HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA198500033 Other 1983-10-05 ',`
�i2oA? ��i` 0 ��O T�3i7= .��R9��\.
arative act StatisticForest Run
Existing A-i Zoning Planned Community
* 155
594
Dwellings 220 0 355
Population 4 1029
School-Aged Children 141606 vtpd** 1132 vtpd**
GrossiGroD Generation 2.2 d'ec: / 3.1 du/sc. /j
new Densittyyty s si 2.1 du{ae. 1.6 dii, ae:
new
:! Assumes 1 du/2.2 acres ccount for road- ght-of-waY - • lot size variation.
Due to mild topog¢aphy, no deduction for slope was consider-• .',named on 7.3 vtpd/du. Generation from Earlysville Heights is Pd/du.
'` Traffic generation from commercial area and public recreation area no calculated.
v,,.,,, 7omprehensive Plan
'
`le! -farlysville is recommended as a larger Type I village in the Comprehensive Plan
"- with a residential density of 1 du/acre and appropriate commercial uses. The
'' urrounding area is recommended for agricultural-conservation with a density of
-1 du/5 acres. Staff has estimated that 40-50 acres of the Forest Run property is
within the village area with a remainder in agricultural-conservation. This estimate
yields 133 dwellings compared to the request for 155 dwellings. Therefosivere, while
' the Forest Run proposal does not strictly comply with the Comp
recommended density, the applicant is proposing a substantial reduction from the
"lastimated 220 dwellings achievable under existing zoning. .
Staff has also reviewed the Forest Run proposal in regard to the text of the�Cerpts
recently-adopted plan amendments ( pp. 67-70s' pelase review entire text ) .
from the text and staff comment are as follows:
_ The southeastern boundary on Route 743 isestab established
ein
_�y.,�,� recognition of the fact that it is an open area from
worn" 02 intersection with Route 660 following an approach
�.9 the east which is heavily wooded on both sides, i.e. , a sense
90 of place is evident because of this change
and the
ios !Pr- combination of both old and new ( commercial ) development
Oleti
11,N M on either side of the road at this point.
71,A"" The three entrances to the village at the old village
boundaries ( Route 663 north and Route 743 south and
` east ) should have existing vegetation preserved. The
V Ltransitions from open to wooded land provide a sense of
• identity and-a visual boundary that serve to alert the
traveller that he has arrived at a distinct place. The
Route 743 south entrance ( at Route 660 ) is particularly
important due to the long uninterrupted woodlands leading
to the opening and the beginning of village development.'
Destruction of trees in this area would cause a significant/
' change in the approach and character of this portion of
the village. •
- _.
- I
A regular meeting or the board of Supervisors of Albemarl. County, Virginia, was held on
October 5, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 I
'McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEbibEL:: PRESi.1T: Mr. Janes Is. butler, Mrs. latricla li. CooKe, Messrs. Geralc L. FIsr.er,
J. T. Henley, .;r., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Niss Ellen '. hush.
i
.BOARD MEKbL1'.: AESEI.I: hone.
OFFICERS PY.L:.LNvr: Acting County Executive, Er. hay E. Jones, County Attorney, Mr. decrge h.
St. John; and CowtyPlanner, El .. Rotert - hcker, Jr.
:.tor-a Alli _�st 4114y�"" li -elrtee thlrerl- iOrg ft :IIPIwil ttini rr.111$"�
h •
Fisher.
Agenda item ho. 2. Si--8i-55. Edith batten. bequest to locate motile here or. : .7b acre:
izoned .HA. Located on east side of Route 7d9 (befersed fror. September di, 19b3).
Mr. Tucker informed the board that I+.rs. Batten's daughter had called the previous day
stating that her mother is presently hospitalized with a heart attack and she had requested a
deferral. Mr. Tucker said this deferral is requested until some time in the future but given
' the condition of Mrs. Batten, no specific time was mentioned. There being no one present
desiring to speak on this application, a motion was made by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler,
to defer the petition until such time as the applicant requests that it be placed or, the agenda
Roll was• called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS; None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Proposed rezoning of certain parcels in the villages of Earlysville,
Ivy and Scottsville, in order to bring these properties into conformance with the County's
adopted Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 20 and
September 27, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., presented the following staff reports, dated August 2 and
' *Wit 30, 1983:
,Vri "Background
.Y?,t.F t,
- 'On June 8, 1983, the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for August 3, 1583
to revise the zoning map to conform with the revised Comprehensive Plan. On July 13,
1983, staff presented draft mapping for the areas of Crozet, Ivy, Earlysville,
r; and Scottsville reflective of the amended' Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this
work session was to seek guidance from the Board as to the nature and extent of
potential zoning changes. Subsequent to this work session, staff sent notice to
117 property owners indicating current and proposed zoning designations for 143
properties. Of these 117 notices, two were returned as undeliverable; staff made
additional attempts to notify these owners.
