Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 22 79 PC MinutesAugust 22, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Wednesday, August 22, 1979, 4:00 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. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. James Skove. Absent was Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Also present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Doug Eckel, Senior Planner. After establishing that a quorum was present, Col. Washington called the meeting to order. The discussion began with the Urban Area Neighborhoods, and requests from the public hearings. Mr. Tucker discussed the area off Commonwealth, in Neighborhood I, owned by Charles Echol, and currently zoned B-1. A lot of the adjoining area is shown as Commercial Office. Mr. Tucker explained what would probably be shown on the proposed zoning map - he noted that with the exception of the office buildings in the area, the designation would probably be C-1, as recommended by the staff. This zone is somewhat like a central business district. He felt the request could be accommodated with the proposed zoning map. At this point he felt the Comprehensive Plan map should be left as is, and not so site specific. He pointed out that the parcels are relatively small, approximately one acre apiece. Mr. Skove moved that the property be left as is on the Comprehensive Plan, to be dealt with more specifically in the review of the proposed map. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Tucker said that the next item for discussion is property located on both sides of SPCA Road, with the request coming from Mr. Chuck Rotgin to transfer the density that is in the watershed across the road where the land is not in the watershed. The land in the watershed is suggested for low density, and the other land is suggested for high density. Mr. Tucker noted that both areas are currently shown for medium density, and existing zoning is medium density. The Commission deferred any decision on this proposal until the watershed is discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Tucker then addressed land in Neighborhood 7, shown by the staff as commercial office, currently the R. E. Lee and Sons business. He noted that though a contractor's office is permitted only in a light industrial zo e, the staff considers this more an office -type use with storage of constructiona �Ir 1cucker said that he feels it would be a good idea to recognize a light industrial designation. He noted that UPS is also in the area. Mr. Skove established that the staff would consider UPS as a light industrial use, because of the truck terminal. Mr. Gloeckner moved that these uses be shown for light industrial. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ni Mr. Tucker then addressed a request from Virginia Land Company, regarding a piece of property just outside Neighborhood II, which is known as Bentivar. The request is to include this in the urban area with a low density of one dwelling unit per acre. Staff does not really favor this request because the river forms a good natural boundary for this urban neighborhood. He noted that the land is currently approved for five acre divisions. Mr. Skove established that there is no water and sewer there. Mrs. Graves moved that it be left as is. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker noted the next two requests from Virginia Land Company that he felt should be considered together, near Jackson Village. One property has a request for low density ( 2.5 units/acre) and the higher density near Jackson Village. This would average to approximately 6 units/acre. He said that the Commission might want to deal with this on the zoning map. The average density, approved by the Board of Supervisors, for Jackson Village is six units per acre. Mr. Tucker noted that the owner had proffered six units per acre on this, though he had wanted a higher density. Mr. Gloeckner opposed the request for higher density because of Rio Road. There was Commission consensus to leave the map as is. The next request considered by the Commission was on Branchlands. Mr. Tucker pointed out the area shown as Commercial Office. He noted that the approved plan shows some retail space as well as office space which does not show up on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said that on the zoning map this would be shown as PUD and the retail and commercial office would have to be part of the approved plan. Mr. Gloeckner suggested a checkering of commercial/commercial office. There was Planning Commission consensus to following this suggestion, since the PUD plan governs what is permitted. ( This was with retard to Branchl.ands. ) The last request considered on Neighborhood II was from Mrs. Pullen on land currently zoned B-1. She requested that this zoning be maintained. Mr. Tucker noted that he is unaware of any plans for this property, and said this could also be cross -hatched for commercial/commercial office. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that in order to protect Carrsbrook, the corner be shown as commercial office and the remainder be shown as commercial and commercial office, in a staggered fashion. Mrs. Graves felt the Commission is just re -affirming strip -development if it does this, but she went along with the Commission's consensus to follow Mr. Gloeckner's suggestion, in order to remove some zoning that is absolutely not right. Mr. Tucker then reviewed Neighborhood II, noting that the center of the neighborhood is now DMV used to be. in general, for the Commission, around the area where the 19 a The Commission reached a consensus not to include Bentivar in the urban area. Mr. Gloeckner moved the commission accept Neighborhood II as amended and as shown. Mrs. Diehl_ seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The next item of discussion was Neighborhood III. Mr. Tucker noted the request from Mr. Richard Cogan to extend the boundaries of this neighborhood to take in the Sheraton Motor Lodge at the corner of I-64 and Route 250 East, as well as his property, which adjoins the Sheraton. Mr. Tucker said this could be done, since there is really no physical boundary marking the end of this neighborhood. Mr. Tucker noted that Shadwell Creek is between Moore Brothers Drilling and Sleepy Hollow Mobile Home Court. He noted that Lowes is beyond this. He felt this would mean an extension of approximately one-half mile, at the most. Col. Washington felt the neighborhood should include the properties served by the clover -leaf of the interstate. Mrs. Graves questioned if this means that services will be provided to those areas. Mr. Tucker replied "not necessarily." Col. Washington did not feel water is out of reason, if enough property owners go together to put the line in. Mr. Tucker agreed that the Sheraton needs water, since many times they have to haul water. Mr. Skove said that he has no problem with extending the boundary to Shadwell Creek. Mrs. Diehl questioned if this would include any additional residential land. Mrs. Graves established that this land is already zoned commercial. Dr. Moore agreed with the extension of this neighborhood, noting that it seems logical to include that which is already commercial. There was Commission consensus to extend the boundary of this neighborhood to Shadwell Creek. current Mr. Tucker then addressed the/industrial land in this area, noting that it is very steep and not suitable for industrial uses. He noted that the cliff goes right up from the railroad. After a brief discussion, Mr. Tucker stated that the land is not really appropriate for residential use. Mrs. Graves suggested Commercial Office for this property. Mr. Tucker agreed that this would be more conducive to the area. The Commission reached a consensus to checker this property yellow and pink ( commercial office and residential ). Mr. Tucker then reviewed the entire area of Neighborhood III, noting that the Committee had agreed to recognize most of what is already there. Mrs. Diehl felt a hardship could be placed on current owners for a subdivision .1 be dy developed A-1 to a low density designation, especially if every other lot is �q Mr. Tucker said it could still be recognized as R-1. Mrs. Graves felt it should be buffered with some commercial office zoning, in view of the existing business. Mr. Tucker agreed that commercial office could be shown on the frontage of the subdivision. That is basically the same concept used for the land near Carrsbrook. Mr. Skove moved acceptance of the Neighborhood with the two changes made by the Commission that day. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Graves said that she would still like to delete that other business zone - the island on Route 20 - as well as the high density. Mrs. Diehl agreed. The motion carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Diehl dissenting because of the Glenorchy property and Mrs. Graves dissenting because of the business zoning on Route 20. Mr. Tucker noted that in Neighborhood IV only one request has been received, and that is from Virginia Land Company involving Hillcrest, a requested PUD adjacent to Piedmont College. That request was deferred indefinitely because of the Moore's Creek Treatment Plant. The current request is for medium density residential, however the plan that was submitted shows approximately 2.5 units per acre, which fits in with low density residential. They also request commercial for land that would be at the entrance; Mr. Tucker noted that the staff has no problem with the request for commercial. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the entire Neighborhood IV for the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner felt this neighborhood should be left open for possible expansion if other urban area neighborhoods are cut back. He also felt that the extension of Route 631 and Avon Street should be "dotted in" on the plan. Mr. Tucker suggested the Commission might even want to show the connector of Avon Street to Route 20, even though that is part of the Hillcrest Plan. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of Neighborhood IV, showing Hillcrest as low density with commercial/commercial office where the Hillcrest Plan shows commercial uses, showing the connector through Hillcrest and through the industrial to Fifth Street, and the existing institutional uses. He said that he would also like the motion to show that this neighborhood could be re -opened for discussion at a later date for possible inclusion of the Biscuit Run area. Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the latter part of the motion because of the legal advertisement and the fact that people would not be aware of the Commission's discussion. Mr. Gloeckner said that his motion anticipates completing Neighborhood IV that day, however, with all the deleted population from the other neighborhoods, a Biscuit Run Neighborhood might be considered, whether it is a separate neighborhood or a portion of Neighborhood IV. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Neighborhood I: The primary thing to be discussed, Mr. Tucker advised the Commission, is Mr. Bedford Moore's request and ,the watershed in general. Mr. Tucker pointed out the information in the staff report regarding impact on land development. He noted it outlines what the exiGting plan calls for in regard to population, number of dwelling units, density, etc. He noted the three alternatives for altering the reservoir area: 1. Changing the density in Neighborhood I, making it all low density. This would change the population from what is shown now to 11, 510. 2. Changing the density to a 1-acre density, which was discussed for Neighborhood VII, which would change the population from 11,510 to 2,040. 3. Changing the density to a 5-acre density, or a conservation zone. This would lower the population to approximately 408. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the County Engineer had felt that working under the runoff control ordinance, the maximum density that could be obtained would be 2-3 units per acre. He had also said that the County Engineer did not feel there would be much difference in impact upon the reservoir with the 1 acre density and the 2.5 units per acre density. Mr. Tucker noted that the primary difference is that 2.5 units per acre would bring in sewer. One acre lots might mean septic fields, but that would mean an alternate drainfield. Upon questioning by Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the life of the reservoir is estimated by the Betz Study to be the year 2040, which is 20-40 years longer than had been thought before the Betz Study. Mr. Keeler pointed out that siltation is less than what was anticipated in 1963. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that Mr. Bailey did not feel that the 1-acre densities would be exempt from run-off control. He further noted that Mr. Bailey feels the runoff control ordinance is a very strong ordinance and will do what it is supposed to. Mrs. Diehl did not feel she had sufficient data to make the proper decision for lands in the reservoir area. She felt a better decision could be made if the Commission had access to the recent report of the South Rivavna Watershed Management Committee. She said that her understanding it that the densities they were working with were much lower than what the Commission is considering. Dr. Moore felt that the fourth consideration is the most important of all, and it is the fact there is no other place to get water. Therefore, no measure should be considered too extreme. Col. Washington felt there is much less to be concerned about where one subdivision is developed under unified control, where there is bonding, etc., than where many individuals develop the parcels. He felt that the larger lots provide fewer potential problems than many smaller lots. Mr. Payne noted there is more chance of unified development if the lots are smaller. Mr. Gloeckner said he does not feel it appropriate to fight the entire reservoir issue again, since if properly monitored the Runoff Control Ordinance and Hillside Overlay district will provide the necessary controls. He did say that he was willing to drop some of the high density designation, however he is not willing to put the land into a conservation district at this time. A low density residential designation would be appropriate though. l�I/%1 Mr. Payne said it is possible to think of this is terms of what can be reasonably be expected to go there, with the conditions of those restrictions just mentioned by Mr. Gloeckner being enforced. He felt IVM) a low density would be reasonable to defend on the basis of Mr. Bailey's comments, and he felt it important that the Commission consider what is reasonably defensible. Mrs. Diehl said that she would still like the benefit of the latest report prior to making a final decision for low density, residential suburban, or even something lower than that. Dr. Moore said that he leans toward the concept that lower density means less pollution. Mrs. Graves said that she would like to tie the density in with the slope tables provided :in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said that the Commission could handle this in the text, stating that this area within the watershed would be limited to one dwelling unit per acre. Col. Washington said that he is leaning toward making that whole section yellow. Dr. Moore agreed. Mrs. Diehl said she might feel better about this if she had more faith in the critical slopes provisions. She felt there is a gray zone between 15 and 25% that has not been addressed by the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner said that here again the Runoff Control Ordinance takes over, because any credits are killed through the calculations. Mrs. Deihl responded that she does not feel the Runoff Control Ordinance is properly monitored. Mr. Gloeckner suggested following the Colonel's suggestion of treating Neighborhoods I and VII the same. The Commission deferred further discussion and action on this neighborhood until the following Monday. The Commission adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 9 M