Loading...
1980-10-28 adjOctober 27~_~98~Ad~omrn~Hi~©ctober~2~2, 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 An adjoUrned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 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 RHRAL 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. MB. Lindstrom 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 acres can be divided into as many six-acre parcels as possible, with the residue being 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. 374 October 28, 1980 (Adjourned from October 27, 1980) Mr. Henley said he did not understand. Does this proposal mean that if an owner had more than 21 acres, they could only divide off one parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said no; the property could be divided into as many 21 acre parcels as could be created; anything else would require a special use permit. Dr. Iachetta said the discussion last night revolved around the recordkeeping aspects of the scheme and this proposal tonight seems to do away with the recordkeeping. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the advantage of the proposal made by Mr. Fisher in July is that it avoids recordkeeping and it also has an intrinsic meaning based on tax preference status developed by the State. Mr. Henley said he felt that recordkeeping would still be required if a property were subdivided. Mr. Lindstrom said there would be no more recordkeeping required than at the present time. Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Tucker to explain the new "Intent" section. Mr. Tucker said the main change is in the second paragraph where it refers to land for preferential land use tax assessment. Mr. Henley said he thought the Board had settled the question of an RA District back in September and he was not ready to make another change. He felt things have gone too far. Mr. Fisher said there are some things in reading over this proposal that he wonders about. He did not fine "reservoirs" anywhere as a use by right or by special permit. Mr. Tucker said that can be added although it is not necessary. Mr. St. John said provisions for same are set out in State statute. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has hashed over this question fOr a long time and he felt it was time to decide if the Board would go forward with this new proposal or let it drop. He has talked this over with Miss Nash and she indicated to him that she would support the type of motion he is about to make. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to add to the draft presented last night the amended Category II presented tonight but changing the words "minimum" to~"maximum"; in section X.5, under Category III, change minimum road frontage to 175 feet; under Category III, internal public or private road, change frontage to 140 feet, include new X.1; and adopt this new proposal as the RA District for public hearing purposes. Mr. Fisher said he would like to point out some other changes which should be made: under X.2 it should say" previously established A-1 and Conservation districts "- under X.4.2, Category II, the wording handed out tonight should be changed to read: "Parcels of six acres or more, but less than 21 acres, may be divided .... ". Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Fisher's proposed change says the same thing as that written in the revision handed out tonight. Mr. Lindstrom said in Section X.5, under Cluster development, he would change the density to be one dwelling unit per two acres. Dr. Iachetta asked if that was in Category II. Mr. Lindstrom said that is for both Categories I and II. Dr. Iachett~ asked if that was by special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. Mr. Fisher said the way the proposal is written, there would be the same denisty for Category II under the by-right division and the special use permit provisions, but with a special permit the lots could be clustered. Using Mr. Lindstrom's suggested change, under cluster development that would give three times as much density as that allowed under conventional development. If that change is made, everyone will want to cluster. Mr. Lindstrom said that may be correct, but he did not feel that the Board should be tied into a six-acre density under conventional or cluster development. Mr. Fisher said if this is adopted, there is no open space in cluster deve~lopments. Dr. Iachetta asked if a more flexible standard could be written and still have it workable. Mr., Tucker said cluster development could be dropped, leave the conventional development at a two-acre density, and have anything else by special use permit. Dr Iachetta said the problem in trying to set arbitrary numbers is that they don't necessarily fit the land. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board eliminate the distinction between cluster and conventional development and just head that 'column "divisions by special use permit". Conditions could then be set based on topography, soils, etc. Mr. Fisher said he was confused about what the Board was trying to do. Mr. Lindstrom said he has done everything he can think of to solve this dilemma. Mr. Fisher said he did not understand the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he made the suggestion that there not be any distinction in minimum lot sizes for special.permits. Leave the other standards that exist and delete the maximum lot size. Mr. Fisher said he would feel more comfortable with some distinction between maximum density and minimum lot size. The whole purpose of the RA District is to discourage development in same. Dr. Iachetta said under Category I, it taiks about parcels that are multiples of 21 acres. If the one dwelling unit per six acres is kept, the person with 42 acres only gets seven dweZling units. The ordinance should represent an intelligent use of land and seven lots on 42 acres may not be intelligent land use. Mr. Fisher suggested the Board work on Category II. He said he did not see anything wrong, with leaving Category II with a six-acre density. Mr. McCann said if this is going to be based on use of best agricultural land, the County will have to prove it is not best agricultural land before development is allowed. If the Board wants to preserve land, it cannot be done with big lots. Mr. Lindstrom said there is more than just the soil involved. Mr. Lindstrom said two acres is related to what the Health Department will approve and he would make his motion again because it is an improvement over the proposal currently in the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. He said it is really a variation on the idea that there will be five lots by right with a minimum acreage and then allow some number between five and 20 by special permit.. Mr. Fisher suggested that someone fill in the table under X.5 so there will be a record because he is confused. He said he understands that on the top line under "cluster development" there will be 1 du/2 ac. He did not hear anything else that was clear. He asked if the second l~ne (Category II) under cluster devalopment would also be changed to i du/2 ac. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought he had said that there would be no distinction between conventional and cluster development, just have a two-acre minimum lot size. Mr. Fisher asked if this would do away with conventional development. Dr. Iachetta said the. special use permit would allow one dwelling per two acres all the way through which is a lot simpler. Do away with the heading "cluster" and "conventional development" and just have divisions by special permit period. Mr. Lindstrom said he still had one problem. October 28, 1980 (Adjourned from October 27, 1980) 375 What will standards be for road frontage? Mr. Tucker said the same as those under Category III. Mr. Lindstrom asked if "minimum yard requirements" apply to all categories. Mr. Tucker said yes. Under Category III for conventional development by right, all of those things would be moved over to divisions'by special use permit; 175 feet fronting on existing public road; 140 feet on internal public or private roads. Dr. Iachetta said this proposal ~has one advantage in that requests for special permits can be evaluated and if there is a reason why the density requested is not workable, the Board will be able to deny the application based on criteria established. That is the only thing he can see that will be gained by this whole procedure. Mr. Fisher asked if there were further discussion on the motion. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the motion be dropped until tomorrow so the Board members would have time to think about this proposal. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. Mr. Tucker said the Board could continue its work on the zoning map with a request on the Plummer property (Tucked-A-Way) off the 1-64 interchange at Crozet (Tax Map 55, Parcel 19B) Mr. Tucker said that this property is presently zoned for commercial use and one-half of the property is being rezoned to a less intensive use. Mrs. Plummer has requested that the commercial zoning be retained and if it is not, to flip-flop the zoning in order to show the portion with the house as commercial. Mr. Fisher said the last statement he heard about this request was that if business zoning was not put on the part of the property where the house is located, then all of the business zoning should be deleted so the property would not be taxed as business. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the Comprehensive Plan relates to the way parcels are actually developed in this area. Mr. Tucker said the Plan does not recognize any of the strip commercial development along Route 250 West. Basically, commercial is shown in the downtown part of Crozet and at the Route 240/Route 250 Interchange° Mr. Fisher asked about a spot of HC shown on the zoning map south of the interchange. Mr. TuCk~ said that property is presently zoned B-1 but is undeveloped at this time. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much of the commercial zoning south of the interchange is actually developed. Mr. Tucker said that nome of the interchange properties are developed, but there is strip development from Yancey's Mill back toward Crozet; various things such as country stores, antique shops~ Greenwood Country Burners. Mr. Fisher said the County was involved in a court case on property just west of this property and that case called considerable attention to the fact that there was existing commercial zoning in that area, but the Plan did not recognize or encourage such zoning. Therefore, the .Board's denial of additional commercial activities in that area was based primarily on the Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that last night the County Attorney had said that the Board should remember that this process is not ~ parcel by parcel rezoning, but a comprehensive rezoning. Owners can apply for a different zoning when the map is adopted, and at that time, there would be staff reports and a thorough review. It seems that if what the Board is doing is not consistent with the Plan, it weakens the whole Plan. Mr. Henley said he went to some of the Crozet citizen committee meetings and that committee ~did not recommend that any of this strip commercial be deleted. They did not want to see it expanded, but all agreed that this area will develop at some time. Mr. Tucker referred back to the request from Mrs. Plummer and said the reason the entire parcel was not included for commercial zoning was the fact that Col. Washington said he was familiar with the property and he thought the part designated commercial would be more easily developed than the other part. Mrs. Plummer is saying just the opposite. Mr. Henley said Col. Washington was wrong. Dr. Iachetta asked how long the property had been zoned B-1. Mr. Tucker said since 1968. Dr. Iachetta said a lot of these issues have been brought about by the fact that the County had no Comprehensive Plan, and properties were zoned at the whim of the owner for no reason other than the fact that someone thought it might be good. These properties have been undeveloped for years and not sold; maybe they should be put back into some lower density category until a need is demonstrated. Mr.. McCann said if the property is not being used for anything, he did not believe the zoning makes any difference. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot support the designation of these properties~the way they are presently shown and offered motion that the properties be shown as designated in the Plan. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Lindstrom to explain the motion. Mr. McCann said some of these.parcels are already being used for business purposes; it does not make any sense to change something back to RA that is already in place. Mr. Fisher asked that the motion be restated. Mr. Lindstrom said he w~mtHdlike to know which of the parcels in question are actually developed. Mr. McCann said on the south side of Route 250 West from the 1-64 interchange all the way back to Western Albemarle High School it is essentially business with just a few houses. He felt the businesses in this area should retain their B-1 zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said his motion is to change all parcels except for those parcels which have ~sinesses on them at.present. Mr. McCann said he did not see any benefit to leaving little parcels ~ RA between the businesses. Mr. Lindstrom said that would be a good argument on Route 29 North, but in this case he did not think the businesses are so close together that the parcels downzoned to RA would be unusable. Mr. McCann said as long as existing businesses retain their business designation, he can go along with the motion. Mr. Henley said he did not think there is but one residence on this side of the road. At this point, Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he cannot support the motion because he does not think any of the owners in this area have any idea that their zoning is going to be changed. He felt some notification should be given before taking such action. Mr. McCann asked what the Planning Commission had recommended for this area. Mr. Tucker said that before their public h~ar~g~h~ ~.~~oGo~m~s~mm ha~.da~?basically what the motion on the floor states, only recognized business parcels presently in existence. After the public hearing, because of opposition received, they made the change which shows on the map before the Board at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said this is a comprehensive rezoning. He felt the Board should follow the Comprehensive Plan, and decide on facts other than that the owners have not been notified. Mr. Henley said he could vote for the motion if the people had been told at the meeting on the Crozet area that this zoning would be removed. Mr. McCann agreed that just 376' October 28, 1980 (Adjourned from October 27, 1980) because this is a comprehensive rezoning, the people should not be put in this position. He said it has been mentioned that the whole County will be cut up into two-acre lots, but he has not noticed that problem which others seem to see in the County. Roll was called at this point and~the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. NAYS: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and McCann. ABSENT: Miss Nash. Mr. Lindstrom said if this is going to be the Board's position, it might as well pack up and go home because nothing will be changed on the map other than the changes recommended by the Planning Comm±sion. He said he was flabbergasted that after all the work done by the Board, and the comprehensive nature of this rezoning, that the Board is not willing to make changes because the people have not been specifically notified. There has been a massive rezoning to RA and the people affected by that change have not been notified. Mr. McCa said he has always felt the Board should be updating the old ordinance a little rather than starting from scratch. He has always felt that this new ordinance is too restrictive. Mr. Lindstrom said if that is the way the Board wants to proceed, he did not think this work will be finished for another year. Mr. McCann said the Board has not had a hearing on the RA District yet. There were a lot of people in the audience at the last hearing who did not speak, but they are definitely against this new ordinance. Mr. Henley said he did not support Mr. Lindstrom's motion on the RA District bec&use he thought that issue had been settled earlier. Dr. Iachetta said in reference to the strip commercial zoning on Route 250 West from 1-64 toward Crozet, the problem is that the Board does not know how many of those parcels are presently occupied, and that is the reason he voted against the motion. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to eliminate the commercial zoning shown around the~Crozet interchange of 1-64 and Route 250 West and to ask the staff to prepare a list of the existing businesses along the strip of Route 250 West between Route 240 and the interchange. Mr. McCann said he feels that quadrants of the interchange lend themselves better to commercial zoning than to RA. Mr. Henley said he could support eliminating the commercial zoning on the Plummer property because the Board has discussed that property. Mr. Lindstrom'said if the other commercial zoning on this interchange is left, it will be just like Route 29 North. Without a site plan of some kind he cannot support that zoning. Mr. McCann said the Comprehensive Plan is so.general that you cannot tell from the maps exactly where things should be located. He believes that commercial zoning should be at interchanges or close by and if the property cannot be used for a commercial use, it will not be used no matter what the zoning. Mr. McCann said he likes to base his decisions on something more solid than a general plan. At this point Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and L±ndstrom. NAYS: Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann. ABSENT: Miss Nash. Mr..Tucker next referred to a letter from David J. Wood, representing William H. White, III and Virginia R. White (Tax Map 55, Parcels 83, 8~, 102 and 103; Tax Map 55A, Parcels 39 and 40). This property lies adjacent to the Crozet Community boundary and Mr. White would like to have the Boundary extended out to Route 684, thus including his property as R-t instead of RA. The Comprehensive Plan shows that the boundary line for Crozet. basically follows Lickinghole Creek and some drainage swales and woodlands, so there are no concrete lines. Therefore, the best the staff could do was to follow property lines when marking the Crozet Community boundary. Dr. Iachetta said all that this means at this time is that this property is left out of this five-year planning period of the Comprehensive Plan, and he could see no reason to make