HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 16 86 PC MinutesSeptember 16, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 16, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner;
Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Ms.
Tricia Nielson. Absent: Commissioners Bowerman and Wilkerson; and Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the August, 19, 1986, August, 26,
1986 and September 2, 1986 meetings were approved as submitted.
WORK SESSION
Comprehensive Plan - Discussion of rural and growth area development trends
and policies. Will include review of current population trends, population
distribution, rural and urban area development potential and growth policy
considerations. This is the first in a series of planning issue work sessions
to be held by the Commission and Commission sub -committees.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. The report stated that the 1982
Comp Plan had projected a 3.2% annual growth rate, The current projection is
2.3% and the actual growth rate over the last five years has been an increase
of 1.5% annually. The 1971 Plan indicated the County wished to see 85% of the
new growth occur in urban neighborhoods, communities and villages. The
1977 Plan stated 87% of the growth should occur in "growth" areas and 13% in
rural areas. This was also maintained in the 1982 Plan. However, the
report pointed out that between 1973 and 1985 there has been quite a disparity
in what the plans have recommended and reality. Growth areas have not ex-
perienced the kind of growth that the Plan had targeted to occur. Though
urban neighborhoods have been consistent with the Comp Plan, growth in the
villages and communities has fallen short and the County is very much
behind the guidelines of the Comp Plan in this regard.
Mr. Cilimberg presented maps showing the location of undeveloped parcels
in the County. The staff report stated there are potentially 19,044 net
building lots on undeveloped acres in the rural areas.
The report pointed out that "should rural area building permits continue at the
1977-85 pace of 341 units per year, then it would take roughly 76 years for
the rural area to build -out; and at a pace of 350 urban units per year, it would
take roughly 47 years for the urban area to build -out."
Other significant information presented by staff included:
--Hollymead is the only significant area which has a real potential for
increased density (i.e. it has less density than is called for in the Plan).
--Village and community growth is approximately 90% less than was anticipated.
lci4
September 16, 1986
Page 2
--With the exception of Earlysville, villages are indistinguishable from
the rural areas. There are no additional services in the villages
and no real incentive to move in a village as opposed to out of a village.
--Development has not occurred in some growth areas because of
Highway Department requirements for very expensive roadways.
--With the possibility of "build -out" occurring in the urban area before the
rural area, pressures for development will be transferred to the
villages and rural areas. Thus, it is important to determine whether
the urban area must be increased.
--The basic intent of the 1982 Comp Plan was to concentrate growth in the
County's growth areas while restricting growth in rural areas. Four
underlying policies to drive this approach were:
1. Deliver public services in the most cost-efficient manner;
2. Protect existing and future water supply impoundment watersheds;
3. Conserve the County's natural, scenic and historic resources;
4. Preserve the County's prime and important farmlands and forestal areas.
Staff asked the Commission if these four policies "are still the critical
factors in defining the growth objectives of Albemarle County?"
Significant concerns and comments of the Commission and staff included the
following:
Cogan: --He felt it might be desirable to consider adding incentive, or
disincentive, policies.
--Suggested that instead of expanding the urban area, it might be
possible to designate a "suburban" area between the urban and
rural areas. He noted that it would not be difficult to extend
utilities to such an area.
--In this revision of the plan, need to get away from "wishful
thinking" and address those matters which are "real and workable."
--Should look into whether it is more cost efficient to take the
utilities to the villages so they can be developed, or is more
cost efficient to leave the utilities where they are and just expand
them to a lower density area. (Mr. Horne stated the Service
Authority is already studying the possibilities.)
Diehl: --She felt a fifth policy should be added: "the nurturing of human
resources."
--Regarding the ideal of expanding utilities to a "suburban ring"
she felt it did not seem to be a cost-efficient way to use the land
if the density was going to be reduced.
--She was interested in knowing the potential number of lots in each
of the villages as the boundaries now exist, and as they might expand.
Stark: --He expressed interest in knowing how many parcels would be effected
in implementing the policies.
