Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 16 79 PC MinutesAugust 16, 1979 ,. The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on the urban area neighborhoods proposed for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on Thursday, August 16, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. James Huffman. Absent were Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio and Dr. James Moore. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting too order after establishing that a quorum was present. Col. Washington explained that the proposed amendments would be more detailed ]and use plans for each urban area neighborhood and would also be reflected in the upcoming zoning ordinance. He noted that neighborhood committees had been formed to work with the staff in the preparation of these plans and these recommendations were now up for public discussion. Mr. Keeler noted that the first item of business might be to consider the comments from Bedford Moore on the area of the reservoir ( see attached. letter ) since this request, if accepted, would have an impact on all the other urban area neighborhoods. After listening to the comments from Mr. Moore ( as presented in the letter ), the Commission decided to discuss the proposal at a later date. NEIGHBORHOOD ONE: The first request to be considered was from Mr. William W. Stevenson, regarding property located directly opposite Georgetown Road where it intersects with Hydraulic, shown on the present proposal as "low density residential." Mr. Stevenson requested this have a commercial designation. Mr. Skove stated that he is hesitant to designate one particular parcel until the Commission works on the zoning map and addresses the zoning parcel by parcel. The Commission reached a consensus to leave the parcel as shown on the land use map and address Mr. Stevenson's request when it worked on the zoning map. The second request was with regard to property on the northwest side of Rio Road shown on the proposed land use map for medium density residential. The request was for recognizing the existing use and zoning of industrial. The Commission reached a consensus to recognize the existing use and the industrial zoning on the proposed land use map. Mr. David Wood requested that property located along both sides of Berkmar Drive shown on the present proposal as "commercial office" be changed to recognize the present development trend toward commercial. Mr. Gloeckner moved the Commission recognize this area for commercial in view of development along Berkmar Drive. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Diehl dissenting. /v In view of public interest, the Commission then discussed other proposed urban area neighborhoods. NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE: The first item discussed was property located north of I-64 along Route 780 ( Old Lynchburg Road ) shown on the proposed land use plan for medium density residential. Mr. and Mrs. Gaston G. Formes requested that existing zoning of high density residential be maintained in the proposal. Mr. McCann suggested maintaining the existing density in view of the fact that both water and sewer are available. Mr. Gloeckner noted the park in the area which provides recreational facilities. There was Planning Commission consensus to maintain the existing high density for this area. The second request involved property located south of I-64 at the Fifth Street interchange, shown on the present proposal as "low density residential." The request was for consideration of this proeprty as future "commercial" land, which would also recognize existing zoning in the area. The staff noted that the AWT Plant will provid facilities for the area. Col. Washington felt that the commercial can be shown in the Comprehensive Plan maps, however he did not support showing the commercial on the zoning map. He stated that the owner could apply for a rezoning at a later date. Mrs. Graves felt that the condition of the road called for low density residential. Mr. McCann said that in view of the lands proximity to the interstate, the land should be commercial, not residential. Mrs. Graves moved the land in question be shown for low density residential on the proposed land use map. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Gloeckner said that he could not support the motion because at least limited commercial uses should be shown for interstate quadrants and low density elsewhere. The motion failed by a vote of 2-6, with only Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Diehl supporting the motion. Mr_. Gloeckner moved that a small amount of commercial be shown in the southwest quadrant of I-64 and Route 631, to extend no further than the church. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting. Mrs. Diehl stated that the area must be carefully considered at the time of zoning designations for the revised zoning map. NEIGHBORHOOD SEVEN: The property located to the east of Route 29 south of I-64, between Route 29 and Sunset Avenue is currently shown as "low density residential" on the proposed land use map. Mr. Ben Minor Miller requested this be changed to a combination of "commercial" and "commercial office", and high density and low density residential. It was noted that this is the order of development from west to east, with commercial at Route 29, and residential facing Sunset Avenue. e Shack Mountain, Rte. 5 Charlottesville, Virginia 12 August 1979 Col. William R. Washington Box 234 Greenwood, Virginia Dear Colonel Washington: I respond to your courteous invitation for comment on the proposed Urban Area amendments to the 1977 Approved Comprehensive Plan. Three of those amendments seem to me to have a fatal flaw in them, as regards the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, by failing to protect its watershed, where that watershed overlaps the Urban Area. Yet we find in the Comprehensive Plan a clear commitment to protect the South Fork Rivanna Watershed in the following stated goal: "Conservation of natural resources...requires the conservation of water supply impoundment watersheds...steep slopes...