HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 01 79 PC MinutesOctober 1, 1979
M
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on
Monday, October 1, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma
Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest;
Mr. James Skove; Dr. James Moore; Mr. James Huffman. Absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner
and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker,
Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning and
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
nq
09
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum was present.
Mr. Tucker began the discussion by showing the Commission what the Board
had done on the Hollymead Community, in its deliberation of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. He said that there has been only a consensus of approval
at this time, and no formal vote. He noted that their plan is to have one boundary
at Route 649.
Mr. McCann said that the land which is suitable for industrial development
in this community should be shown as industrial on the zoning map; that does not
mean it will be used immediately.
Mr. Skove objected to zoning more than is actually needed,
Mr. Tucker said that his only concern at this point is that the land which
is zoned industrial is under one ownership.
r a
the
Col. Washington noteneeddnotabe1showndis thatsonwtheozoningrmapularonescannalways
Comprehensive Plan, it
make application for a rezoning.
The Commission established that the staff recommends leaving the property
in a rural residential zone, knowing that the Plan recognizes some industrial zoning
that can be applied for at a later date.
Mr. McCann said that he is willing to do this as long as it is shown on the
Plan.
Mr. Huffman felt that this would be a good policy to follow throughout the
deliberations on the zoning map.
Mrs. Diehl agreed.
The Commission then discussed if the tax rate would increase if the zoning
is somewhat higher than the current use. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that Mr.
Bradshaw of the Real Estate Office said that he would not be able to say exactly
what the tax rate would be, however it would be higher than if it were shown for
the lower density or use.
i�l
Mr. Payne said that if the land is shown at a higher density, in his
opinion it is easier for the landowner to succumb to the higher density and
propose some sort of development, and perhaps partially because of the increased
tax rate he will experience.
There was additional discussion on the approach to follow in drawing
the zoning map, especially in regard to the vacant lands in the county.
Mr. Skove said that he likes the approach the staff has followed in drawing
the zoning map for Hollymead. He moved it be accepted as drawn.
Mr. McCann said that he would support the motion on the basis that the
lands are shown for higher densities in the plan and that rezoning applications
can be made. He did regret that the choices for industrial uses are limited to
one particular property.
Mrs. Diehl said that she could not support the motion because it does not
seem reasonable to rezone all the land, ( and she cited as an example the low
density ) with so much land already zoned that is not in use.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion.
Prior to the vote, Mr. Tucker questioned if the Commission wants all the
small non -conforming lots on Route 785 . recognized as developed. He noted they
are lots of record.
Mr. Skove said that he would include this in his motion, which carried by
a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Diehl and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
The next item of consideration was Earlysville. Mr. Tucker explained
the approach that had been taken in drawing the zoning map for this area.
He noted the recognition of the exiting commercial, and those lands which have
been shown for Village Residential.
Mr. Vest moved approval of this portion of the zoning map as shown by
the staff.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs.
Diehl and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mrs. Diehl dissented on the basis that she has a philosophical difference
in showing this on the zoning map when it is shown on the Plan,and rezoning requests
can be presented at a later date for approval. She said that she does not like
rezoning this large area when it is shown in the Plan for development at a later date.
She did not feel this sort of rezoning allows for any orderly infill and felt this
would create hardships for landowners.
The Commission then discussed the zoning map for Ivy. Mr. Tucker explained
the proposed zoning for this area, noting it basically recognizes what is shown in
the village plan for the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. McCann said that once the interceptor comes through, it will probably
be necessary to review this village.
19
Mr. Huffman moved for approval of Ivy as shown by the staff.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with
Mrs. Diehl and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Stony Point was the next village discussed. Mr. Tucker noted the proposed
zoning for this area as represented by the staff. He pointed out the small
size of this village with the boundaries. He said that existing commercial
has been recognized and pointed out the fire department property.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the plans for straightening out the curve in the
road at the intersection of Route 20.
Mr. Tucker said that the banks might be cut back, and some sort of realignment,
however the road itself is in fair shape. He agreed that the visibility could be
improved.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the zoning concept represented by the staff.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with
Mrs. Diehl and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Col. Washington said that if there are constraints on rural development,
these villages open up some areas for development to absorb the projected population.
Mrs. Diehl felt that simply showing them in the Comprehensive Plan opens
up the areas for development.
Mr. Tucker asked for Commission advice on whether to continue posting
tentative times schedules on the Commission agendas. The Commission agreed that
the schedule would be rough, however felt if important to continue with an
approximate time schedule. The Commission also agreed to hold two meetings
per week if the time schedule were so long that it could not readily deal with
items on only one meeting.
There was no additional business, and the meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
M
P9