Comprehensive Plan
During development of the January, 1983 Comprehensive Plan, the growth areas of
Crozet, Ivy, Earlysville and Scottsville were changed primarily as a measure of
reservoir protection. Simply stated, promotion of urban growth in the Rivanna
and Totier Creek reservoir watersheds through the Comprehensive Plan was deemed
inappropriate.
Crozet
Crozet was reduced primarily to an area bordered by Route 250 West on the south and
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway and Route 240 on the north. This reduced growth
area would drain to a regional sedimentation basin to be located on Lickinghole
Creek east and downstream of the growth area. This regional sedimentation basin is
intended as a water quality protective measure in addition to the Run-off Control
Ordinance and other measures. Service by gravity sewer was another consideration in
reduction of the Crozet growth area.
ti1 Undeveloped commercial and residential properties on the south side of Route 250
West would be zoned RA Rural Areas. Undeveloped residential and industrial properties
north of the new Crozet growth area would be zoned RA. No zoning changes within the
:ro. • - are proposed.
jpat•lysville ' ,
' '''''' ,About one-half of the prior Earlysville village area was within the Rivanna reservoir
' watershed. The new Comprehensive Plan shifts the village area eastward to include
a� . rl sville Forest PUD and other properties.
yr Properties outside the new growth area which are currently zoned VR, Village Resi-
dential, would be designated RA. Properties within the new growth area which are
'- currently zoned RA, would be designated as VR.
•
The Ivy village was reduced to include primarily developed/approved development
d
n
e new
areas. nges are nedeVRwandiR-1hResidentialhwould.beProperties o ut-
designated RA.
l'+,,. -
A
October 5, 1983 (Regul' Night Meeting)
. . - --__-.
Scott1Villfr,, _
Under the previous Comprehensive Plan, a substantial portion of the Scottsville
growth area was within the Totier Creek reservoir watershed. The new plan shifts
the mouth area eastward out of the watershed.
Properties zoned VH outside the growth area would be designated RA. Commercial
properties outside the growth area would remain as zoned including about one and
one half acres of undeveloped HC, Highway Commercial, land. Properties within
the new growth area currentl zoned RA would be designated as UR r LI Li ht
"Request for Additional Information.
During public hearing on August 2, 1983, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
received comments from property owners regarding proposed zoning changes. At the
end of;the hearing, the Commission requested additional informaJPn.ragarding .
plropertlis discussed during the hearing, specifically: .
- How individual properties would be affected by proposed zoning changes;
- Zoning/development history of individual properties;
- Reasons for zoning changes.
Effects of Zoning Changes
On August 10, 1983, the Board of Supervisors amended the Albemarle County Service
Authority service area boundaries to conform to the growth areas
of f thetComprehensive
Plan. Most properties to be discussed in this report (copy on
foffice) are outside of current Albemarle County Service Authority service areas;
therefore, neither public water nor public sewer are available. This report assumes
that r
systemsowouldes becould authorizedop duelth central to policieswofeStatetems but regulatoryat no agencies. sewer
For residentially zoned properties, comparison is provided in terms of achievable
dwelling units. This comparison does not consider physical constraints of individual
properties (steep slopes, floodplain, septic system setback, etc. ). Development
under "Standard Level - Conventional Development" is assumed."