(and)... water quality in streams... These areas should be protected from intensive commercial, industrial, and residential development." The boundary of the South Fork Watershed runs from the small northwestern cor- ner of Neighborhood Six to the Institute of Technology; then across the middle of Neighborhood Seven over Stillhouse Mountain to Garth Road and Georgetown Road; whence it runs in Neighborhood One along the remainder of Georgetown Road, along Hydraulic to Rio Road, along Rio to the SPCA Road, along which it runs the whole way to the Dam. This means that Neighborhood One actually borders on the Reservoir itself for four miles or so along the South Fork and Ivy Creek. Another four miles or so of Neighborhood Seven also borders on Ivy Creek as tributary, while the mile - long watershed of Martin's Branch, rising near the High School, is enclosed entirely by Nleighborhood One. And yet ironically; the closer one gets to the Reservoir, in going north from Neighborhood Six, the greater the density that is proposed for these three neighborhoods, with Neighborhood One having by far the largest population on the smallest residential acreage of the three. We are told that the soil erosion and runoff ordinances will automatically protect the Reservoir, when combined with the critical slope restriction in the new zoning ordinance. Well, the latter allows a minimal site of 30,000 square feet on slopes up to 25%. The runoff ordinance is concerned primarily with phosphate pollution throughout the watershed, rather than with proximity pol- lution from construction immediate to the Reservoir and its chief tributaries. The soil erosion ordinance simply cannot be expected to do the job alone. /'.121 3 -2- Furthermore, it seems contradictory and internally inconsistent to expect that these two ordinances and the mild critical slope restriction will inhibit the very density that is being planned for this urban -watershed area. .We cannot have it both ways. Either the ordinances will fail us, or the population pro- jections based upon such zoning are unsound and will fail us. Thus the time has come for us to take further steps to protect the Reservoir -from the coming en- croachment of the Urban Area, at least where the Urban Area overlaps the Watershed, as I have outlined. I suggest that there are two alternative ways in which this can be done: by Conservation Area Zones or by Critical Slope Requirements. With the first approach, we might zone those western portions of Neighborhoods Six and Seven which lie within the Watershed, as conservation areas (limited to 5 acres per dwelling unit) and zone Neighborhood One as a conservation area (limited to 10 acres per dwelling unit) because of the latter's closer proximity to the Reservoir. This would honor the Standards for Recommended Residential Density given in Table 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, in which "impoundment watersheds" are specified at 10 acres, along with "prime agricultural land." It has now been documented by EPA research that increase of density, with its consequent increase of vehicles, inevitably results in runoff characteristics that are as potent as raw sewage, -from the resultant disturbance of natural growth, organic pollution from human habitation, and drippings from vehicles when combined with their exhaust condensation, causing significant additions of metals to the runoff. Thus proximity pollution from dwellings directly on the Reservoir or its two chief tributaries nearest the Dam must be guarded against,.at least in the special urban -watershed area. Such conservation zoning is of course legally possible, when done as part of an overall plan. Alternatively, the critical slope approach might be preferred. If so, the same two western portions of Neighborhoods Six and Seven could be litaited to 5 acres per dwelling unit on any slope greater than 15%, with the same portion of Neighborhood One being limited more strictly to 10 acres per dwelling unit on any slope gre<•ter than 15%. There is ample precedent for this in the Hillside Development Standards of the Comprehensive Plan, as given in Table 1 and ex- plained further in the following sentence: "Map II illustrates the areas of Albemarle County which are recommended for conservation practices. These areas include hilltops, major ridge lines, streams/rivers and their valleys, slopes over 15%, and the Rivanna Reservoir watershed which feeds the County's major surface water supply resource." As you see from the above, 15% is clearly recognized as the critical point at which to require stricter land use. Bearing that out, the U.S. Soil Conserva- tion Service is now recommending 15`1 as the point at which drainfields are 13 -3- likely to fail. The old standard of allowing greater density on slopes up to 1*00 25% is no longer considered adequate. A 15% standard is now preferred to prevent drainfield runoff. The many steep ravines with multiple spring -fed streams running down into Martin's Branch, when combined with the high bluffs along the four miles or so of the South Fork and Ivy Creek, therefore make necessary such a strict requirement in Neighborhood One. And the same applies to a lesser extent to the watershed portions of Neighborhoods.Six and Seven. In either of these two ways, then, by conservation zoning or by slope require- ments, we can have our needed increase of density in the Urban Area, including the eastern portions of Neighborhoods One, Seven, and Six which lie outside the South Fork Rivanna Watershed, while at the same time protecting that water- shed. By thus going beyond the two -ordinances we have hitherto depended on, in recognition of our new situation, let us "make assurance double sure," in Shakespeare's familiar phrase. Otherwise, how can citizens in the rest of the county, including those with prime agricultural land, be expected to accept restrictions on their own property, if an even-handed protection of the county's main water supply is not applied to the land upon which it depends? In that regard, perhaps