the requested change,~' Mr. Henley agreed. Mr. Tucker next mentioned letter about Rivanna Estates Limited Partnership, Tax Map 33, Parcels 1, lB, ~D, 1E, IF, IH, ii, 13, 14, 15 and 16). This property lies north of Badger-Powhatan. At present the property has industrial, commercial and other zonings. The Comprehensive Plan does not recognize this area which is actually north of the Piney Mountain Community. Mr. McCann said that M-1 might be a good use because the property is on a major highway. Mr. Fisher said he could not support such a change. Mr. McCann then offered motion to maintain the present zoning categories on the parcels mentioned in the letter. Mr. Henley said he will not vote to downzone something unless there is a good reason, but at least this owner knew it was about to happen, so he would support retaining the RA zoning recommended by the Planning Commission. There was no second to the motion. Next was letter about property of Katherine Dure (Tax Map 59, Parcels 38 and 39). The owner has requested that the current zoning be retained. The old R-1 zone and the new R-1 District are not the same, but the owner requests similar zoning. Dr. Iachetta said with all the problems of access in this area and disposal of wastewater, he was inclined to agree with the Commission and leave the property as shown until such time as a change of circumstances occurs. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many parcels are shown for zoning that is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Paln. Mr. Tucker said he would bring to the next meeting the list prepared for the Planning Commission, but there are about 14 in the various neighborhoods. October 28, 1980 (Adjourned from October 27, 1980) Agenda Item No. 3. At 9:10 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by ?[r~ Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn until October 29, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Mr. McCann. None. Miss Nash, An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held ~October 29, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 28, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E.~Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 3:10 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at'3:14 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 3:10 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. 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 3:15 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fish Agenda Item No. 2. Continuation of Discussion on ZMA-80-16, Thomas E. Worrell, Jr~ This item had been deferred until 3:00 P.M. on NOvember 5, 1980 by vote of the Board taken on October 27 Agenda Item No. ~4. WOrk Session: Zoning Ordinance and Map~. Mr. Tucker said the Board was in the process, at last night's meeting, of discussing the strip commercial along Route 250 West between 1-64 and the caution'tight at Route 240. The Board asked the staff to review existing uses in this area in order to make a determination as to how much land is being utilized for commercial purposes at the present time. Tax Map 56, Parcel 17 is the Western Albemarle Shopping Center. Tax Map 56, Parcel 17B has 500 feet of commercial depth and an approved site plan which is still valid although approved in 1968. Tax Map 55, Parcel 103C is the Ridge Minimarket. Tax Map 55, Parcel 109A is Greenwood Burners. Tax Map 55, Parcel 110 is the Calico Cat, an antique shop. Tax Map 55B, Parcel 1 is the Sugar Hollow Antiques. Tax Map 55A, Parcel.15 has a site plan approved for the Yancey Minimarket. Tax Map 55A, Parcel 16 is an'engineering office. Tax Map 55A, Parcel t6A is an automobile body shop. Tax Map 55A, Parcel 1~ is the Brownsville Market.- Miss Nash asked about Gola's Restaurant. Mr. Tucker said that Gola's,~Clover Lawn Basket Shop and the Exxon Station are already shown for a commercial designation on this map. Mr. Fisher said the question has come up several times about what to do with land currently zoned B-1 that is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use. He then wrote the following three categories on the blackboard: 1) Vacant land. 2) Lands with developed, existing uses. 3) Vacant lands which have site.plan approval. Mr. Fisher said he would like to ask the County Attorney to comment on the process the Board is using in working on the zoning map and the implications of same. What happens if all the iand presently zoned B-1 is shown for commercial designation although not recognized for such use in the Comprehensive Plan? What happens if only those lands with existing uses and those lands with approved-site plans are shown for commercial designation? Mr. St. John said if all three categories shown above are recognized for commercial designation~ although not shown for such designation in the Comprehensive Plan, it lays the groundwork for other lots in the area to be rezoned to business. It amounts to a turning point where the Board has made a decision that this area will remain in business usage for the indefinite future. If these lands are not recognized and are downzoned to RA, then there will be a bunch of nonconforming uses which indicates that sooner or later it is expected that these. business~.~llbe extinguished and that business operations are alien in this area. Mr. St. Joh~ said he believes that if the existing businesses are made nonconforming by such action, the people owning these businesses will individually apply for. a rezoning to a business icategory, and if it is denied, they may then go to court. It is possible the County could ilo~ such a case and have what amounts to a court-ordered restoration of business zoning ion the map. If a person has a vested right to business zoning by virtue of having an approved site plan and the business zoning is taken away, if that person should apply for a building permit, at that point the zoning administrator, the County Attorney's Office and the Planning staff would review each situation to see if that person really ha~ a vested right. If they did, they would be issued a building permit. Mr. St. John said he believes it would be in order to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to protect the integrity of the Plan~if the Board decides to put business in t~is area against the recommenda~ tions in the Plan.