HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 27 79 PC MinutesAugust 27, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Monday,
August 27, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mr. James Huffman.
Absent was Mr. Tim Lindstrom.
Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior
Planner.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum
was present.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that he is in receipt of a letter
from David Carr regarding land adjacent to Doctor's Court, requesting comparable
zoning to B-1. The other property addressed in the letter is located on the
corner of Greenbrier Extended and Whitewood Road, which is shown at this point
as CO; the owners are seeking comparable zoning to the existing B-1.
Mrs. Graves felt to honor these requests at this point would be too
site specific, since this is intended to generally address the land.
Mr. Skove said that given the size of the parcels involved, he is inclined
to agree, and said they should be addressed in the review of the zoning map.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested checkering them as Commercial/Commercial Office.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is prepared to address the specific zoning only
at the time of review of the zoning map.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he does not mind dealing with it later as long
as the Commission realizes the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not the law.
Mr. McCann agreed.
Mr. Skove moved that the designation remain as it is now in view of the
fact that this is a discussion of generalizations for the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
The vote was 3-4-1, with Dr. Moore abstaining, and Mr. Vest, Mr. Gloeckner,
Mr. McCann, and Col. Washington dissenting.
Col. Washington felt that these parcels and the adjoining parcels should
be checkered with Commercial/Commercial Office.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that this land and the corner of Whitewood, Commonwealth,
and Greenbrier Extended be checkered Commercial/Commercial Office.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
3 /
The motion carried by a vote of 4-3-1, with Dr. Moore abstaining,
and Mr. Skove, Mrs. Graves, and Mrs. Diehl dissenting.
Watershed area:
Mr. Tucker noted the slope analysis map in the area of the Reservoir
and Ivy Creek; he pointed out that most of the land is limited by its slope,
especially immediately adjacent to the reservoir. He pointed to the letter from
the Environmental Defense League however said that this addresses land on Long
Island, which has a different type of soil and is near the ocean.
At the previous meeting he pointed out that the Commission had expressed
its desire to consider the following alternatives:
1. low density with an average of 2.5 units/acre;
2. 1-acre density;
3. CVN district.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that one of the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan is for development and growth to take place in the urban area, and therefore
the Commission should not be too conservativein its plans for the potential number
of people who could live in that area. Otherwise, the pressure will still be to
develop the rural and agricultural areas of the county.
Dr. Moore expressed concern about growth in the urban area because of the
reservoir and the lack of a planned network of roads for meeting the current trans-
portation needs.
Mr. Skove expressed concern that the county is locking itself into some
zoning that might not be necessary later on.
Mr. Vest felt that what goes there eventually should be planned for now.
Mr. McCann emphasized that growth should certainly be planned along the
Crozet interceptor lines.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Board of Supervisors is on record opposing
linear development along Route 250 West from the city to Crozet.
Col. Washington stated that if density along and around the reservoir
is decreased, it does not necessarily mean density on the other side of SPCA Road
has to be increased, primarily because of the inadequacies of Route 29 North.
Mr. Gloeckner support rural residential west of the ridge line, and
establishing a Neighborhood 8 in the Biscuit Run area to accommodate the lost
densities from this area ( watershed ), Hollymead, and other areas.
Mrs. Graves contended that a Conservation District is needed in this area.
Col. Washington questioned if a conservation district could be tied
to slopes.
Mr. Tucker said that development on slopes of 250 or greater is currently
prohibited all over the county.
Mrs. Diehl favored restrictions that prohibit tree cutting and grading
on slopes over 25%.
Col. Washington said that if too strict limitations are placed, the county will
have to buy the land and make a park out of it.
Mrs. Graves said that she could support the purchases, as long as it
is not purchased with the current zoning designations.
Col. Washington supported a one unit per acre density for the area.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if it would be possible to zone with respect to
the current utilities.
Mr. Tucker replied that water is relatively available to the area, however
sewer is not, since it would have to be pumped.
boundary.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested addressing a western by-pass and using it as a
Col. Washington said it is logical to have housing near the school
complexes.
Mr. Payne said that he does not know how to write an ordinance that absolutely
prohibits disturbing ground cover, as suggested by Mrs. Diehl. The problem is that
there is no data to support no grading, development, etc. on land a certain number
of feet from the reservoir.
Mr. Gloeckner again mentioned addressing the western by-pass and using it as
boundary for the urban area. He pointed out that the Highway Department has recognized
a general alignment of this road within 200+ feet of where the roadway should be.
The Commission then briefly discussed the possiblity of the County's
purchasing a strip around both sides of the reservoir for a park.
Dr. Moore agreed with Mr. Gloeckner that it is only fair that property
owners are made aware of the proposed location for the western bypass, and this
would probably be a good time to do it.
( Mr. Huffman arrived at the meeting. )
Mr. Skove addressed forestry regulations in the area of the reservoir,
and suggested in such a small area it might be possible to have more defined
regulations.
Mr. McCann pointed out that the projected life -space of the reservoir
is about half over, and the reservoir at this time is projected to have a longer
life -space than was originally thought when built. Furthermore, the water quality
of the reservoir is presently better than it has been in years.
to 25%.
