Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 18 77 PC MinutesJuly 18, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Department conducted a work session on Monday, July 18, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, on the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. Those members in attendance were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James W. Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William R. Washington; Mr. Roy Barksdale; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Others in attendance were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Bruce Drenning, representing the consulting firm, KDA. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Carr informed the Commission that hopefully this meeting would conclude the Commission's study of the proposed update, though he realized there would never be a time when every detail of the plan would satisfy every Commission member and every citizen. Mr. Tucker stated that he felt the order of business should be for the Commission to review the staff comments on the areas of concern in the updated plan, and then review KDA's comments on each area. He reminded the Commission that these areas of concern grew out of the public hearings on the proposed update. Mr. Tucker began with the proposed by-pass or urban expressway as shown in the proposed plan, reading the staff comment and KDA's comments. Mrs. David suggested that this route should be referred to as a limited access highway. Mr. Jones felt that this limited -access highway should go all the way to the airport. Mr. Gloeckner noted that the purpose of this route is to serve the Hollymead Cluster for people coming to Charlottesville, as opposed to actually by-passing the city. Mr. Tucker explained the intersections and crossovers to Dr. Moore. ( Col. Washington arrived at the meeting. ) Mr. Dan Roosevelt, resident engineer for the Highway Department in this area, said that basically he agrees with the staff in defining the urban expressway. Mr. Jones established that it would be a four lane route. Mr. Easter felt that if the road incorporates grade -separations, this could later become part of a true by-pass. Mr. Roosevelt noted for the Commission that the Highway Department is still not convinced that there is a need for a by-pass in the truest sense. When questioned by Dr. Moore how development would affect this route, Mr. Tucker stated that if the route is shown on the plan, it is easier for the County to plan for it and require the setback that would be necessary. Mr. Drenning reminded the Commission that the plan does recommend certain areas for commercial development along Route 29 North. Mr.Jones suggested not including any mention of this route or by-pass in the plan until the completion of the CATS Re -study is completed. Then the Plan could be amended to reflect this report. Mr. Easter moved that this limited access highway be removed from the Plan until the CATS Re -Study is completed, then return this report to the Commission for immediate action to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect this report. He suggested that there should be some way to designate this route, though, as a possible route in the plan. Mr. ,zones seconded this motion. Discussion: Col. Washington felt that the route should remain in the proposed update, but note that it is subject to change with the completion of the study. Dr. Moore agreed, stating that he feels it is essential that people know that this area should be kept open. Mrs. Graves also agreed. Mr. Peatross stated that something should be included on the map in the plan, and if necessary, it can be changed at a later date. Mr. Gloeckner offered the substitute motion that KDA's recommendation be followed and that the route remain in the plan, thereafter to be referred to as a limited access highway. Col. Washington seconded this substitute motion. Discussion: Mrs. David felt that this should be part of the plan, in order to plan for eventual construction. The substitute motion carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker then presented the staff comments and KDA comments on the proposed Meadowbrook Connector between U. S. 29 North and proposed McIntire Extended. Mr. Easter asked if this had been dropped from the city's plan because of opposition of residents in the area. Mr. Tucker stated that was correct. Mr. Easter moved that the proposed Meadowbrook Connector be removed from the plan. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. The next item of discussion was the concern for the need for an energy conservation goal. There was a consensus among the Commission members that this was appropriate. Mrs. Graves asked if there are any criteria for energy conservation. Mr. Easter said that when he had agreed that this was desirable, he wanted to make sure that no one was thinking about a mass transit system for the County. wording The Commission made several / changes in what was recommended by the staff and unanimously approved the following amendment to the plan: Energy Conservation ( goal ) Establish criteria for the conservation of energy through land use and building design in order to minimize the demand for energy consumption and maximize the effectiveness of energy consumed. (OBJECTIVES) Encourage land use arrangements and densities that facilitate energy - efficient public transit systmes and reduce the need for and utilization of the private automobile. Encourage the design, orientation and construction of buildings and building complexes in order to effectively utilize all existing and potential energy sources. To review and analyze the existing engineering and design requirements for development within the County and their relationship to consumption of raw materials and use of energy in an effort to encourage a more efficient and energy conscious solution to development problems. The recognition of Claudius Crozet Park was the next topic of discussion. Mr. Gloeckner moved that this be recognized in the Crozet Community Plan. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Tucker then presented the staff and KDA's comments on buffering between commercial, industrial, and residential areas, stating this should take into account noises and noxious odors in addition to aesthetic considerations. Mr. Carr said that he disagrees with the basic detail being stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Drenning stated that many members of the Citizens Advisory Panel had expressed concern that this be included in the plan. Mrs. Graves stated that she does not feel that existing residential neighborhoods have enough protection from incoming business and industrial uses. Mr. Tucker stated that if the Commission wishes to include this in the plan, the proper way to handle it would be to amend objective #3 in the Commercial Section. Dr. Moore moved that this objective be amended as follows: Develop standards as necessary to stimulate the location of attractive commercial rr+' development which minimizes the necessity for buffering but does provide for buffering as may be necessary to protect residential areas from noise, odors, and other objectionable effects. Mr. taster seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. The Commission then heard the staff and KDA comments on more detailed plans for Crozet and Hollymead Communities. Mr. Tucker stated that he is opposed to a detailed plan that gives a parcel by parcel usage, however he favors an overall plan with more citizen input. Mr. Carr asked if this would follow the adoption of the entire plan. Mr. Tucker stated that this is the staff's recommendation. Mr. Tucker stated that the plan should still include plans for Crozet and Hollymead as proposed by the consultants until these community plans could be taken care of, in order that the Commission and Board would have something to follow in the interim period. Mrs. Graves asked what would happen if the current plan is more suitable than what the citizen group came up with. Mr. Drenning pointed out that this did not show up in the public hearing process. Mr. Carr said that he finds it advisable that there be citizen input on the generalized plans for Hollymead, Crozet, and the urban area. Mr. Tucker said a note could be included in the plan stating that this plan is tentative and is scheduled to be reworked within one year of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mrs. Graves stated that a year is a long period of time. ( Mr. Barksdale entered the meeting. ) Mr. Carr pointed out that with the sewer nearing completion, it is impossible to escape some density growth in the Crozet area. Mrs. Graves suggested that if there is much density increase it could affect the entire plan. Mr. Peatross reminded her that these community plans should remain general in nature. He also noted that he feels there has been ample time for citizen input, since the update of the plan has been taking place for over one year already. Col. Washington stated that the concern from the Crozet citizens is with the higher density areas. Mr. Easter said that he feels the plan should go forward as it is, since the plan itself is a general guide. He was opposed to placing stipulations on various sections. Mr. Drenning stated that there may be no growth the first couple of years, since the sewer may not be completed until 1981. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that a study should be done only if it is found to be necessary. Mr. Easter agreed, pointing out that anyone can petition to have that done. Mr. Barksdale pointed out that the citizens in the Crozet area want to be part of the planning process. Col. Washington pointed out that the new high school is as much an attraction to that area as the projected sewer connections. Mr. Carr said that he was willing to defer any action by the Commission on this item for thirty minutes in order that they could make a decision. Mr. Barksdale moved that the Crozet and Hollymead Communities be reviewed with citizen input from those communites and the plans will remain in a generalized format. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mr. Peatross dissenting. There was a suggestion of substituting the language of the existing plan ( pp. 76-77 concerning historic landmarks for the language presented in the proposed Comprehensive Plan ( p. 22 ). Mr. Tucker presented the staff and KDA comments on this suggestion. He read a letter from Mr. Kingsley Hughes on this subject, noting that some of these suggestions were included in the ordinance that had been shelved by the Board of Supervisors in 1975. Mr. Tucker also stated that the only thing that could accomplish these was an historic district. Mr. Hughes stated that he felt that this inclusion would give the County a little more to work with when requests that affected historic landmarks were being considered by the county. Mr. Drenning stated that he does not feel the extra language will accomplish anything until there is an historic zone in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner felt that perhaps the landmarks should be recognized in the plan, as they are, but he did not feel the Commission should spell out any protection for these landmarks. Mr. Drenning also stated that such provisions in the plan would also freeze the zoning of land adjacent historic landmarks. Mr. Carr said that he does not feel the County is prepared to say how historic landmarks will be protected. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission approve the language as it exists in the proposed update. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. - V - Do the highway improvements proposed in the Revised Comprehensive Plan Complement the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's 6-year plan for secondary road improvements, or are they at odds with the 6-year plan? And, if they are at odds, where do conflicts occur? This was the next subject for discussion, after Mr. Tucker presented the staff and KDA comments. He noted that there is going to be some conflict in the two plans, since the 6-year plans came our prior to the finalization of the updated plan. He also noted that the recommendations in the updated comprehensive plan are geared for a 20 year planning period. Mr. Roosevelt stated that highway improvements are always behind the need. As a matter of fact, it will take approximately 60 years to catch up the road improvements to the current need, because of available funding. He stated that in his opinion the conflicts can be resolved at a later day, and periodic revisions can be made. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that it would be appropriate to amend the plan as the need occurs. Mr. Roosevelt further stated the Highway Department does not argue the need for those things listed in the Comprehensive Plan, only the priorities. And it is the county who sets the priorities. Mr. Tucker further noted for the Commission that more road improvements always encourage development. Mr. Dreening stated that the County can advise the Highway Department where to use the funds that are available. Mr. Gloeckner said that in his opinion the safety factor is what makes something a priority. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the plan does not support or oppose the 6-year plan. The opportunity will exist at a later date to bring the two into conformance. Dr. Moore stated that the best way to handle the roads is with the Board of Supervisors. However, he did not feel the Commission should recommend a certain population for an area that has inadequate roads. Furthermore, he said that he does not want to imply that the present road system is adequate. Mr. Peatross stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not say the roads are inadequate. He suggested leaving the plan as it is. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission recommend no changes in the highway provisions in the plan. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion. Discussion: Col. Washington said that he could support this motion if the 240 alignment can be addressed at the time of the restudy of the Crozet Plan. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mr. Jones dissenting on the basis that all problems should somehow be addressed. 7 z Mr. Tucker then presented the staff report on possible consideration of Buck Mt. Creek Watershed as a potential future water supply impoundment. Mr. Easter moved that this be shown on the plan as a possible future water impoundment. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Emphasizing the importance of food and fibre production for local consumption was the next topic of discussion. Mr. Carr said that he wonders if this is appropriate for inclusion. Mr. Peatross moved that this be left out of the updated plan. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Col. Washington dissenting. Mr. Tucker then presented the staff and KDA comments on an industrial site in the southern part of the County. Mrs. David reminded the Commission that this was expressed by the Scottsville citizens as desirable in the public hearing process. Mrs. Graves stated that she would hate to lose the CVN zoning for the Red Hill area by putting this in the plan. She said that she needed to know the extent of the Red Hill site before supporting this. Mr. Barksdale pointed out that this is one of the few railroad sites in the County, and feels this is desirable to note in the plan. Mr. Carr said that he found no objection to this. Mrs. Graves felt that people in those areas should know what is happening before this is included in the plan. This was an area where she felt the plan would be too specific. Mr. Jones said that he is opposed to calling any area by the name of the industrial use. Mr. Tucker said that perhaps no action was necessary on this matter, since certain areas have already been recognized in the plan. The Commission followed this advice. When the Commission discussed the matter of a lower density for the site of the proposed elderly housing project in the Crozet area, Mr. Barksdale stated that this has already been taken care of by the action of the Board of Supervisors on the request for rezoning. Mr. Barksdale moved that the proposed high density area shown on the west side of Route 240 be changed to low density in order to reflect the Board of Supervisors action on the recent proposal of housing for the elderly. 