Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 05 81 PC MinutesNovember 5, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Thursday, November 5, 1981, at 4:30 p.m. in the Planning Department Conference Room, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Allan Kindrick. Messers. Richard Cogan and Corwith Davis, Jr., were absent. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, represented Staff. Mrs. Diehl called the work session to order. Mr. Tucker explained to the Commissioners the purpose of the upcoming work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan was to take certain, individual sections as they are prepared by Staff, to the Commission for review, rather than to wait and present a final document. Mr. Tucker stated that this process would avoid any massive rewriting at the last moment. He added that none of the material was of a controversial nature. Mr. Tucker stated further that future work sessions would generate more input, but that initially the Commission would be seeing basically statistical data. Mr. Tucker said that once a drafted update was prepared, it would go to a public hearing. He suggested that the Commission might choose to hold several public meetings over a period of time in order to solicit public comment. He stated that no major revision was envisioned overall, but that there would be an update of statistical information and some shifting of land use. He said that a major change r from the 1977 plan was not anticipated. Mr. Gloeckner asked how any annexation move by the City might affect the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker replied that he had discussed this issue with Mr. Agnor and that for the time being a resolution was expected by the end of the year or it would go to court. Mr. Tucker added that if it does go to court, it could be years before a settlement was reached. Mr. Tucker said that the review of the Comprehensive Plan would go forth regardless, at this time, with a tentative schedule of late spring or early summer for Planning Commission public hearings, so that the Board could hold public hearings by the end of the summer for possible adoption of the updated Plan by the end of 1982. Mr. Skove asked whether there would be input from sources other than the Planning Commission and whether any changes were expected in the Goals and Objectives section. Mr. Tucker replied that public comment was expected and perhaps such input was desirable before reaching the draft form stage. Mr. Tucker again mentioned that he did not envision really major changes; he said that some revision of land use was contemplated. Mr. Tucker said that one new area would be some social planning, which he said that the City's Comprehensive Plan incorporates. Mr. Tucker also said that the Board had indicated that due to cut -backs in Federal funding, localities were going to be expected to pick up some of the tabs on social programs. Mr. Skove mentioned including housing in the social planning section. Mr. Tucker said that housing would be involved for the same reasons and would be touched on in the Goals and Objectives section. W, Mrs. Diehl observed that the Planning Commission was left with a lot of responsi- bility to plan future land use. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether most of the review would be handled piece by piece at work sessions. Mr. Tucker replied that generally he believed so and hopefully more data could be presented at each work session. He explained that most of the material in the Economic and Population Projections chapter was based on projections. In addition he described briefly the content of the Introduction, which includes purpose, State Code and the process, plus criteria and a history of the Albemarle County Plan. He mentioned that this would be the third revision or update of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether it would be a good idea for the Commission to go through the present Comprehensive Plan and compare it section by section with the new update. Mrs. Diehl added that by reviewing it in this manner the variation could be seen in comparison with the existing Plan. Mr. Tucker stated that some of the content from the 1971 and 1977 versions was being incorporated into this revision. Mrs. Diehl asked on page four what the term "structural condition survey" in point 4) made reference to. Mr. Tucker replied that this referred to a windshield survey that was made to determine the condition of existing structures in the county, one purpose being to pinpoint blighted areas, dilapidated urban areas for example, for renovation and upgrading. He added that such extreme areas did not exist locally. Mr. Tucker briefly described how the Plan would be printed, mentioning that it might have a notebook format such as that used by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, which would allow insertion of amendments, for use by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners. He said that a less expensive edition might be printed for sale to the public. Mr. Tucker also stated that an improvement on graphics was planned, with more fold -outs, better color and illustrations. Mrs. Diehl observed that the current maps were too small to be very useful. Mr. Tucker agreed and mentioned that the 1971 version was better and more readable than the last 1977 revision. Mr. Tucker said that the Commission would see the Table of Contents at its next work session. Mrs. Diehl asked what "Any public area, facility ..." referred to in the last paragraph of page three of the Introduction. Mr. Tucker replied that it could refer to a park, a sewage treatment plant, a school, community center - any facility located on publicly owned land. Mr. Kindrick asked if this included the unoccupied fringe area around PUD's, which he stated were such a maintenance problem. Mr. Tucker replied that it did not include this land, which is common area to be maintained by homeowners of the PUD. He added that it could be called public in the sense that all the residents of the subdivision had access to it and the right to use it. Mr. Tucker then proceeded to explain the analysis in the METHODOLOGY section, explaining that the basic industries were those producing products to be sold outside of the locality and bringing money in. Non -basic industries, he continued, were those of a service nature, providing support to the basic employment sector. Mrs. Diehl asked how the figures from the 1980 Census were tied in. Mr. Tucker replied that these figures were not yet available. He explained that the Virginia Employment Commission provided employment figures. Mr. Skove asked if the percentages provided in the ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS section were local. Mr. Tucker replied that these percentages represented both localities, the City and the County. Outlying counts are separate, he indicated. Mr. Tucker observed that this area is basically sound economically. Mr. Tucker pointed out that fortunately this area was well -diversified and not bound to one type of industry. He continued that this was partly due to high local employment by the State through the University. Mr. Tucker said that the general economic slump experienced by the Country was felt to a lesser degree in this area and at a later point than in other parts of the nation. Mr. Tucker also observed that some of the earlier KDA projections were very high. When Mr. Gloeckner wondered why this was so, Mr. Tucker explained that a lot of the figures given depend on the individual interpreting the data. He added that some unforeseen change could make a drastic alteration to the Plan, such as General Electric moving 600 or 1000 people into the area. Mr. Gloeckner observed that the G.E. plant was to have been a showplace, a head engineering office, locating here due to the desirable working conditions, and due to being one hour away by plane to New York, Atlanta, Chicago, and even closer to Washington. Mr. Gloeckner said that when one or two well-known companies move into a new area, other industries are attracted to it. He added that when this happens, local land use has to be carefully considered. Mrs. Diehl remarked that in basic versus non -basic sectors, manufacturing makes the impact. Mr. Gloeckner observed that local government functions were going to be heavier due to Federal cuts. Mr. Tucker responded that it might still be a little too early to know. Mr. Gloeckner predicted that the University would increase its employment, especially the medical center. Mrs. Diehl observed that according to the State employment figures, there would not be more than a 1.5 percent increase. She asked whether this included the University, and Mr. Tucker replied that it did. (04 Mr. Bowerman observed that he did not believe that much more growth should be expected from the University, the medical center being the exception. He said that the dramatic past increase at the University was due certainly in part to when it went co-educational and he doubted that anything like that would happen again. Mr. Gloeckner said that he had meant auxiliary University uses would increase, not student growth. Mr. Skove concurred, giving Tayloe Murphy as an example of a University -associated institute that would probably continue to grow. Mr. Skove added that during the last decade student growth had accounted for a high percentage of the population increase, specifically 5,000 between 1970 and 1980. He agreed with Mr. Bowerman that this increase would not be repeated, as it was due in large part to the University going co-ed. Mrs. Diehl asked about the figure on page nine, 47.6 percent growth in population from 1970 to 1980, whether this was inflated by about a third, based on the student growth. Mr. Skove said that actually growth in the urban area, including Charlottesville and Albemarle, was more like twenty-four percent, with students, or fourteen to fifteen percent without students, in the last decade. Mrs. Diehl asked how this correlated with the figures on page nine. Mr. Tucker said that probably this figure of 47.6 should be lower. Mr. Skove asked to take exception to some of the methodology, explaining that he believed basing population growth on employment growth could have certain pitfalls. He said that some of this growth had taken place in outlying counties such as Fluvanna and Greene, rather than exclusively in Albemarle. He said that in his opinion the figures for the year 2000 were high and suggested that a larger jurisdiction should be used. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any data on the number of employees coming into the County from other localities. It was determined that it would take about two years to get this information from the 1980 Census. Mr. Gloeckner remarked that he could well believe that increases would occur in other counties because of the expense of living in Albemarle. Mrs. Diehl agreed, saying that access made it convenient to live elsewhere and commute into the County for employment. There was a general concensus that commuting considerable mileage was no longer necessarily considered a hardship. Mr. Bowerman observed that he found it difficult to believe that much more basic industry would come to this area, which was the factor that caused dramatic population increases along with creating jobs in the service sector. Mr. Bowerman said that he saw some trend from the types of site plans and subdivisions coming before the Commission toward a retirement population in this area. Mr. Bowerman added that all of the population projections, however, were based on the continuing growth of basic industry and manufacturing, which he could not believe would occur. Mr. Tucker responded that it was very difficult to assess what sort of basic industries might prompt other related industries to locate here, similar or service- �65 oriented to already established industry in the area. Mr. Bowerman said that an example of his point was the company R. Donnelly, a printer/publisher that decided not to locate here. He said that really he did not see economic advantages that might attract such industry. Mr. Bowerman stated that in the case of his company, Money Market Directories, the decision to locate here was based on the aesthetics of the community because all the money his company generated was from outside of this area and the company's location was immaterial. Mr. Tucker gave some background on the case of the Donnelly company, which he said involved several variables, several needs that could not be provided, such as rail service, paper products and specific zoning which did not exist. Mr. Tucker said that to his knowledge local government was not involved in any attempt to help this company find a suitable local site. Mr. Bowerman said that his feeling, based on the last two Comprehensive Plans and the Zoning Ordinance, was that sentiment in this community, maybe about fifty-one percent, was to not encourage industry, rezoning, railroad sidings. He pointed to an industrial park that remained undeveloped. Therefore, he was dubious how to project much additional growth. He believed that 1,600 a year increase was pretty low, which was the figure given in the data. Mr. Skove said that compared to other parts of the country and State, it was high or faster growth. Mr. Bowerman asked, then, what in this community was going to prompt such an increase, if it was generally accepted that additional basic industry was unlikely. Mr. Tucker replied that it could be several factors, including the hospital, General Electric. Mrs. Diehl cited an article recently on lower employment in Albemarle, which was discouraging to new industry, which would have to pull employees from outside areas. Mr. Tucker concurred with this concept of drawing employees from other localities or, he mentioned, as in the case of General Electric, relocating existing employees and bringing them into the area. Mr. Tucker said that it depended also on the type of industry, and often a company would bring in its own skilled workers. Mr. Bowerman made the point that there was an outflow of locally educated people who were forced to go elsewhere because they could not find adequate employment here. He added that there was a considerable amount of underemployment in the area - cases of overqualified, educated, skilled people working beneath their level of preparation simply out of a desire to live in this area. Mr. Bowerman said that this factor had not even been measured. Mr. Gloeckner said that simultaneously students educated here create pressure for jobs because they want to stay. Mrs. Diehl asked how many of the retirement site plans had actually gone forth. It was determined that Branchlands and Ednam would proceed as retirement develop- ments. Mr. Bowerman said that he was intrigued by this possible trend and stated that moderately priced retirement housing should attract interested people to this area. It was generally discussed that this area offered cultural interests, good medical services, and convenient access to Washington. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the retirement segment of the population was significant. to a Mr. Tucker replied that he did not believe it was significant enough of a factor at this time to make an impact on the revision, but that in five years it might well be. Mr. Kindrick mentioned the development at Hickory Ridge, consisting of twelve or fifteen houses designed for retirement. Mr. Bowerman mentioned also Henderson Heywood's development next to Greencroft, which Mr. Tucker said is for retirement. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Gloeckner remarked that this was going to be a significant trend. Mr. Tucker pointed out that even currently in conventional subdivisions there was a certain percentage of retired persons purchasing homes, although they were not tailored to the retirement community. Mr. Bowerman said that this represented a basic industry because these retired individuals were on fixed pension income from outside the area. Mr. Skove and Mr. Tucker concurred. Mr. Gloeckner observed that Staff projections seemed to be pretty much on target. Mr. Skove said that he had no problem with the figures before 1990, but that he still believed the projections between 1990 and the year 2000 were awfully high. He said that it was just a much faster rate of growth than that predicted for the rest of the State and the nation. He again mentioned the employment factor, that he suspected