Mr. Tucker then referred to the maps outlining the proposals and the recommendations made
by the Planning Commission. He indicated all the areas in question and how the maps reflect
both the Comprehensive Plan before the last revision, and the Comprehensive Plan revision of
January, Mt• Tucker stated
that
owners
property the
Earlysville growth
area
will stolIha e to apply iftheY desire tohave theirpropertiesupzonedasthisrevisondoes
not recommend any upzonings at this particular time. Mr. Henley commented that just because
land lies in the growth area should not deem it fit for upzoning at this time. He pointed out
that the Crozet growth area has no public sewage disposal available, so therefore it cannot be
used to its ultimate density. He felt that to upzone the land will cause the owner to pay
higher taxes. Mr. Jones pointed out that upgrading the zoning designation does not necessarily
mean the land is subject to higher taxes based on zoning alone, there are other factors taken
into consideration by the assessor. Mr. Lindstrom wondered to what extent a rezoning would
effect the taxpayer whose land is subject to a designation for which the land is not being
the
da �• S�t.'eJl�dccanestilltqualifyhat if tundernthe landing
ruseeordinanceBoard and not the applicant,
PP.,
Mr. Fisher suggested that the public hearing be opened at this time, and comments be taken
on the Earlysville Village first.
Mrs. L. L. Ayers stated her opposition to having her three acres rezoned from Rural Areas
to Village Residential. She continued that she has no intention of developing the land, this
rezoning was not requested by herself, and will result in higher taxes. Mrs. Ayres said she is!
the sole support of her family; her husband is disabled. She wondered how this rezoning would
effect her adjoining property which is now in land use. Mrs. Ayres asked the Board why there
is a need for her property to be rezoned and wondered if next year the
adjoiningeproning perty,y will
be rezoned to Village Residential, thus raising taxes piece by piece at o
Fisher asked Mrs. Ayers for the description of her property. Mrs. Ayers replieddthat.it Ayers
is
identified as Parcel 45A on Tax Map 31. Mr. Fisher, after checking the map,
that the ?lining Commission agreed with her and recommended leaving the parcel as Rural Areas.
Mr. °Fisher. then asked for comments regarding Scottsville and Ivy Villages. With no one
present to speak about these two areas, Mr. Fisher then asked for general statements regarding
the •ro.osals for Earlysville, Scottsville and y
MrFF. Carc1-dackson, League of Women Voters, read the following letter dated September 13,
1983: '' r' ``}
rWo4;"years the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
urged comprehensive planning for Albemarle County, supporting a blueprint
't wallow the county to grow in a rational way and in the best interests of all
-' . sidents. This Comprehensive Plan calls for growth to take place in
'"-,�;,�4ortd."rp
:� designated communities and villages. Restrictions on growth in nearby
�;,#,'�'=perta ► protect watersheds of drinking water sources, and
w �K>+�as, ortdesignedtohelp
a7. �"410 favor this. We think that zoning should follow the Comprehensive Plan in
cl—!v:'.rder that the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan be achieved.
A*
HJ ',S'h8WA
L".A-f,;, ,,
'(, ''.'.',, , i
lr'
'
Yp,
Yk
October 5, 1983 (Regula fight Meeting) — _. ..
_ _ _____r„. ...______ --,
In Crozet the Comprehensive Plan calls for maintaining the central business
area. We are told that under the Comprehensive Plan, 32 acres within the Crozet
community have been recommended for development. If more commercial land is
needed, such land should properly be designated within these growth areas shown
in the plan. When and if the land recommended for growth within the Crozet 1
community is exhausted, the Comprehensive Plan can be altered to include other
areas. To alter the plan now seems premature. i
We believe that location of commercial development adjacent to a school complex
•;:. ., • is.lnappropr aZe.zoning. Apparently there is movement of students between the
.z .r. 7' 7;,; .::I. 4.•,.rlSW0O2- r% 'o *lithe O'r•'•Hodte 250 ant the 'Schdbis on the other side. Increased
traffic drawn to a shopping center could endanger those children. Conversely,
students and staff would adversely impact on shoppers.
':-`':•. Development should take place only where utilities are available, but this area
,'
"` is not in the service area where public sewer is available.
• 'Nearly everyone deplores the traffic density and lack of beauty on Route 29
North, where strip development has taken place. They ask how such a situation
was allowed to come about. The answer is "one project at a time." As each
• - project is built, it becomes more and more impossible to withhold permission
for further development. We ask you not to lay the groundwork for the stripping
of Route 250 West.