I should remark that what I am proposing sets the strictest standards for my own 102 acres of Shack Mountain, lying within the watershed area of Neighbor- hood One. For my wife and I firmly believe that the public interest should prevail over all private interests, including our own. Finally, I regret that this letter has run to such length. If I had had more time, I -would have been more brief. With high regard for the public service you are rendering at a difficult time, I am, sir, Faithfully yours, 13 C/\_ Bedford Moore cc: Members of the Planning Commission /I/ Mr. Keeler noted letters from Dr. Selden and Mr. C. E. Haney requesting that this same land be shown for lower density than on the staff proposed land use plan. Mrs. Diehl noted that citizens of the area are concerned about the roads through Sherwood Farms, and object to this being shown as low density residential when the land is already a developed area. She noted that the area residents do not want Sherwood Farms landlocked by high density residential and feel the area in question should be shown for Rural Residential. They also hope the Miller tract will develop at lower densities or at least have buffers to the existing residents. Mr. Gloeckner said that he has no objection to removing that particular area from the neighborhood plan. Mr. Keeler noted that the boundary would then be the proposed road and the ridge. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the commercial be deleted, and thata strip of suburban residential of 1 unit density be shown on the southwest side in sufficient width to make up the loss of Sherwood Farm. He also included in his motion deletion of Sherwood Farm from the Urban Area. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. There was Planning Commission consensus to leave the existing commercial zoning near the I-64 interchange. NEIGHBORHOOD SIX: The property located immediately adjacent to I-64 to the north off Route 702, shown on the present proposal as light, research industrial or industrial is requested to be changed to low density residential by Mr. E. A. Moskalski. Mr. Keeler noted that the neighborhood committee split in its vote of use of land immediately adjacent to I-64 to the north off Route 702. Mr. Gloeckner noted that he had viewed the property that day with two other Planning Commission members, and found the property to be over the hill and out of view of Buckingham Circle subdivision. The property, in his opinion, is not suitable for low density residential, and moved that the land be shown as industrial on the land use plan. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The second request dealt with property located to the south of Route 702 to the east of Route 29 South, shown on the present proposal as medium density residential. Mr. Moskalski was requesting this property be shown for low density residential. Mr. McCann moved that in view of the previous action by the Commission, this property be shown as medium density residential. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Commission then discussed the area of Ednam, with an approved RPN plan. The owner was requesting that the area be shown for medium density rather than low density. Mr. Keeler noted that the staff feels this should be shown as low -medium density because of the approved RPN. Mrs. Graves stated that this is a sensitive area, especially because of the potential impact of Birdwood. /5 Mr. Gloeckner felt the land should be shown for low density until the county knows the exact status of the RPN. Mrs. Diehl moved that the land be shown for low density development on the proposed land use map. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting. NEIGHBORHOOD SEVEN: The next item discussed was property located to the west of the Urban Area border beyond Ivy Creek. The request was for consideration of inclusion of this property in a low density residential urban area designation. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the staff did not support the request, noting that the property is on the other side of Farmington. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission not extend the urban area to include property in this request. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Comments from Donald A. Holden, F. G. Lankford, and T. A. McEachern regarding property on both sides of Route 654, shown on the present proposal as "suburban density" or maximum of one dwelling unit per acre was the next item of business. The request was for a maximum density of one unit to 1.5 acres or rural density residential. Mr. Keeler noted that water is available in the area and if the Planning Commission follows this request, it should be deleted from the urban area, because this would not be an urban density. Mr. Skove felt the area should be outside the urban area. Mr. McCann noted that one utility is available, and that another will shortly be available. He felt that some growth should be proposed for the area in view of those utilities. Mr. Skove moved that the area designated suburban residential be deleted from the urban area. Mrs. Diehl said that she could not support removing it from the urban area, but felt a designation that would make it more compatible with the neighborhood would be appropriate. Mr. Skove said that it does not seem to be appropriate to have many two area lots ( Colthurst and Montvue ) and then drop back to one -acre lots that in theory could become 20,000 square foot cluster lots. Mr. McCann offered a substitute motion that the density remain as proposed on the plan. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-3, with Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. Skove, and Mr. Vest dissenting. NEIGHBORHOOD ONE: Col. Washington asked that the staff look at the potential loss of population and density if some of the lands are designated suburban residential in this area. In view of the later hour, the Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. with no additional discussion on the urban area ne' hborhoods. R ert W. Tucker, Jr. - S Greta y.