Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 06 79 PC MinutesSeptember 6, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Thursday, September 6, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Absent were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James Moore; and Mr. James Huffman. Also absent was Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present, and called the meeting to order. Mr. Tucker explained that the purpose of the work session was to discuss the possible location of thelost population from Neighborhood One. Mr. Eckel presented the staff report, and showed the proposed densities on a land use map. Mr. Skove established that the actual Biscuit Run PUD ran much further south than what is proposed by the staff for the addition to the urban area. Mr. Tucker explained that most of the land area under consideration at this point was proposed for high density development in the Biscuit Run PUD. Mr. Gloeckner felt that possible purchase of Lake Reynovia, for a park for this area, by the county would be a great idea. Mr. Skove established that basically there is no residential development at this time in the area, and the land is used as pastureland. Mr. Gloeckner said that he sees the staff proposal as a start, since it is not particularly dense. Once water and sewer becomes available in the area, he said that the county will have to review the area again. Col. Washington said that he has no problem with the staff proposal. However, he questioned if legally the Commission can send this to the Board with no public hearing. Mr. Gloeckner said that he felt if the Commission can delete from the other urban neighborhood plans without the benefit of public hearing, the Commission can certainly add to it. He pointed out that this is the Commission's concept of what should happen. Col. Washington said that he does not feel it is necessary to rezone this area at the time, but just show it on the Comprehensive Plan as an area for future development, especially the open area. He said that he feels differently about the watershed. However, in the case of this area, things will not really change since the properties are in land use and have no sewer available. However, because of that very point, it would not really be bad to zone them low density ( 1-4 du/acre ). Mrs. Graves said that if the Commission is going to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the matter should be advertised for public hearing. Mr Skove agreed that perhaps the landowners should have an opportunity to speak to the proposal. Col. Washington pointed out that the Planning Commission can initiate a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Payne pointed out that anything the Commission has done to the maps has been an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and as far as he is concerned, from a legal point, this is "all cut from the same cloth." Col. Washington said that if a public hearing is held on this, it is possible that no one will show up, especially in view of the known opinions of the landowners. He said that when the Biscuit Run PUD was proposed, the farmers did not oppose the request once they learned the applicant intended to provide public water. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Biscuit Run PUD had been denied by the Board of Supervisors on the basis that it was not shown in the Comprehensive Plan and it wasutoo much too soon.a Mr. Gloeckner said he wonders how many people were upset when the Commission cut back the limits of Hollymead and Neighborhood One - those actions were based upon wishes of the Commission. He said that he feels this is the planning work to be done by the Commission - that the public has already had its input. Col. Washington reminded the Commission that there are those who have questioned. why there is no development planned for the southern part of the county. Mr. McCann said that he is beginning to wonder if the county really is going to have an urban area. Col. Washington questioned Mr. Payne if the Commission can send this proposal to the Board of Supervisors without public hearing. Mr. Payne replied that the Commission has already,expanded Neighborhood Three and contracted the limits of Hollymead and Neighborhood Four without additional comment from the public. He said that he feels the Commission can send this addition to the urban area to the Board without public hearing since it is no different in nature from the other additions or deletions. He said that a public hearing would be required only if the Commission were amending a zoning map amendment. Furthermore, he pointed out that the property owners should have no complaints, since land in the urban area, is more valuable. But, he said that Commission can hold public hearings if it desires - that it is not unlawful to hold the public hearings. Mr. Skove said that he is wrestling with his conscience about adding this area without the benefit of public comment. Mr. McCann said that he agreed with Mr. Gloeckner, once again noting that this is an extension of Neighborhoods 4 and 5. He felt the Board should have this addition to consider as part of the entire package while they are considering the other urban area neighborhoods. Col. Washington questioned if the Commission could designate this as a PUD on the zoning map. Mr. Tucker replied that he would not recommend this, since there is no approved plan, and the staff is recognizing only recently approved plans on the zoning map. At this point Mr. Skove advised the other members that he favors holding a public hearing on the addition. .5� Mr. McCann replied that he hates to hold up the proposal. Col. Washington said that under the circumstances he feels the Commission should forward it to the Board at this time, since they are currently considering the urban area neighborhoods. Mrs. Graves felt the Commission would not be treating this area like it has treated the other neighborhoods. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission forward the proposed addition to the urban area to the Board as proposed by the staff ( see attached sheets ) without holding the public hearings. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Mrs. Graves pointed out that she supports the concept presented by the staff, but cannot support the motion since there has been no public hearing or input from the area residents. The motion carried by a vote of 4-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Skove dissenting Mr. Skove said that he did not object to the concept either, but he would like to hold the public hearing. Mrs. Graves asked that Mr. Tucker explain her dissenting vote to the Board of Supervisors when they review the concept. Mr. Gloeckner said that if the Board sends this area back to the Commission to hold public hearings, he wants the Board to likewise send back the other neighborhoods and communities that have had deletions or additions. Mrs. Graves asked that Mr. Payne submit his written legal opinion on the legality of forwarding this to Board without a public hearing. Col. Washington briefly discussed the proposed amendment to the subdivision ordinance regarding "family divisions." He said that he would like the county attorney's office to investigate the possibility of making the time period applicable to the one who is giving, etc. the property - i.e., require that the property has been held by the family for five years and make the new owner hold the land for at least one year prior to division. This should pose no hardship since it usually takes about one year to settle an estate. Mr. Payne said that he will prepare an alternative based on this concept. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the only problem he sees with this is that some of the wealthier people buy land for their children and put it in the children's name. Mr. Payne replied that those properties are usually set up as a land trust, and probably would not be subject to this provision of the subdivision ordinance. Col. Washington also felt that the issue of public health, safety and welfare should be part of the amendment, including Highway Department and Health Department approval. 59 Mr. Gloeckner agreed that the amendment should certainly provide this concept. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 5:00 p.m. R bert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se reta 19 E