In considering the other communities and villages being revised, we think
changes should be made to bring the zoning in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan. Development should be restricted to protect county watersheds. Additional
land need not be rezoned up to Village Residential density in advance, however,
especially where public water and sewer will not be available for the next few
years."
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Fisher
discussed the matter of watershed protection. He pointed out that the Charlottesville/Albemarle
area is an area where water is scarce. There are no large rivers or great lakes, either natural
or man-made and groundwater is very limited. The Charlottesville/Albemarle area, Mr. Fisher
continued, has only the water that can be captured between the Skyline Drive and the South Fork
Rivanna reservoir, or in the case of Totier, that small basin, in which to provide all the
public water for the present population and the people expected in the next two to four decades.
Mr. Fisher stated that the provision of water will limit growth in this community. He concluded
that all proposed changes are an attempt to accommodate as much growth as can be reasonably
predicted over a twenty year period, but to save as much of the watersheds as ossible.
' At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recom-
mendation for Earlyaville, to change current zoning from Village Residential to Rural Areas on
i . 'tbat'`designated land contained within Route 660 and 743, with the exception of a small portion
zoned commercial, and to not change any existing Rural Areas zoning to Village Residen-
tia3:4t,
e motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
•'' ;• 1' recorded vote: ;'f-,
,'- Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
. Sd Mr. Butler, Mrs. ):Cooke,
Y1140
In reference to the recommendations for the Scottsville Village, Mr. Lindstrom commented
'that the area shown for Light Industrial is a little bit different from the area shown in
Sarlysville for Village Residential (currently zoned Rural Areas) because this is -the only
reasonable site in the Scottsville Village which could be used for Light Industrial purposes.
Miss Nash asked what effect this proposed zoning would have on the landowner's taxes. Mr.
Tucker noted the area proposed for recognition is only one portion of a larger tract. Mr.
,Jones paid that when upzoning takes place taxes do tend to go up as land sales occur in thial,
e
area. He added thatosthatctypwhen
property,in an area therefore,gtaxesoes rincrease.Rural AreHe continued to rthat
'sales have increasedon
that type of
,sales is only one of many items considered when reassessing property. Mr. Lindstrom felt that
as long as property is otherwise qualified for land use, the land may continue to qualify and
.as property is divided and the use changes, the parcels divided off would cease to be qualified
.tor land recognizedsfor ae. r particular tzoning hwhich sisf not erecognized in maintains a lthe Comprehensiveist of parcels Plan havech Planbecause
ld
n on those few parcels. Mr. cke
clarifiedxthatdthandesetparcelshe Boardwerefelt recognized the gonly ubecause ithey contained existing commercials '
uses at the time the map was adopted in 1980. Mr. Tucker commented that the Comprehensive Plan
'recommends the land west of Route 20 and east of Route 726 as commercial land. however, the
' Planning Commission did not follow this recommendation at this time. Miss Nash thought the
,Qr1ginal plan showed everything west of Route 20 as commercial.
Miss Nash then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to
; change the current zoning on land deleted from the village plan of Scottsville from Village
AAreeassasiRural Areas withstheoexceptionn being hone in tlarge he oparcel wth ewithin a hthe village is boundaries
Ruraly zoned
leave lad boundaries
;which is to be shown as Light Industrial; and also to add to the list of commercial parcels
!which have been zoned according to existing use those commercial parcels which now lieaoutside
' of tt}e village boundaries, ically th property.eScottsville Shopping
h r motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Center.
the prOpertY
fir
the Shopping Center, andd the the Spangler
::'" support adding the Light Industrial area because it might be
ilia=. Henley said he would not ev
twenty years before the property is ever developed. He continued that if someoouldne
ne wished to
brought
(purchase the land adjacent to this property he doubtteddrthatothe
proz rtd co. Me. r beeb sugd
under the land use ordinance since the adjoining p P Y Lindstrom asked
he Would support LI if the designationisnt had
dtbeen requested
use,band the
theowner.
iri. body changes the
Nr. St. John if the property ' 1 for land use.
soning to something other than Rural Areas, if owner he doeswtnenc�anestilluapply the property
Mr. St. John replied that if the property owner can still apply for land use
and if the property otherwise qualifies, the property
..1Y.1.f1 ,
, , ,,
it i,
uctor,er •,. .19(.1 Chem pr Night Meeting) . , _____
r
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned with the lack cf public utilities to the property and
does not want tg encourage people to use a piece of property in an intense manner when the
property cannot be served by public utilities. He added he would not support the inclusion of
I the one parcel as Lint Industrial. Mrs. Cooke a:.keu if rezor ir.r; this area, and yet there
being no utilities would effect the tax structure on tr,is piece ur property over the years.