7 =3_. Col. Washington seconded this motion. Discussion: Mr. Carr said that action on this request would confirm what has already been done. The vote on the motion was 8-0-1, with Mr. Gloeckner abstaining. Mr. Tucker then read a letter from a citizen to the Commission regarding the commercial area that extends into the residential area in the southeast quadrant across from the Gulf Station in Crozet. Mr. Easter said that he does not think this area will change in the next five years. Mr. Gloeckner moved that this commerical land use proposal on the southeast quadrant of Route 240 and Tabor Street be removed and replaced with low density residential in order to retain the existing residential character of that area. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, whihc carried by a vote of 8-0-1, with Col. Washington abstaining. The Commission, at the advice of its chairman, decided that it was not appropriate to discuss the program of action that should be developed and adopted as an amendment to the plan following the adoption of the plan by the Board of Supervisors. The Commission unanimously agreed that this would be a premature discussion. Mr. Tucker stated that the monitoring system should be reviewed by the Commission and discussed at a later date. He suggested that this should be discussed after the Commission has received and reviewed Memorandum #10. Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission have a dinner recess and proceed with any further business at 7:10 p.m. The Commission returned to the Board room at 7:10 p.m., with all members present. Mr. Carr again called the meeting to order. Mr. Tucker asked if there were any further major concerns from the work sessions that should be covered in this work session. Mr. Easter said that he wished to move that the medium density residential shown to the northwest of Montvue be removed and replaced with low density residential. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. 9 7dl_ Mrs. Graves moved to shift the high density residential shown on the north side of Barracks Road in an easterly direction in order to be nearer Georgetown Road. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. Col. Washington said that he wished to delete the proposed village of Lower Afton from the plan. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Easter moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors the adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update, with the following amendments: 1. Remove the proposed Meadowbrook Connector, between U. S. 29 North and McIntire Road Extended as shown on the proposed plan; 2. Include an Energy Conservation goal and objectives with wording as follows: Energy Conservation ( goal ) Establish criteria for the conservation of energy through land use and building design in order to minimize the demand for energy consumption and maximize the effectiveness of energy consumed. ( OBJECTIVES ) Encourage land use arrangements and densities that facilitate energy - efficient transportation system and reduce the need for and utilization of the private automobile. Encourage the design, orientation and construction of buildings and building complexes in order to effectively utilize all existing and potential energy sources. To review and analyze the existing engineering and design requirements for development within the County and their relationship to consumption of raw materials and use of energy in an effort to encourage a more efficient and energy conscious solution to development problems. 3. Recognize Claudius Crozet Park on Crozet Community Plan; 4. Amend the third objective of the Commerical goal which deals with buffering, to read as follows: Develop standards as necessary to stimulate the location of attractive commercial development which minimizes the necessity for buffering but does provide for buffering as may be necessary to protect residential areas from noise, odors, and other objectionable effects. 5. Crozet and Hollymead Communities will be reviewed with citizen input from those communities and the plans will remain in a generalized format; 6. Recognize and designate the Buck Mountain Creek watershed as a potential water supply impoundment; 7. Change the proposed high density area shown on the west side of Route 240 to low density in order to reflect the Board of Supervisors action on the recent proposal of housing for the elderly; 8. Remove the commercial land use proposed on the southeast quadrant of Route 240 and Tabor Street and replace with low density residential in order to retain the existing residential character of that area; -�75- 9. Remove the medium density residential shown northwest of Montvue and replace with low density residential; 10. Shift the high density residential shown on the north side of Barracks Road in an easterly direction in order to be nearer Georgetown Road; 11. Delete the proposed village of Lower Afton from the plan. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. with no further business. 0 "-Vb v , "—I e �-- W. Tucker, Jr. - e1qretary' E 9 FE