HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 13 77 PC MinutesJune 13, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update on Monday, June 13, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board
Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those in attendance were
Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William
Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Paul Peatross. Others in
attendance were Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio; Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning;
and Mr. Bruce Drenning, representing KDA.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Carr told the Commission the purpose of the meeting was to further
discuss the proposed updated Comprehensive Plan and to receive public input.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff is still in the process of reviewing
comments from the public that were received through the last public hearing and through
the mail.
Mr. Dick Moyer of Crozet questioned the choice of land for the medium or
high density residential use in the Crozet area. Mr. Drenning responded that this
choice was based on the Housing Coordinator's statements on the acquistion of property
for housing for the elderly. He said that it seems desirable to have this type of
development occur in villages and in the urban area. He felt in view of the project
for the elderly,it is important to show this on the plan. Mr. Drenning also noted
that the high density shown in the plan is for an average of 15 dwelling units per acre,
the medium density is for an average of 10 dwelling units per acre, and the low density
is for an average of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Moyer then questioned if anyone had looked at the fact that Crozet is
developed in only single-family type units and there is no cluster type development
there at all.
Mr. Tucker explained that the sewer has never before been available, though
such units have always been proposed for that area. He stated that the sewer will allow
additional growth for the entire Crozet area. He said that it is not necessary for
this to be shown as high density development on the plan even if the County ultimately
approves the project for the elderly.
Mr. Barksdale suggested amending the plan, stating that the only medium
density in Crozet is Orchard Acres.
Mr. Carr said that he has been under the impression that some medium -to -high
density development might take place in the Crozet area. If Crozet is to grow, it
is logical to build some apartments.
Mr. Barksdale said that if this is the case, a better road than Route 240 as
it currently 4is necessary.
exists
Mr. Carr noted that there are industrial uses in Crozet and as of this
coming September there will be three schools in the area. Therefore it is logical to
assume that some of the residents of the area ^Jglipartment dwellers; to keep them from
commuting from Charlottesville daily, it would be appropriate to provide some medium -to -
high density development there.
( Mr. Peatross entered the meeting. )
Col. Washington suggested that medium density housing in the vicinity of
the schools is desirable to reducing busing of some of the students. It is also
logical to have some development where there is public water and sewer. Currently
there are more people commuting to Crozet than live there.
of Crozet.
to I-64.
Mr. Goode Love questioned the possible future road location to the heart
Mr. Drenning explained that this location was more direct to Crozet and
Mr. Moyer_ said that something needs to be done to link I-64 to Route 240.
Mr. Carr said that this would depend on where the development takes place.
Mrs. Sally Thomas said that she is concerned about what will happen after
the plan is adopted. In her opinion a more detailed study of Crozet and more detailed
planning is necessary. This should be done at the community level. Mrs. Thomas felt
that this would work out some of the opposition to projects prior to the actual plans.
Mr. Moyer felt this would be a good idea.
Mr. Woodworth noted for the Commission and KDA the incorrect mapping shown
in the Crozet insert. He said he was :pure this had also been addressed at the first
public hearing.
Mr. Drenning said that there was considerable debate about Mrs. Thomas'
statements during the meetings of the Citizens Advisory Panel and Steering Committee.
He said that he had been under the assumption until those meetings that with the
existing industry in Crozet, recreation, public water and sewer to be available,
that Crozet was a logical place to grow. He said that the Steering Committee
had asked for additional detail as a guide for development during the iterim
period for land use decisions. He said that the plan is still open to the comments
of the citizens about the advantages of a specific plan or a general plan. He did
state that the mechanics that are currently in error will be corrected.
Mrs. David pointed out to the citizens that not many changes have
been made from the 1971 plan.
Mr. Drenning said that what has actually happened in the update is that
a smaller area has been developed than was in the 1971 plan, and a higher density
has been used because of the smaller area.
Mrs. Speidel questioned the difference in a detailed Comprehensive Plan
and a zoning map and ordinance.
Mr. Drenning stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and long use
plan, where the zoning ordinance and map together state exactly what can be done
with land as it is currently zoned.
Mr. Bill Barksdale said that there have been problems with development
of rural areas, especially all the subdivision. requests that have come before the County
since the 1971 Plan was adopted. He said that. he feels the Comprehensive Plan
should be general in nature. He was concerned that if the Plan shows an area for
one density, and it is zoned for another, it is difficult for an individual to know
exactly how his land can be used.
- /. 3-
Mr. Carr advised the public and the Commission that the consultants
have been employed to give an overview of the situation, and in many cases the residents
of various areas are to be involved in the more detailed plan.
The Commission asked that the staff provide the members of the Commission with
a letter from the County Attorney stating his opinion on the sewer interceptor taps.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel addressed four areas of concern to the Commission:
1. She suggested that there be some program of action for the plan, where the timing
and priorities will be listed.
2. She questioned if the population projection is a goal or projection. She questioned
if the County should be trying to attract industry. ( Mr. Drenning replied to this
concern that the County should protect those areas that are best suited for industry
since the number of those areas is so limited. )
3. She was concerned about the buffering addressed in the Commercial objective - she
felt that this should be addressed in a more positive fashion, and the words
"minimizing the need for buffering" should be omitted.
4. Historic landmarks, in Mrs. Speidel's opinion, should be presented in the language
of the existing Comprehensive Plan, hopefully to preserve the historic sites in the
County.
Mrs. Sally Thomas suggested to the Commission that an energy conservation
goal should be included in the Plan.
Mr. Woodworth said that agricultural land protection and energy conservation
are related and should be recognized. He also stated that tourism is an important industry
to Albemarle County, the primary reason being the beauty of the land. He said that
this should be encouraged in order to protect the character of the County.
There was a discussion regarding the cost of additional copies of the Plan
that could be printed and made available to the public. Mr. Drenning reported to
the Commission that 500 copies could probably be copied for $1000.
The Commission set another work session on the revised plan for Monday,
July 18, 1977, 3:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building. The Commission encouraged the
staff to seek better coverage and advertising for this meeting from "The Daily
Progress" in order that there would be better attendance from the public.
Mr. Tucker reported that the staff would mail to the consultants the
staff's comments on the revised plan by Wednesday, June 22, 1977, in order that these
could be reviewed by/,aanna commented upon, as soon as possible.
Since there was no further public discussion and no further comments from
the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
l
�6 A, 4414 r
W. Tucker, = Jr. - Secre ary
M
19