Loading...
1980-10-27 adjOctober 27, 1980 (Adjourned from October 22, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, virginia, was held on October 27, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 22, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at 3:25 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. J and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:06 P.M. by Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Silver and Gold Ordinance. Mr. Fisher noted that there had been a problem in the advertising for this public hearing and requested that this item be readvertised for November 12, 1980. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley and Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 3. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor noted the following memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated October 23, 1980: "About five years ago, there was a mattress fire at the Joint Security Complex. At that time, it was determined that there was a serious need for a smoke detection system. The County Fire Marshal proposed a very elaborate and costly system. This problem has survived two fire marshals and two jail administrators, A reasonable solution to the problem has finally been reached. The City is willing to proceed to purchase a system and the County purchasing agent has taken bids. The cost of the system is $16,524 with the County's share being one-half or $8,262. This item has not been considered in the Capital Improvements Program due to. dif- ferences of opinion as to the type of system needed. Therefore, I request an appro- priation be made from the General Fund." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $8,262 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 9700-7060.98, Joint Security Complex, for the County's share of a smoke detection system at said jail. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 5. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board begin by discussing Section 33.10 drafted by the staff at the Board's request for quarterly review of petitions. The Board discussed at length how such a procedure would work, preferential order of hearing requests and how this would work into the Planning Commission's schedule. (Dr. Iachetta arrived at 3:25 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that it is important to get the cumulative impact of zoning changes and he felt that impact can only be seen on an annual basis. He did not feel strongly either way about this section, but suggested that zoning text amendments might be discussed on a six-month basis, if language were included that allowed a Board member to sponsor such a change when he deemed an amendment necessary. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to include Section 33.10, Schedule of Review, as set out below: 33.10 SCHEDULE OF REVIEW 33.10.1 For the purposes of providing for orderly growth and reasoned consideration of the potential impact of proposed rezonings, zoning text amendments and special use permits upon the Comprehensive Plan, the board of supervisors may establish timing procedures for consideration of rezoning applications. 33.10.2 The Board of Supervisors shall consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at the specified intervals of six months. Hearing times in accord with intervals shall be established by resolution of the board of supervisors during the month of January of each calendar year following ~a~i ]~ ~?~a~na¢~m~t~'~fo~h~mrdinance, and said resolution shall be published at least Dnce per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation ~n~l~marle ~ounty. The motion was seconded'by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES.: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstr0m, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to discuss the Rural Areas District one more time, particularly the proposal put forth by Mr. Fisher (set out in minutes of July 16, 1980). He then noted a new draft of the RA District given to Board members today;~ said draft prepared by the staff at his request. The major changes from the proposal set out in the minutes of September 9, 1980, are as follows: October 27, 1980 (Adjourned from October 22~ 1980) ×.4 X.4.1 X.4.2 X.4.3 X.4.~ X.~'.5 ×.5 REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record on the date of adoption of this ordinance. Category I. Parcels of 21 acres or greater in area may be divided in accordance with the regulations of X.5 provided that no lot or parcel resulting from such division shall be less than 21 acres in area. Category II. Parcels less than 21 acres but greater than six acres in area may be divided in accordance wtih the regulations of X.5 provided that no lot or parcel resulting from such division shall be less than six acres in area. Category III. Parcels less than six acres in area may be divided in accordance with the regulation of X.5 provided that no lot or parcel resulting from such division shall be less than tws acres in area. Limited Exemption. Regulations in X.4.1 and X.4.2 shall not apply to parcels divided in accordance with 18-57 Family Division of the Code of Albemarle County. Such divisions shall comply with the regulations of ~.4.3. The regulations of this section and X.5 shall apply to the location of multiple single-family and/or two-family dwelling units on a single parcel except as otherwise permitted in X.7. ' AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Divisions