoning boundaries or classification of property on the zoning map, in conformity with the provisions of Title 15.1, Article 8, Chapter 11 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and the provisions and purpoSes of this section." Motion to make this change was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Dr. Iachetta. The Clerk in attendance brought to the Board's attention that no vote.was ever taken on the last motion. Dr. Iachetta said the Board had agreed by consensus. Roll was called, and the motion just made by Mr. Lindstrom carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Tucker next noted the following recommendation from the LOWV's: "The National Standar for the American Planning Association for active and passive recreational areas recommend a minimum of ten acres per 1000 population. We need to plan for further population and inc0rporat open space into new developments as they are created." Mr. Tucker said that standards for recreational uses would be more appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan. The standard in the zoning ordinance is calculated for R-4 and more intense densities where 50 square feet per dwelling unit is required for open space and recreational uses. The standards referred to by the LOWV's is for regional parks, neighborhood parks, etc. Mr. Fisher said he would like to look at the standard recommended by the LOWV's before further discussion. Mr; Fisher then read from the LOWV's letter: "Section 1.4 lists the purpose and intent of the ordinance is to 'implement the Comprehensive Plan', yet among the purposes that the ordinance is designed for, 'conservation' is not mentioned although it is the first goal listed in the Plan. Since we continue to be concerned with the protection of the reservoirs and of future impoundments, we find a lack of definite provisions in this ordinance disturbing. We looked to the Conservation District (CVN) as the means to protect and preserve those areas from the compromising effect of specific forms and densities of development. We are not reassured when we see the standard levels for conventional and cluster developments that could be applied to lands around the reservoir. Such densities are not 'holding development at a minimum'. Since the 'purpose and intent' was taken directly from Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8, of the Code of Virginia, we see no reason why certain provisions were omitted and therefore suggest the following additions: Section 1.4.4 '...to facilitate the provisions of ... transportation, water, sewerage, parks., .... ' Section 1.4.5 '...to protect ... overcrowding of land and water supplies.' Add Section 1.4.7 reading: 'To protect against the destruction of~ or encroachment upon, historical areas.' (This is subsection 5 of 15.1-489 'of the Code.)" Mr. Fisher asked about including parks in section 1.4.4. Mr. McCann said he had a problem with parks being a part of the Comprehensive Plan. He certainly did not want to see them included in this ordinance. Mr. McCann said the plans for parks that he has seen so far are grandiose and he feels they are completely out of line with this county. Mr. Fisher said parks are generally a special kind of recreational facility. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Keeler had just pointed out that the language in section 1.4 is extracted from the Code of Virginia. He personally would feel:'better if the strict Code language were used. Mr. Fisher agreed and said he thought there was another amendment to Section 15.1-589 last year concerning the preservation of agricultural land. Mr. St. John said that was adopted a couple of years ago. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to change the following sections as set out below: 1..4.4 to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; 1.4.7 to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; and 1.4.8 to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. September 29, 1980 (Adjourned from September 22, 1980) Mr. Lindstrom said he would not be present at next week's meeting and had a couple of items he would like to discuss. He suggested that Section 33.1, Statement of Purpose and Intent, be deleted as he did not think that it adds anything to the whole ordinance. Mr. St. John said he would prefer to see the first part of the first line of Section 33.0 reading: "Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires, deleted. The statement of intent, if the chips are ever down, defends the amendment process per se in a courtroom. Mr. St. John said it is a due process safeguard which he feels gives strength to the amending process of the ordinance and is of some value in the ordinance. Mr. McCann said he also has trouble with that section. He does not like to have someone tell him what he can do with his land. Mr. St. John said the courts have said that "aesthetic values" are a proper consideration in a zoning ordinance as long as these are not the only consider- ations. Mr. McCann said he wholeheartedly diagrees with that ruling. Mr. St. John said every individual's idea of aesthetics differs, but there are certain things which almost everyone, except the promoter, thinks is an eyesore and in such cases, aesthetics are a proper consideratl Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the Board limit the review on amendments to the zoning text or map to a quarterly basis. That would give the Board the ability to see what the impact of the amendments would be in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. He did not feel there was any requirement that an application be processed as soon as it is filed so maybe it is simply a matter of policy. Mr. Henley said he would prefer more information on such a change before the Board votes to make such a change. Dr. Iachetta said he felt it would be best to separate zoning text amendments from the zoning application which immediately follows the amendment. Mr. Henley said the Board has sometimes spend a whole meeting on one request. He did not know what would haPpen if the requests were reviewed only once every three months. Mr. Fisher said the consultants had originally recommended this idea. Mr. McCann said if the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan are to be used, there probably will not be any rezonings outside of the growth areas without a really good reason. Add to that all the requirements for special permits, and the Board will have petitions coming out of their ears. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the staff draft some language for quarterly review of rezonings, text and map amendments, and special use permits, to be returned for further review. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the Board should review the way Home Occuptions, both Class A and Class B are approved. He felt it would be helpful to the applicant, the staff, and this Board, if only those applications on which objections are received, were reviewed. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission had changed those provisions so that Home Occupation requests are handled the way mobile home permits are presently handled. Dr. Iachetta said he had missed these new provisions in reading the ordinance, and that answered his question. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board had changed the 30,000/40,000 square foot provisions relating to area requirements in sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the 30,000 in section 4.1.2 be changed to 40,000; that 40,000 in section 4.1.3 be changed to 60,000; and 30,000 in 4.2.2.1 be changed to 40,000. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta who then said that if 4.2.2.1 is being changed to 40,000 square feet, the Board better study the ratio again because of the words "... the building site shall have an area of 30,000 square feet or greater and shall be of such dimension that no one dimension shall exceed any other by a ratio of more than 5 to 1." Mr. McCann said that section: 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 refer to "parcels" and section 4.2.2.1 refers to "building site" Mr. Fisher asked the difference between the two phrases. Mr. Keeler said a building site is within the parcel and the ratio is given so that you can provide some usable building site within a parcel Mr. Fisher asked if the 30,000 square feet mentioned in section 4.2.2.1 is intended to be the lot size. Mr. Tucker said no; it is intended to mean that there must be 30,000 square feet of usable area. Mr. McCann said that requiring adequate area for two drainfields takes only 2500 square feet and this requires more than 10 times that area just for the building site. He did not object to changing 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, but when the square footage is changed on the building site he has a problem. ~Dr. Iachetta asked why the ratio requirement could not be included in 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 and do away with 4.2.2.1. Mr. McCann said he thought that section could be completely struck. ~r. Fisher said he felt there was some confusion about the term "building site". It is not intended to be the full lot size and he felt Mr. McCann was right. Dr. Iachetta said that the Board better think more about 4.2.2.1. Mr. Lindstrom then clarified the motion to change 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 only. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta said Sandy Lambert had called him to raise a point that the Board had not considered when it set November 19 as the date for the public hearing on the zoning ordinance. Evidently there were already zoning matters scheduled for that night that have now been deferre~ After a short discussion, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to reschedule anything that had been scheduled for the November 19th meeting for November 2-0 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 P.M. /~ d~~an on.