Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 23 79 PC MinutesJuly 23, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Monday, July 23, 1979, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, 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-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Doug Eckel, Senior Planner; Miss Mason Caperton, 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. Col. Washington said that this public hearing is held for the purpose of reviewing more detailed land use plans for the various urban area. neighborhoods which were part of the 1977 adopted Comprehensive Plan. At the time of adoption, area residents were advised they could have input when the more detailed plans were drawn up for inclusion into the plan. Mr. Tucker noted on each of the land use plans for the urban area neighborhoods those references which should be changed to properly reflect zonings, institutional uses, etc. Mr. Tucker covered the boundaries and proposed land uses of each of the seven neighborhoods, as well as roads, generalized densities, etc. Col. Washington then asked for comments from the public on each of the neighborhoods. Neighborhood I: Mrs. Huckle, on behalf of the League of Women Voters, read a statement expressing concern for the watershed area. She asked that the Comprehensive Plan, which was so unanimously supported by the county citizens, not be compromised during the more detailed land use plans. Mr. Ed Bain said that some individuals feel the Planning Commission will react to the zoning map based on what is shown on the more detailed land use maps. He asked that the Commission be particularly aware of any potential downzonings as they review the various neighborhoods. At this point, Col. Washington agreed that these detailed land use plans will be a basis for consideration during the drawing of the proposed zoning map for the county. Mr. Bain asked if this is the time to address individual parcels. Col. Washington pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan is intended as a general guide and not so much individual parcels. Mr. Bain questioned if the Commission has reached any final conclusion on the upzoning/downzoning issue with regard to the urban area. Col. Washington replied that the Commission has reached no such decision. Mr. Bain established, then, that the Planning Commission will have public hearings at a later date to discuss individual parcels. Depending upon these public hearings, the maps for the Comprehensive Plan may be generalized or specific. 31S Mr. Bain then stated that at the intersection of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads there is a neighborhood center. The entire area is shown for low density residential, and the land was bought as commercial property. He noted the Highway Department's plan for a four -lane highway through this area, and felt that the land should be recognized for commercial uses, since it is not appropriate for residential use. He also stated that on the east side of Commonwealth Drive, south of the Division of Motor Vehicles, property purchased as commercial land has been shown for commercial office use on these detailed land use plans. He felt that this has an adverse affect on the individuals who purchased this property. Thirdly, he pointed out that land at the Rio Road/ Hydraulic Road intersection is no longer shown for industrial, rather for R-2 zoning. Mr. Bain also opposed this change. He said that since the utilities are already available in Neighborhood I, the industrial, high density, and business zonings should be maintained. Mr. David Wood pointed to the area of Lerkmar Drive, noting that this has had business zoning for many years and is fast developing as commercial property. He felt that commercial office zoning represents a substantial loss to the owners. Mr. Wood said that these same comments apply to the Whitewood Road area. Mr. Chuck Rotgin addressed SPCA Road, where the land is currently zoned R-2. He suggested shifting any lost densities to the east side of SPCA Road where there is currently water, sewer, schools, roads, etc. He also addressed the possibilty of using the School Board owned property on Whitewood Road as a park for the residential development in that area. Mr. Wendell Wood asked that the Commission give serious thought to any downzoning, since it will have such an adverse effect on the economy. He opposed the downzoning between Woodbrook and Carrsbrook, since this is the only commercial land on Route 29 that seems to have no commercial development at all, noting the extensive commercial development everywhere else - he did not feel it would be appropriate for residential use. Mr. Robin Lee said that though the name of the zoning categories might change, it is important to include uses that currently exist in similar type zones. Mr. Wallace Reid expressed the need for a western by-pass in the county. Mrs. Elizabeth Watts questioned the neighborhood center near the Hop -In Store on Hydraulic Road. Mr_ Bill Monroy expressed concern about densities in the watershed areas. Neighborhood II: Mr. Don Bent, on behalf of Dr. Charles Hurt, asked that the Commission hold additional work sessions and public hearings prior to taking action on any of the neighborhoods. He asked that Dr. Hurt be given the opportunity to discuss with the Commission his plans for the Jackson Village area, the Pantops area, the Hillcrest property, and Fontaine Forest. Mr. Chuck Rotgin felt that the parkway from the technical center that eventually connects with the airport should be shown in bold print on all the plans, since this roadway will have a very important impact on the plan. Mr. Ed Bain questioned the Branchlands property. 3%& Mr. Tucker said that the Branchlands area is envisioned for commercial office and a few higher density commercial uses. However, on the plan the area will be shown as a PUD. Neighborhood III: Mr. Richard Cogan questioned the land in the area of the Sheraton Motel. He said that he owns land between the Sheraton and the C. R. Moore Well Drilling property and feels his land is suitable because of the surrounding uses for commercial uses. He also suggested extending the boundary of this neighborhood further east. Mr. Tucker said that the Pantops area is not as easy to define as some of the other neighborhoods because of the lack of natural boundaries. He said that the Commission might want to seriously consider Mr. Cogan's suggestion. Neighborhood IV: Mr. Forrest Marshall, on behalf of the business community, opposed any downzoning in the county. He felt that individual property owners should be notified of existing and proposed zonings prior to the county's taking any action. He said that he himself owns land in this area, however is not prepared to react to the proposal at this time until he knows the effect it will have on his property. Neighborhood V: Mr. Gaston Fornes expressed concern for downzoning in the area of the north side of I-64 interchange. He said that all this land is within walking distance of the University of Virginia and should have some concern for high density residential development. Utilities are available to this area, and he noted that a 30" trunk line runs right through his own property. Mr. Chuck Rotgin suggested that the Commission consider some commercial zoning in the area of Fifth Street. Neighborhood VI: Mr. Buck Muscalski addressed the northwest quadrant of I-64 and expressed opposition to the commercial land in the area, stating that it is inconsistent with other zoning in the area. He asked that this be shown for low density residential. Neighborhood VII: Mr. Don Holden, a resident of Montvue, addressed the area west of Montvue, stating that the committee made up of local residents had discussed the possibility of 1 dwelling unit per 1.5 acres, and the area is now shown for 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre. He said that he supports the idea of one unit per 1.5 acres, since it fits in with existing development. Mr. Kendrick Dure, representing an owner west of the designated neighborhood, felt that the boundary should be extended to include Farmington and Flordon. Mr. Tucker said that the staff has attempted to contain the urban neighborhoods as much as possible to avoid sprawl. He noted that Flordon and Farmington are not even developed as densely as they could be. General Comments: Mr. Bill Gentry asked for individual notifications to property owners when the Commission finalizes it proposed zoning, as was done in 1974 in the review of the previous proposal. The Commission advised those members of the public present that work sessions would be held on the various neighborhoods as a later date. With no additional business, the Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 9 9