by Right CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Divisions by Special Use Permit CO~¥ENTIONAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT GROSS DENSITY Category I Category II Category III 1 du/21 acres 1 du/6 acres 1 du/2 acres I du/6 acres ~ du/6 acres 1 du/6 acres MINIMUM LOT SIZE Category I 21.0 acres 6.0 acres Category II 6.0 acres ___ Category III 2.0 acres ___ 2.0 acres 2.0 acres MINIMUM FRONTAGE Existing Public Roads Category I 500 feet 250 feet Category II 250 feet ___ Category III 160 feet ___ 250 feet 250 feet MINIMUM FRONTAGE Internal Public or Private Roads Category I 350 feet 175 feet 110 feet Category II 175 feet --- 110 feet Category III 110 feet ___ MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Front 75 feet 75 feet 50 feet Side 25 feet 25 feet 12 feet Rear 35 feet 35 feet 25 feet MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet MAXIMUM LOT SIZE 2.5 acres He noted that Sections X.7 and X.7.1 entitled "Limitations on Divisions Permitted by Right" have been eliminated as well as Section X.7.2.3 entitled "Conditions of Approval". Mr. Fisher asked about the numbers set out in Categories I, II and III. Mr. Tucker said that when land is classified for forestry under the land use tax, one acre is deducted leaving only 19 acres, which would not qualify for the tax preference. The staff raised the figure to 21 so the land's eligibility for the tax preference would remain. Dr. Iachetta said he was somewhat taken back by the frontage requirements in X.5. Under divisions by special permit, both convenvional and cluster, only 250 feet of frontage is required. For a large lot that is a small amount of frontage which makes it a very deep lot. Mr. ~Tucker felt that if someone applied for a special use permit, they would probably apply for something close to a six-acre density. Mr. Fisher suggested that Dr. Iachet- a rewrite frontage requirements while the Board struggled with the concept of this proposal. He then asked the County Attorney to commen~. October 27, 1980 (Adjourned from October 22, 1980) 367 Mr. St. John said he did not think there was anything illegal or unconstitutional about the concept although he has doubts and has expressed those doubts. They are the same doubts Mr. Roudabush expressed while he was a member of the Board that to predicate the allowable density or allowable lot size on the oWnership of a parCel, or the size of exiSting parcels at the moment the ordinance is adopted, is a new concept. He said he does not know of any locality in Virginia that has had any experience with this concept. The Board has also discussed at length the administrative difficulty of trying to keep tract of how many acres are in a parcel at the date of adoption of the ordinance. This is not the only version of the RA District containing the same recordkeeping requirements. Mr. Fisher said his idea would not require that any records by kept of prior divisions. Mr. St. John said a record would be needed of parcels bigger than 21 acres. Mr. Fisher said if someone wanted to subdivide, it would have to be determined if the parcel were over 21 acres or not; and that is the only time a record would be needed. He did not think there would be any recordkeeping except for special permits, and that is the same kind of recordkeeping that is presently done. Mr. Keeler said the definition of "subdivision" iwill have to be amended in the Subdivision Ordinance to make the creation of any parcel less than 21 acres a subdivision. Then, when someone brought in a subdivision plat, the staff would go to the deed book references. It would be much simpler than keeping tract of five, two-acre lots. Mr.,St. John said no one in Virginia has any experience with predicating what can be done with land based on the size of parcels at the time the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Tucker said that Wise County is proposing a zoning ordinance based on the size of the parcel. That ordinance is taken almost verbatim from an ordinance of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Lindstrom said the existing ordinance speaks about an agricultural zone that is ltpredicated on a minimum lot size of two acres. If a parcel was in existence on the date lof the adoption of the existing ordinance that was less than two acres in the A-1 zone, lthat lot could not be further divided. If the parcel were bigger than two acres, it could lbe divided down to two acres. He asked if that was not similar to the concept that if a lperson had a parcel of 21+ acres, that person would be limited on the number of times the parCel could be divided. Mr. St. John said he does not think that is the same principle. The two-acre parcel size was based on someone's judgment that two acres is the minimum size lot which should exist in the agricultural area. That is a mathematical thing as opposed to the geometric progression being proposed here. Mr. St. John said he thinks that someday the Board will have to articulate a basis for this new concept. A basis for the two-acre minimum lot size can be articulated, but that basis applies to a parcel of 4200 acres or a parcel of four acres. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought that Mr. Fisher's proposal articulated that the qualification for the preferential land tax was based on the judgment of someone in Richmond that such sized parcels lend themselves to agricultural use. Mr. Fisher said the proposal he made July 16 had a different "intent" section. He said the Comprehensive Plan states that the County should identify best agricultural soils. This cannot be done until the soil studies are completed. Mr. Fisher Said he was trying to find the best holding pattern to be in until the soil studies are completed. Mr. Fisher said he was trying to find the best holding patter to be in until that work is~ finished and best agricultural soils can be identified. If the County permits land which now qualifies for tax exemption to be subdivided below a level where it can no longer !qualify for that tax exemption, then future owners of that land would not be able to take advantage of the tax exemption and probably would not try to reinstitute that use. That was the intent of his proposal. Mr. St. John said that is a well-articulated basis for the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to explain his reasons for bringing up this subj'ect again. Mr. Fisher's proposal seems to eliminate the recordkeeping problems the other proposals have. Also, the lot sizes seem to have an intrinsic meaning because they are tied to the state standard for the preferential land tax. The proposal also respects different sized parcels. Finally, in the proposal for five lots by right, the definition of subdivision still needs to be addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that this proposal has a couple of advantages over the proposal presently being considered. Dr. Iachetta said he feels there are as many problems with this proposal as with the one the Board had previously agreed to in the sense that the rationale for the person thinking in terms of what to do with his land is hard to reconcile. Dr. Iachetta said he feels it comes back to applying some minimum number of lots by right with additional criteria attached to take care of the larger parcels. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board should look at this proposal in terms of its relative benefits and detriments. This proposal does more for watershed protection. It also does more for defensibility and recordkeeping. For the Planning Staff, it does not create anything worse than what is now in effect. Dr. Iachetta said One variation on this proposal had occurred to him. Assuming that someone with six acres would get three lots; someone with six acres but less than twelve acres would get one lot; and someone with 18 acres but less than 21 acres would get three lots; take the cut-off at 21 acres and if there were less than 21 acres, allow three lots by right of a two-acre minimum. This essentially combines Categories II and III. Above 21 acres, the property could be divided by 21 or the owner could apply for a special use permit. Mr. McCann said he felt the Board should be looking at good, well-thought out subdivisions He believes that everytime government tries to regulate people, it only creates more and more regulations. If the Board tries to control everything, it creates problems and Mr. McCann said he thinks there are problems with this proposal. There being no Consensus on this proposal, Mr. Fisher suggested the Board recess for supper (5:15 P.M.). At 7:30 P.M. the Board reconvened, with Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann being absent. 368 October 27, 1980. (Adjourned fromOctober 22, 19~ Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not On the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said a continuation of discussion on ZMA-80-16 for Thomas E. Worrell, Jr. has been scheduled for the afternoon of October 29, 1980; however, the Board must finalize its work on the zoning ordinance by the 29th. Therefore, he requested that the applicant and all interested parties be notified that this matter will not be heard on the 29th, but will instead be heard at 3:00 P.M. on November 5, 1980. Motion to defer was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom~ and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 5. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. The Board picked up the discussion with the proposal made by Dr. Iachetta before supper to have only two categories in Section X.4 of the RA District. Mr. Fisher said this would require recordation precedures and he asked that the Board consider that aspect. Dr. Iachetta asked if there were some way to have a larger lot size for parcels which are less than 21 acres and thus do away with the recordkeeping. After a short discussion during which no consensus was reached, Mr. Fisher suggested that the RA District be deferred and discussed again tomorrow night. Mr. Tucker said he had received a letter from Mr. Daley Craig dated September 23, 1980, asking why offices had been deleted as a use by right in the Light Industrial District. In the present Mi zone, offices are allowed by right, but the proposed ordinance requires a special use permit in LI. Mr. Tucker said the staff has no problem with the suggested change. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to change Section 27.2.2(1) "business and professional office buildings" from a special permit use to Section 27.2.1(14) as a use by right in the Light Industrial District. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann. Mr. Tucker noted receipt of letters dated September 19 and October 15, 1980, from W. Clyde. Gouldman, II, representing Martin Marietta. The letters are in reference to Section 30.4, Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District. Under subsection 30.4.8 entitled "Fencing", Mr. Gouldman has suggested changing the second sentence of that paragraph to read: "In particular, fencing at all inactive quarries (those quarries which have been inactive for two or more years) to which the public, as a practical matter, has relatively easy access shall be provided in the .... " Mr. Fisher said that some of the quarries he has seen are potentially dangerous. The five-foot high fence required by this section probably would not do much to keep people out. Dr. Iachetta asked the purpose of requiring a fence. Mr. Tucker said it is basically for protection of the public. Mr. Fisher asked, if this requested change is adopted and the quarry has been closed down for two years, who will erect the fence. Mr. Tucker said that was the problem the staff had with the requested change since the operator may have moved. Mr. Fisher said he feels a fence is a reasonable amount of protection to ask and he is not inclined to make this change. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Gouldman had also requested that the following sentence be added to subsection 30.4.4 "Permit Required": "The foregoing language notwithstanding, if an applicant furnishes to the zoning administrator a current permit issued by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development, the applicant shall be deemed to be in compliance with requirements of this chapter as they relate to Chapter 16 of Title 25.1 of the State Code unless the County discovers evidence that the State permit was issued by mistake or was issued contrary to such State code provisions." Mr. Tucker said that basically they want to give a copy of the State permit to the zoning administrator and that is what the staff feels this section requires. Dr. Iachetta said if the State permit is adequate, he could see no reason the County would not accept that permit. Mr. Fisher said he was inclined to leave this section as written. Mr. Tucker mentioned letter dated September 29, 1980, from George B. McCallum, III, representing Mary ?atricia Brown, Tax Map 61, Parcel 119. The letter requests that the property be rezoned to HC.~ The property is presently zoned B-1 and the existing B-1 zone permits fast food restaurants and hotels and motels by right. HC permits fast food restaurants and hotels and motels as uses by right. The C-1 district allows fast food restaurants only as a special permit use and does not permit hotels and motels either by right or by special use. Mr. McCallum requests that fast food restaurants and hotels and motels be added to the by-right uses in C-I, or at least permitted by special use permit. Mr. Tucker said the staff would be agreeable to including motels and inns as a use by special permit only. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be uncomfortable about including this use in the C-1 District. Dr. Iachetta asked about including "inns". Mr. Lindstrom said he did not want to see inns included in the C-1 District. The consensus was not to make the requested change. Mr. Tucker mentioned a new Section 6.0, Nonconformities; the language for this section was requested by the Board at an earlier session. 6.0 NONCONFORMITIES 6.1 CONTINUATION 6.1.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure, lawfully in existence on the effective date of this ordinance, which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated m~y be continued in accordance with the provisions of this article. October 27, 1980 (Adjourned from October 22, 1980) 6.1.2 No change in title to any property subject to the provisions of' this section, including but not limited to the demise, renewal, expiration, termination or modification of any leasehold interest, shall impair the nonconforming status of such property. 6.1.3 Any such use, activity or structure which is discontinued for more than two years shall be deemed abandoned and shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated. 6.1.4 Whenever any such use, activity or structure is changed to a conforming or a more restricted nonconforming use, activi'ty or structure, the original use shall be deemed abandoned. 6.2 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE On any building devoted in Whole or in part to any nonconforming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing, to such extent that the structure is kept in a usable condition. 'Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any structure or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with promoting public safety, upon order of such official. 6.3 CHANGES IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed, any Uses of land or buildings which become nonconforming as a result of such change shall become sUbject to the provisions of this section. 6.4 EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT 6.4.1 The use of any building or structure shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated whenever such building or structure is enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered. 6.4.2 A nonconforming activity may be extended throu'ghout any part of a structure which was arranged or designed for such activity at the time of enactment of this ordinance. 6.5 NONFORMING LOTS Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance which is less in area and/or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permitted for a lot having the minimum area and/or width so required; provided, that the rear, side and front yard and setback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; an provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. 