ZONING WORK SESSION Wednesday, November 13, 2002 Supervisors Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Brennan, Mr. Wood and Mr. Harvey (Mr. Bruguiere absent) Planning Commissioners Present: Mr. Brush, Ms. Russell, Dr. Walker (Mr. Giles, Ms. Proulx, Mr. Hoffman absent) Staff Present: Mr. Carter, Mr. Boger and Mr. Frank Cox Mr. Harris requested that the Planned Community Development Overlay be moved up on the agenda to the first item for discussion. He noted that the Board of Supervisors is considering an undisclosed project and suggested that the PCD Overlay could be adopted to deal with the potential business. Mr. Harris asked the group to consider adopting the Overlay to allow the county to consider the proposal under stricter regulations that in the current Zoning Ordinance. The group considered a joint closed session to discuss the proposal but Ms. Russell said that she would prefer to consider the Overlay without coloring her opinion with information about a proposed project. Mr. Cox reviewed the proposed Planned Community Development Overlay (PCD) noting that the Comp Plan, as adopted, is not equipped to deal with a good proposal for a large development in the Rural and Farming District. He said that the PCD is designed to be a floating overlay that could go anywhere in the county with a suitable project that meets strict requirements. He said that "we can see bad examples of how to do these developments all over the country" and that the requirements were designed to ensure the development's staying power in a well-thought out design. Mr. Cox said that if the county were to introduce such a development into a rural area, it should be bigger than a village but smaller than a city and a high quality project. Noting the proposed requirement that the PCD be 400 acres or more, he said that the developer should show a concise, economically feasible plan. According to the proposed PCD Overlay language, the District include the following general goals and objectives: 1. A compatible mix of phased residential, commercial, employment, institutional and recreational land uses. 2. The relationship and siting of land uses within the new community should provide a creative and orderly arrangement, which shall respect sensitive environmental areas and the natural features of the property. 3. A transportation system that provides for high quality vehicular and pedestrian linkages within the community as well as to the surrounding public roads and streets. 4. The provision of adequate open space and recreational features to serve the needs of each neighborhood resident. 5. The new community should be developed in a manner which can assure that the developer can successfully implement, finance and dedicate to the county all necessary and adequate public facilities, utilities and other essential community services to support the ultimate plan of the development. 6. The new community should be located, configured and buffered to ensure compatibility of all community uses with the surrounding rural and farming areas of the county. The text then explains the specific requirements to be met and the procedures required for the county's consideration of the project. Mr. Cox noted that the process involves two steps - a Comp Plan amendment to establish the overlay district and the detailed review of the specifics of the project. Ms. Brennan asked why the county would amend the Comp Plan first rather than deciding whether a proposal was a good project. Mr. Cox said that a Comp Plan amendment gives recognition that a PCD could apply to a particular area IF certain conditions are met in the project. Ms. Brennan noted that not having the PCD in the Comp Plan would not prohibit an applicant from applying. Mr. Cox agreed but said that without provisions in the Plan, there would be no process or requirements for a project. He suggested that opening up a rural area to development should require the applicant to do the required homework. Ms. Russell, noting the required information from the developer, asked who then analyzes that information and who pays for that analysis. Mr. Cox said that the county would need to be smart about setting review fees to be sure the structure of the fees pays to hire the experts to help the county thoroughly understand the proposal. Ms. Russell, referencing the Open Space and Recreation Area requirement that a minimum of 40% of the total PCD area should be dedicated to open space with 30% of that open space area dedicated to active recreational area, expressed concern that the recreational area could include tennis courts, swimming pools, clubhouse facilities, and other impermeable surfaces. The group agreed to limit the recreation area to no more than 50% impermeable surface. Mr. Wood questioned the requirement for a maximum residential density of two units per net developable acre in a 400-acre minimum district as being to high a density. Ms. Russell said that she might agree but didn't have a better density number. Mr. Wood, noting the proposed maximum size of a PCD district of 1,000 acres, asked whether the county should have a maximum size. The group agreed to delete the maximum size requirement. The Board of Supervisors continued their meeting until Tuesday, November 19 at 5:00pm for a VDOT 6-Year Plan Work Session at the Courthouse. The next Zoning Work Session will be Wednesday, December 11 at 7:00pm at the Courthouse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This report, sent to over 500 Nelson County citizens, was made possible by the generous donations of Rural Nelson members and supporters. Kim T. Cash Field Officer Rural Nelson, Inc. P. O. Box 401 (622 Front Street) Lovingston, VA 22949 434.263.5000 Email: info@ruralnelson.org www.ruralnelson.org