Mrs. Graves interjected that critical slopes should begin at 15% as opposed
SJ
Mr. Keeler said there is no data to support the 15% slope limitation.
Mrs? Diehl said that it might be easier to defend in the area of the
reservoir because of attempting to maintain the life of the reservoir.
Mr. Payne said it would be necessary to say what the distinction is
here from other parts of the county. In terms of develo�ment'g proximity to
the reservoir, from his understanding of the Betz Study,/numtr�ents contribution
is practically irrelevant. Heavy metals and trash is something else.
Phosphates often bond to soil types, according to Mrs. Diehl,
and this is a problem.
Mrs. Diehl moved that the Planning Commission relay to the Board of
Supervisors its concern for the area immediately adjacent to the reservoir, and
its desire to establish some type of buffer area, which would limit possible storm
water runoff.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Discussion: Col. Washington said that as opposed to inventing something
new, perhaps the Commission should re-evaluate what has already been done.
Mr. Huffman said that he is utterly opposed to passing the buck.
Mrs. Dihel said that she would like to amend the motion to include
the following alternatives:
1. a one -dwelling unit per acre density for all watershed areas;
2. a belt of conservation for an area immediately adjacent to the reservoir,
possibly to be purchased by the County from the landowners; and
3. a timber management system to maintain existing trees and vegetation.
Mr. Vest accepted the amendment to the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 6-3, with Messrs. Gloeckner, Huffman,
and McCann dissenting.
Dr. Moore said this is a good time to establish a western by-pass
so people can think about it, even fight about it if necessary. He pointed out the
numerous natural limitations that pretty much set its location.
Mr. Skove was not prepared to discuss the bypass when the county has
not even reviewed the CATS proposal.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission ask the staff to put the
eastern and western by-passes on the map so the Commission can review them.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, with carried by a vote of 8-1, with
Mr. Skove dissenting.
Mr. McCann said that he is willing to look at the lines of the bypasses,
but that is about it.
gf
Mr. McCann also said that he is not willing to drop the area just
discussed from the urban area with a Rural Residential or a CVN designation.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the by-pass, with limited access, would protect
the reservoir.
Alternative I - a maximum of 2.5 dwelling units/acre in the area
of the watershed as a proposed density.
The Commission was not in favor of this alternative.
Alternative II - addressing residential areas only - a maximum of
1 dwelling unit per acre:
Mr. McCann said that he could support this density on the western side
of the watershed in Neighborhood 1, and made this suggestion into a motion.
Mr. Vest seconded this motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Gloeckner could not suport the motion, stating that there is room
for the 1 acre density, the maximum of 2.5 dwelling units/acre, and the CVN designation
in this area.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Gloeckner
dissenting.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission,at this point east of the road,there
are approximately 100-200 acres currently with eight units/acre, or a medium density.
of people.
densities.
Mrs. Graves moved this remain at a medium type density.
Mr. McCann laughed and said he had always thought an urban area has lots
Mrs. Diehl suggesting checkerboarding the area.
Mrs. Graves motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. McCann moved the area be shown as a checkerboard of medium and high
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Commission then discussed possible preparation of a Neighborhood 8
in the area of Biscuit Run.
Mr. Gloeckner said that expanding Neighborhood 4 or creating a Neighborhood
8 is no different from decreasing the size of the other neighborhoods.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that no services are currently available in that
area.
-35
Mr. Skove questioned if it would be possible to make a general
statement that any more growth should be in that area, however not show it
in a map.
Mrs. Diehl felt that she could support that suggestion.
Mr. McCann said that this line of thought is just the problem he
had with decreasing the other neighborhoods - he said that when he supported
the wishes of some of the members to decrease those neighborhoods, he should
have known they would not be willing to replace the density in another area.
Mr. Huffman said that it is not good planning to let a utility go
through land and not permit that land to develop.
19
Mr. McCann felt the Commission has an obligation to show a Neighborhood 8.
Mr. Payne said the Commission could acknowledge in the plan it is for
long-range development only.
Mr. Gloeckner said that Neighborhood 8 would be a logical extension of
Neighborhood 4 because of the natural drainage.
Mr. Tucker agreed that 1982 is considered short-range planning and now
is the time to point out the desirable density in the various areas.
Mr. Skove said he could supportit only if it is developed when needed.
Mrs. Graves was unwilling to show that Neighborhood in this amendment
process to the Comprehensive Plan.
Col. Washington pointed out that this area is still in the Service
Authority's jurisdictional area.
Mr. Tucker said that if the Commission does look at a Neighborhood 8,
he sees higher density closer to the urban area and lower densities as one moves
farther out. The other possible area to designate for growth is the Camelot area.
Mr. McCann said that he would like some guidance from the staff on a
possible Neighborhood 8, and he moved the staff prepare an expansion of Neighborhoods
4 and 5.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion.
Mr. Huffman said that he would like to see the expansion in the Camelot
area.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-4, with Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves,
Mr. Skove, and Mr. Huffman dissenting.
With no further business, the Comrpfpsion adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
rt W. Tucker, Jr. -
a
13�1