some of the commuter population from other counties might have affected this figure. Mr. Tucker said that Staff would take another look at the data before the next work session. Mr. Kindrick suggested that a telephone survey of local industries might yield information on what percentage of local employees commuted from nearby counties. Mr. Bowerman asked what the consequences were from either over -or under -projecting the population. Mr. Tucker responded that he did not feel very strongly about being locked into a projection because of the five-year review which allows readjustment for events and changes that could not have been predicted. He said that if something dramatic happened like an industry moving in with ten or twenty thousand employees within five years, it could present a serious problem. However, Mr. Tucker continued, with the kind of projections given in this section community facilities were in good shape either way, with the safety valve of another review every five years. He said that if a basic industry moved in with thousands of employees, it would spawn service industries at a ratio of something like two and a half times the initial influx. This then would have a tremendous impact, he stated. Mr. Tucker said that if you overprojected, you might make road improvements, for example, that would perhaps turn out to be unnecessary. He added, however, that these growth projections were not of a nature to be way out of line. Mr. Bowerman stated that being in five year increments, there was always room for a re-evaluation. Mr. Gloeckner said that in overprojecting,jurisdictional boundaries of the Service Authority might tend to increase. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County used these population projections as a basis for revenue predictions. Mr. Tucker replied that it did. 6 3�7 Mr. Skove observed that the danger to him in overprojecting growth was that you might overestimate the size of the necessary growth areas. Mr. Bowerman added that then you had to be concerned with sewer and roads. Mr. Tucker said that this problem had come about with the 1971 Plan - such as 16,000 population in Keswick. Mr. Bowerman said that his concern about population centered on the costs to provide services and the impact on Albemarle County's tax structure. Mr. Gloeckner said that he expected the pendulum to swing again in the other direction. He said that people would soon tire of the pot holes and lack of road repair; he said that complaints about the Highway Department had been heard for the last few years. He predicted that at some point people will accept an increase in gasoline tax to bring in the revenue necessary to make repairs. Mr. Gloeckner said that between the State Planning Department budget and Staff projections, he believed the picture to be fairly accurate. Mr. Skove said that from what he understood the next State estimates were expected to be even lower. He added that there was still an increase, but less than previously projected. Mr. Bowerman asked how many lots had been approved and recorded. Mr. Tucker replied that the Commission was going to be requested to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to put a time limit of 18 months on subdivisions. At the present time, Mr. Tucker explained, they were v%Jr good indefinitely, even with the new zoning. Mr. Gloeckner observed that he thought you had to be actively working on the property. Mr. Tucker replied that this was true now, with the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked how much time was allowed once construction began. Mr. Tucker explained that it was a question of allowing 18 months in which to have the County sign plats,unrelated to the start of construction. He said that final plats expire if not recorded within six months of County signature but there was no limitation on the time period between Commission approval and compliance with any conditions of approval for signature of the plat. Mr. Gloeckner remarked that he could see possible problems with 18 months. He said that in some cases there were delays and snags with government agencies, the Highway Department, etc. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that not all the agencies play by the same rules. He added that getting right-of-ways can take a lot of time. Returning to discussion of upcoming work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan review, Mr. Tucker asked the Commissioners whether the afternoon meetings were more convenient than at the end of regularly scheduled Tuesday evening meetings. Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Diehl agreed that 4:30 p.m. was generally a workable hour for them. Mr. Skove remarked on his preference for afternoon instead of late evening sessions. Mrs. Diehl observed that Richard Cogan and Mike Davis had difficulty with afternoon meetings. It was ascertained that generally the work sessions would be scheduled for afternoons or fifth Tuesday evenings or unscheduled Tuesday evenings in the future. Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission had been asked by Kat Imhoff, Planner, to express a preference for which meeting room in the new County Office Building to hold their meetings. It was determined that Meeting Room 5/6 was more suitable for review of site plans and subdivision plats and Meeting Room 7, the Board room, would be used for public hearings on rezoning and special use permit applications. The work session adjourned at 6:00 p„m. t W. Tucker, Jr., Se 19