;•.r•. St. John said tnat whenever property is upsor.eu, there 1:r r.lr.a,,:, ar, increase in the fair
:s i,.et value of the property. Mr. Lindstrom poilrtec out tr u: t,.t ]r•oi erty in question, is the
1 u,.r,j reasonably suiteu property in Scottsville for industrial _:,_ he added that the property
under had been given notice (by letter) of this nearing, i,au not utjectea, and the property cant
1 rel.,ain in land use taxation. Should the property owner ueciue to atvelop the property, then 1
b.r. .L.indstrom feels -it is .o9iy fiaig tpaI he ,payuthe lar•f,14'�r LI.v ik,,krl,, .AANU.C&X AS-#. j9 ,�;r,,,..r
`rslteCL'i*'�tf 111'itit'kge e't'he-- to lais11•fcaflon. 'Nlr: tinttf=3m • ncluded that ro pre •
-
serve that upiqufr piece of property in the sr..all Lcuttsville %:large for industrial use is
• .,egitinate. Y. II
At this po34}t;, roil was called on the foreCoir.e r,.otiurl are. care passeu ty the following
recorded vote .
AYzS: Mr..Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstr•un anu I..iss !lash.
NkYS: Mr. }?Dbsc and Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission on
the Ivy Village to change the zoning on those lands removed from the village boundaries to
hural Areas. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:. Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
hAYS: None. s'.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Proposed rezoning of certain parcels in the community!
of Crozet in order to bring these properties into conformance with the County's adopted Compre-I
hensive Plan (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 20 and September 27, 1983). i!
(Staff report on changes to the Crozet Community are set out in report under Agenda Item i!
No. 3).
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 13, 1983, voted 4/3
that current coning be left in place and further study be made of the Albemarle County Service
Authority service areas pertaining to water and sewer service, and that additional study be �I
conducted on other alternative methods of protecting the Beaver Creek impoundment in particularp
but including the Rivanna watershed, as well as any necessary improvements to the Lickinghole II
Creek impoundment basin.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present and read the following report dated
October 5, 1983, in reply to an earlier request by the Board:
Statue of the Lickinghole Creek Runoff Control Basin. •
I
Detailed topographic maps of the proposed area have been outainec ana various i
alternate designs are being studied. The available literature on the subject of
nutrient removals in ponds, sedimentation basins, and wetlands is increasing i
rapidly, and we want to have the benefit of the best data when making a decision.
Current research indicates that wet ponds do have a beneficial chemical and II
biological effect on phosphorus removal, however, we do not have any method of
estimating the quantity of phosphorus removed by these processes. The results of
studies conducted in northern Virginia are currently being publisned and we hope
to obtain some useful data from that source.
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority plans to start Phase Ill of the Crozet
interceptor sewer in the spring or summer of 1984 with a possible completion date II
in late 1985 or early 1986. Since this sewer project is likely to spur development
that we hope will finance the runoff control project, we intend to have our plans I
complete by February or March of 1984 so that any public hearings necessary can be I
held nest spring.
Discussion of the possibility of providing a regional basin(s) for the Stockton i
Creek Watershed (south of Route 250).
There are five tributary streams that flow away from Route 250 in a southwardly ,
direction to Stockton Creek. Should any development occur along Route 250, each
development should be required to meet the Runoff Control Ordinance rather than
contributing to a regional basin because the topography of the multiple tributary
streams does not provide a logical site for a basin similar to the site on
Licki4f}0s.Creek. ''`
Stockton Creek itself has a drainage area considerably larger than Lickinghole
Creek at this location and is just too large for a detention facility. In fact,
Lie is the largest watershed for which such a facility is proposed."
�:V"�:•�i Yj Al.
`'P�.f�, R
.t7 vi,ia:;
.'r�il; 'tu �';r,
tir.,V✓. r
,'11'F. •r•.
• ",.ham `kt-