6.5.1 For purposes of this situation, any lot shown on a preliminary or final subdivision plat which was approved by the proper authority of the county in accordance with the law prior to the adoption of this ordinance, and which plat Was subsequently recorded in due course, shall be deemed to be a lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 6.6 RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT 6.6.1 Whenever any nonconforming structure except signs or structure the use of which is nonconforming is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed and the nonconforming use thereof continued as provided in this section provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve months and completed within twenty-four months from the date of such damage; and provided further that no such structure shall be enlarged or expanded as a part of such repair and/or reconstruction. 6.6.2 Any such structure which is substantially destroyed as a result of any act or omission within the control of the owner thereof shall be deemed to have been abandoned in accordance with Section 6.1.3 of this section. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt Section 6.0 on Nonconformities as set out above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann. Mr. Tucker handed to the Board a new section numbered 25A, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC). 25A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - MIXED COMMERCIAL (PD-MC) 25A.! INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PD-MC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the official zoning map to permit development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of~commercial uses under a unified, planned approach. It is intended that PD-MC d±stricts be established on 370 October 27, 1980 (Adjourned from October 22, 1980) 25A.2 25A.2.1 25A.2.2 25A.3 25A.3.1 25A.3.2 25A.4 25A.4.1 25A.4.2 25A.4.3 major highways in the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan. In recognition that such large-scale development may substantially reduce the functional integrity and safety of public roads if permitted with unplanned access, it is intended that multiple access to existing public roads be discouraged and that development and access be oriented toward an internal road system having carefully planned intersections with existing public roads. PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any PD-MC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. l) 2) 3) 5) Uses permitted by right shall include commercial and service establish- ments permitted by right in the C-i, CO and HC districts. Outdoor storage, sales or display shall be permitted only when enclosed by appropriate visual screening. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority; Public uses and buldings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or truck lines; treatment facilities, pumping stations~and the like, owned or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12); Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18); Temporary events of local non-profit organizations (reference 5.1.20): BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1) Uses permitted by special use permit shall include uses permi*ted by special use permit in the C-i, C-O and HC districts. AREA REQUIRED FOR CREATION OF PD-MC DISTRICTS Minimum area required for the establishment of a PD-MC district shall be three (3) acres. Additional area may be added .to an established PD-MC if it adjoins and forms a logical addition to the approved development. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application were filed and all requirements shall apply except the minimum acreage requirement of Section 25A.3.1. SITE PLANNING - EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS Vehicular access - Vehicular access points shall be designed to encourage smooth traffic flow with controlled turning~movements and minimum hazards to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Pavement widths and strengths of both internal and external roads shall be adequate to accommodate projected traffic generated from the district. Primary access shall be provided from roads of adequate available capacity to accommodate projected traffic. Vehicular access from minor streets through residential neighborhoods shall be generally discouraged and where permitted, shall be primarily for the convenience of residential areas served directly by such roads and not for general public access. Direct access by individual uses to existing public roads shall be discouraged. Uses shall be served by an internal road system to the maximum extend possible. Intersections of the internal road system and existing public roads shall be permitted to the extent necessary to provide reasonable access and service to uses contained within the PD-MC district. Orientation: To encourage visual cohesiveness and a park-like atmosphere and to protect adjoining residential districts, uses and structures, parking areas shall be oriented toward internal travelways and away from adjoining residential districts. ' Screening: Yards, fences, walls or vegetative screening shall be provided where needed to protect residential districts and public streets from adverse influences such as undesirable views, lighting and noise. In particular, where practical, storage yards, extensive parking and loading areas, and refuse storage areas shall