HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 16 79 PC MinutesJuly 16, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Monday, July 16, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James
Skove; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Offico. Other officials present were Mr. Robert
Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Also present was Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of
Planning.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum was present.
Mr. Tucker presented the background information on the 1977 adoption of
the County's Comprehensive Plan, noting that the goal at that time had been to
continue preparing more detailed land use plans in the various villages, communities,
and Crozet and Hollymead.
The Commission decided to address the recommended amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan individually.
Hollymead:
Mr. Tucker explained the map, locating the roads, boundaries, etc., as
well as the public facilities and various environmental considerations. He suggested
the Commission might want to specifically address the business quadrant on Route 29
North where Jim Ewing Ford is currently located. He suggested it might be appropriate
to address the area of Mercer Rug, etc. as an additional commercial location.
Committee.
There was no public comment and no one present from the Hollymead Community
Crozet:
Mr. Tucker gave the background information on the map, once again locating
the roads, boundaries, etc. He said that the emphasis had been on the downtown
area and its planned extension.
to
Mrs. Graves objected Athe textual wording regarding setback from the centerline
of all streams.
Mrs. Jo Anne Stanley, a member of the Crozet Land Use Committee, said that
the plan discussed by the committee did not show commercial uses at the intersection
of Routes 240 and 250. The park was also located differently due to concerns of
the community. She asked that the Commission address these two issues. In her
survey of the residents of the area, she found extensive support of extension of the
downtown commercial area.
Mr. Moyer was concerned about the commercial uses proposed on the north side
of Routes 240 and 250. Additionally, he did not support the large parks becuase of
the existing public parks.
Mr. Ackerman questioned how realistic the plan is in view of the funding
cut from the proposed interceptor because of the EPA.
15&)
Mr. Tucker agreed that without the interceptor, only low density
development could take place.
Mr. Alan Freeman questioned the omission of the Thurston Subdivision
of 70 lots from the plan.
Mr. Tucker explained that the Thurston Subdivision is a large lot subdivision,
and this Crozet Plan provides for 1-acre density and up.
Mrs. Graves stated that in her opinion the time has come to address low
density and ask if people are aware of what is proposed for their area.
Mrs. Stanley said that she understood that this is to be a 20-year plan
with the interceptor promised for 1983.
Mrs. Graves questioned if this meant the R-4 zoning would not be possible
until the facilities are available. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is correct,
that for the time being it would be R-1 density.
Mr. Skove noted that the plan relies on zoning to encourage commercial
development in the downtown area.
( Mrs. Diehl arrived at the meeting. )
There was no further comment on the Crozet area at this time.
I;y:
Mr. Eckel explained the proposed land use map for the Ivy area.
Mr. Skove at this point suggested that existing populations for the
villages be incorporated into the text of the village plans.
Mrs. Garnett established that the realignments of roads are based upon
suggestions to the Virginia Department of Highways that property be purchased
in order to relocate the roads. She then questioned if these plans are to become
law.
Mr. Tucker explained that these plans will be used as the basis for
designing the zoning ordinance and zoning map. Mr. Tucker also pointed out that
the densities in the villages will be low where no water and sewer are available.
Mrs. Hadden questioned if people are aware of suggested road realignments.
Mr. Tucker replied that these are general plans and at the time of
zoning densities on lot lines will be established. He said that each person, though,
has not be given individual notice of any of these proposals.
Mrs. Graves questioned if the SCS office has looked at the soils of the
Ivy area.
Mr. Tucker said that all the SCS office will give is a general statement
for the Ivy and Earlysville areas.
Mrs. Graves at this time stated that Route 743 is the boundary for
Earlysville for runoff control permits. And Ivy is completely within the run-off
control ordinance boundary.
c:3O/
M
North Garden:
Mr. Eckel presented the proposed land use map for the North Garden
area.
Mrs. Elinore May, a member of the North Garden Land Use Committee,
stated the the boundary is proposed to be below the Zion Church.
Mr. Tucker said that can be changed.
Mrs. May said that she would appreciate it if the staff and Commission
would support all the recommendations of the area committee.
Mr. Alan Scouten expressed concern that the planning employs the
supposition that the population will be low in these designated growth areas.
Mrs. Graves supported the concept of one dwelling unit per 1.5 acres,
but questioned how it will be effectuated.
Mr. Tucker said that only recently has the local Health Department
recommended one dwelling unit per acre, however he did not see this changing the
population of the villages.
Earlysville:
Mr. Eckel presented the proposed plans for the Earlysville area.
There was no public or Commission comment on that map.
Nix:
Mr. Eckel reviewed the proposed land use plans for this area.
The only public comment was from Mr. Alan Scouten, who stated that the
philosophy of building in the woods is not good without a provision for prohibiting
clear cutting of the land.
Esmont/Porters:
Mr. Eckel presented the proposed land use plans for this area.
Mr. Edgar Page established that the width of the bicycle/pedestrian
path will be approximately 8 feet. He also pointed out that the intersection of
Routes 627 and 6 is one of the most dangerous in that portion of the county.
Mr. Page then stated that he had no input on this plan now being shown to the
people for comment.
Mrs. Rosa Hudson was opposed the plan, stating that she does not want
a park at Yancey School.
Mr. Tucker explained to the residents of the Esmont/Porters community
that just because this is a proposal for more growth and development in the
area does not mean that the growth has to take place. It is entirely up to the
individual land owners.
Col. Washington explained that this is the first opportunity that the
public and Commission have had an opportunity to react to the detailed land use
plans for the various designated growth areas. He assured the residents of
the area that this map, as well as others, would be reworked.
Mrs. Garnett said that she feels the discontent with this particular
plan is just representative of the county -wide discontent with what is being
planned for all county citizens without input from the landowners.
With regard to the Esmont/Porters plan, Mr. Graham Page suggested
realigning the boundary and making the post office the center of the village area.
Mr. McCann moved the Commission defer discussion and action on the
Esmont/Porters plan until the people of the area have been able to assist in
drawing the plan.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl did not feel the Esmont area should be dropped as a designated
growth area.
Mr. Huffman expressed concern that if there is no village in this area
the landowners will be subject to the AF district in the proposed zoning ordinance
with 10-acre lots by right and 2-acre development by special use permit.
Mrs. Graves suggested that each designated growth area be covered by
the Commission in individual work sessions.
Mr. J. L. Lively questioned the added expense to the taxpayers that
all the growth areas will bring about.
Mr. Tucker said that the plans are an attempt to centralize development
in certain areas of the county to avoid one urbanized county; he said that such
plans would also help energy conservation to a great degree.
Stony Point:
Land use maps were presented to the public and Commission by Mr. Doug
Eckel.
Mr. Huffman and Mrs. Graves espressed concern for the Village Residential
zoning in view of the Health Department and SCS recommendations.
Mr. Keeler explained how that is covered by the zoning text.
Scottsville:
Mr. Eckel presented the land use plans for Scottsville. There was
no public comment on this area.
Mr. Skove suggested that water availability should be shown on the
plan.
Keswick:
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the representatives of this
area recommend that Keswick be dropped as a growth area in the county.
The Commission advised those members of the public present that
there would be additional work sessions on all the plans prior to any formal
action by the Commission.
Col. Washington advised the citizens present that the next work session
and public hearing would be held on July 30, 1979, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room
of the County Office Building.
10:35 p.m.
M
There was no additional business, and the Commission adjourned at
F9
9