be effectively screened from first story windows on abutting lots in residential districts. Screening may consist of a sightly, opaque wall or fence; a planting strip; existing vegetation; or combinations thereof. ~Where only vegetative screening is provided, such screening strip shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. The location, type and extent of screening shall be approved by the planning commission or its designee. October 27, 1980 (Adjourned from October 22, 1980) 25^.5 SITE PLANNING - INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS Buildings shall be arranged in a fashion to encourage pedestrian access of customers and minimize internal automotive movement. Facilities and access routes for deliveries, service and maintenance shall be separated, where practical, from customer access routes and parking areas. 25A.6 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to requirements contained herein, the requirements of Sections 8.0, and 21.0 shall apply to all PD-MC districts. In addition to materials required by section 8.5.1, a transportation analysis plan shall be submitted with the application for PD-MC designation. Such plan shall show: projected automobile and truck traffic generation; internal and access point turning movement; percentage estimate of traffic distribution to and from the site on external roads; proposed improvements to the existing transportation network. Mr. Tucker said this is a new district created for land in the Pantops Mountain area. Mr. Tucker said the staff has a problem with this proposal in that it reqUires that a plan be filed before a district is established. Mr. Fisher requested that the Board make a decision on this new action after it has finished work on the zoning map. Mr. Tucker than referred to a letter from George B. McCallum, III, dated June 4, 1980, in reference to property of Lloyd F. and Patricia Wood, Tax Map.~61, Parcel 124E. A portion of this property is presently zoned B-1 with the remainder being zoned R-3. The proposed zoning is HC for the portion now B-! and that is acceptable, however, the recommended zoning for the R-3 portion is R-10. Mr. McCallum is requesting R-15 for the R-3 property. Mr. Fisher asked how the R-10 designati'on was chosen by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan recommends medium density residential for this area. Using bonus pro visions R-10 can go as high as R-15 in density. Mr. Lindstrom asked what is located immediately north and east of this property. Mr. Tucker said the property to the north is vacant and presently zoned A-1. In fact, it is the only property in the urban area with an A-1 designation. Albemarle Square Shopping Center is to the west and the Squire Hill Apartments are across Rio Road to the south. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that in view of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for .this area, and with the potential for a developer to obtain additional density through use of bonus provisions, that the property remain as shown for R-10. There was no second to the motion. Dr. Iachetta said the Board had recently rezoned the adjacent property to R-12 (Carter property). Mr. Tucker said that was done through use of a proffer and although the property is shown on this proposed map for R-10, it can still be developed to the density allowed with that proffer. Mr. Fisher said if the Wood property were developed with an internal road and other bonuses, a 20% increase in density could be obtained, and he.felt the property should remain R-10. Dr. Iachetta asked what density could be obtained if all of the bonuses were used. Mr. Tucker said a 30% increase or R-15 density. Dr. Iachetta said the only reason he is hesitating about this request is that this is one of the few parcels in this particular area where all necessary services are available. Mr. Lindstrom said if R-15 is allowed, that changes the character of the buildings which can be placed on the property, and this change would not be allowed if the density were obtained through use of bonuses. He felt this would be incompatible with the residential character that is being established on the surrounding parcels. Dr. Iachetta said Woodbrook to the north of this parcel is already developed. Then there is Carrsbrook which is less dense than Weodbrook, then Westmoreland and Northfields which are developed at about the same density as Woodbrook. Mr. Lindstrom said R-15 would be an abrupt transition from the residential uses surrounding this parcel. Miss Nash did not feel that anyone would want to put houses on Rio Road ~ec~uSh&~faliys~eommercial nature. Mr. Lindstrom suggested townhouses. Miss Nash did not think they would be very enjoyable. Mr. St. John requested to ask a procedural question. He said he did not know what standards the Board was using to make this review, but unless there is some compelling reason to make a change from what has been proposed, he did not see any necessity to give a length~ scrutiny to each parcel because for a change like this, there should be a full staff report and public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said, in other words, the kind of detailed review that is being done may not be quite as appropriate to a comprehensive rezoning as it would be to a rezoning for which an application had been received. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the zoning should not conform to recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Fisher noted that the "Application" section of the R-10 District states that "Where R-2 and R-3 residential districts have been established prior to the enactment of this ordinance and such districts comply with Comprehensive Plan recommendations for medium-density residential use, the same shall be designated R-10." Mr. Keeler said this is the only piece of property of any size in that area that is now zoned R-3. Mr. Lindstrom said that R-10 is basically in compliance with Comprehensive Plan recommendations and the text of the zoning ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said he is concerned that there are some tracts in the County currently zoned R-3 which will not be in conformance with the Plan because they are being shown for R-15, but yet this parcel will not be given that designation. He felt the Board should be consistent. Mr. Lindstsrom said the Board should be cognizant of the fact that there is very little time in which to finalize this ordinance, or adoption of same could be postponed until next year. Maybe the Board's main consideration at this point should be to review only those parcels shown for a density not consistent with the. Plan. Mr. Fisher said he would still recommend that the zoning on this parcel not be changed. Miss Nash offered motion to not make the requested change. Mr. Fisher requested that the Board go to another request. 372 October 27, 1980 (Adjourned from October 22 1980) Mr. Tucker then referred to a request from Donald Reid, Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A. Mr. Reid's parcels are split by a stream, which puts 1/2 of the land in the Hollymead Community and 1/2 out of the Community. Mr. Reid is requesting Community designation for all of the land. Mr. Tucker said that the Comprehensive Plan contains a fairly clear description of ~he Holtymead Community and the stream is the boundary. That is the reason the zoning is split on these parcels. Mr. Lindstrom wanted to make the record clear and referred to the fact that the former motion did not receive a second. He said that the zoning shown on the map will stand unless a motion is made and adopted to the contrary. Mr. Tucker then referred to letter about the Ewald property (Tax Map 74, Parcels 14B and 15) at the Ivy interchange of 1-64 which is presently zoned RTM. The zoning is shown on the proposed map as RA, and the applicant is requesting a district similar to the existing zoning. Miss Nash offered motion to leave the property as RA until some definite plan is received. Mr. Lindstrom agreed, but said he would not second the motion. The next property mentioned was Tax Map 55, Parcel 19B, the Plummer property off the 1-64 interchange at Crozet. Miss Nash suggested that this not be discussed until Mr. Henley is present. Mr. Tucker then mentioned the Oak Hill Food Store and Trailer Park, Tax Map 76, Parcel 52L. He said a small commercial area and surrounding R-2 area have been recognized because the uses are already established. The Trailer Park is shown for R-2 although currently zoned R-3. R-2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan although the density of the mobile home park is higher than that district and it would be nonconforming, but Mr. 'Tucker said he believes that the mobile home park is nonconforming under current zoning. Mr. Tucker next mentioned request of David J. Wood, on Tax Map 61M, Parcel 1. requested HC instead of C-1. Mr. Wood Next was the Meredith Bickers property at the interchange of 1-64 and Route 250 East (Tax Map 78, Parcel 33). Mr. Bickers requests HC for the property but this designation is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board creates commercial zoning around every interchange because it cannot think of anything else, the Plan should be studied again. Miss Nash said she did not think the Bickers property should have been left out of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board had spent a good deal of time working on this area. Mr. Fisher said he had been wanting to discuss this for a long time. When this type of zoning is not recommended in the Comprehesive Plan, he feels that any land presently being used should be shown, but undeveloped areas should not be shown. If the zoning is not recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, he feels it would weaken the Plan to recognize such zoning. Mr. Lindstsrom then offered motion that the parcels actually in use for HC purposes be recognized, but not to recognize any lands between these parcels, but to show those parcels for the zoning recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said it appears that there is a considerable amount of land shown for HC on this zoning map that is not recognized by the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Iachetta said he felt that procedurally, the Board has been recognizing existing uses, but not expanding on those uses. Miss Nash asked that the motion be restated. Mr. Lindstrom asked the County Attorney if it would weaken the defense of the Comprehensive Plan if the Board recognized zoning consistent with the way properties have been developed, even if that zoning is not consistent with the Plan, or would it be better to show those properties consistent with the Plan although that would make them nonconforming uses. Mr. St. John said that showing the developed properties for a zoning consistent with their use would weaken the Comprehensive Plan less than other kinds of inconsistencies. With the new section on nonconforming uses, the legal result would be the same whether they are recognized or made nonconforming. Mr. Keeler said that in reference to "Hunters Hall", showning the property for HC would be even less consistent because no actual uses have been installed at this time although a road has been built in anticipation of development and 18 or 19 commercial lots laid out on this road. Mr. St. John said nonconforming status would be all right unless these businesses tried to expand. Some of these businesses have a substantial investment in the property and probably plan to expand as the business grows. It is inconsistent to recognize that these businesses will be in this location ad infinitum and yet handicap them so that they cannot expand. Mr. Lindstrom said Hunters Hall is an even bigger problem. Although no use is in existence, some infrastructure has been installed in anticipation of uses. Mr. St. John said he would recognize the zoning and defend it on the grounds that the use was already in place and that is the only reason the Board makes a departure from what the Comprehensive Plan recommends for the area. Mr. St. John said he feels that the Board will get a lot of arguments about allowing a use to be permanently in place and yet zoning that use so it cannot be expanded at all. Businesses like Lowe's and Moore's will certainly expect to be able to expand at some future time. Mr. Lindstrom said he would make his motion again. His motion will not make existing uses nonconforming, but he does have some concern that if there are 25 acres of land, an~ the existing use covers only five acres, that gives an additional 20 acres of commercial zoning. Miss Nash asked the uses being referred to. Mr. Lindstrom said there is Moore's, Lowe's, C. R. Moore Well Drilling, and the new commercial subdivision named Hunters Hall. Mr. St. John said even if these properties are made nonconforming uses, the owners can come in the day after the map is adopted and apply for a rezoning. Dr. Iachetta asked why the Board did not just recognize the uses which are presently in existence. Mr. Lindstrom said that was what he was suggesting. No second was received to the motion and the discussion ended at this time. Oc~t~ober 27~8~~rn~e-~©ct°ber 22,__1980) 373 Agenda:Item No. 7. Mr. Fisher said he had received a request to adjourn. He suggested that the Board continue this discussion tomorrow night. At 9:50 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn this meeting until October 28, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executives's Conference Room. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann. Chairman r An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on 0cto~er 28, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 27, 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. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Henley that the matter of the Rural Areas District was discussed again at last night's meeting, and noted that the staff had handed out a redrafted version of that district at Mr. Lindstrom's request. Mr. Lindstrom said after last night's discussion, he felt the one problem seems to be with Category II. Therefore he had asked Mr. Tucker to redraft that section. Mr.~ Tucker presented the following: Category II. Parcels less than 21 acres but greater than 6 acres may be divided at a minimum density of one dwelling unit per six acres. Any residue resulting from such division which is less than six acres may be divided at a minimum density of one dwelling unit per two acres. X.0 RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA X.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED This district (referred to hereinafter as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the official zoning map to permit a limited amount of lower density residential development in areas of the County designated in the Comprehensive Plan as: Other Rural Lands which have no distinctive environmental characteristics; Critical Slopes; and Agricultural Conservation Areas. In regard to Agricultural Conservation, this district is intended to conserve the County's active farms and best agricultural and forestal lands by providing lot areas designed to insure the continued availability of such lands for preferential land use tax assessment in order to enhance the economy, and maintain employment and lifestyle opportunities. In addition, the continuation and establishment of agriculture and agriculturally-related uses will be encouraged. It is intended that development be permitted on land which is of marginal utility for agricultural purposes, provided that such development be carried out in a manner which is compatible with the agricultural activity of the area. In addition, it is intended that such development occur in locations and at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of the land and to the availability of public utilities and facilities to support such development. Roadside strip development is to be discouraged through the various design requirements contained herein. M~. Lin~strom said this new draft contains a minor change that might answer one of the ~ questions raised about the proposal. This redraft says that parcels between six and 21 a~res can be divided into as many six-acre parcels as possible, with the residue b~in~ divided into as many two-acre parcels as possible. This gives more flexibility in the middle category and deletes the recordkeeping required by the other proposals.