Michel: --He stated he was bothered by the low density category in the
Comp Plan (1-4 units). He stated there has been a tendency to
average that out and suggested separating that category into two
categories, which might be tied into the suburban ring suggested
by Mr. Cogan.
--He pointed out the role of the Comprehensive Plan is to "direct,"
to try to "push one way or another."
--He indicated he was uncomfortable with the term "cost efficient"
in policy No. 1.
--He felt the classification of villages needed to be re -worked.
i C%n
September 16, 1986
Page 3
--He was interested in knowing the "percentage of zoning per population."
(i.e., In non-residential zoning, what is the norm or is there
a standard balance for CO, Cl, Residential and Industrial?)
--He was also concerned about some parcels developing "by -right"
in uses other than what was hoped.
Horne: --He stated that unless regulations are tightened (i.e., "crunch down
on development rights") there is not much that can be done in the
rural areas, in the short term, to dissiade people from moving there
if the market so dictates.
Mr. Cogan invited public comment.
Mr.
Edward Bauer, representing the Crozet Community Association: He spoke
in favor of less growth in the rural areas. He pointed out that the
current market place is responding to the current zoning and that the
market will change if the zoning changes. He suggested lowering the number
of by -right subdivisions.
Ms.
Babs Huckle: She asked if bringing utilities to the villages would
actually be an incentive for development to occur in those areas and, if
so, should there, at the same time, be a disincentive for building in
the rest of the rural areas. She, too, suggested the possibility of
lowering the number of by -right subdivisions. Mr. Cogan explained
this would require a marketing study. Regarding lowering the number
of by -right subdivision, Mr. Horne stated it would have to be a
"drastic" reduction in order to act as a disincentive. Mr. Cogan
did not think this was a realistic approach. Ms. Huckle suggested
the possibility of increasing the standard for "buildability"of lots.
Mr.
James King, a City resident: Pointing out that the City's water supply
is dependent on the actions of the County, he stated he supported
Mr. Bauer's and Ms. Huckle's comments.
Mr.
Blake Hurt: He suggested the addition of the following policy goal:
"To insure that growth takes place in an orderly fashion." He stressed
that "orderly" was significantly different from "efficient."
He stated there are very few available parcels in the village areas
which lend themselves to development. The market is demanding
1-2 acre, detached housing. Creating a suburban ring or enlarging
the villages will "meet the market head on."
Ms.
Betsy Dalgliesh: She voiced her support for the four policy issues
listed in the staff report. She was particularly interested in No.
3 (dealing with natural, scenic and historic resources) and the
method that would be used to implement this policy.
Ms.
Tina Vance, a resource economist and local coordinator for the Piedmont
Environmental Council: (She was speaking on behalf of the Charlottesville
and Albemarle Board of Directors of PEC.) She stated the PEC is
in favor of concentrating growth and is in favor of the four policy
issues listed in the staff report. She stated the following:
"A look at the effectiveness of the ordinances must center around
the policy of allowing 5 development potentials per lot." She
stated the administrative approval process and downzonings must be
"looked at." She also pointed out that the sewer connector to Crozet
has not yet had time to influence growth.
(Mr. Horne commented that if all development rights were taken away
from the existing lots in the rural areas, there still would not be
the potential to reverse the trend. Thus, both sides must be
studied, i.e. the incentive side as well as the disincentive side.)
l 01
September 16, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle: He, too, felt
that the Crozet Inteceptor has not yet had time to influence
development. He was also in favor of the "regulations nudging
the marketplace so that growth would occur in the designated areas."
The Commission discussed the possibility of changing development rights in the
rural area.
Mr.Cogan suggested that, possibly, the minimum lot size should be larger than
2 acres. He noted that the price of the lot will be regulated by the use
of the lot and not the size. He also pointed out that property owners
have the right to have the use of their land.
Mr. Michel stated that, recognizing the rights of the landowners, the only
place the County would have the right to reduce development rights would be
in the watershed. Mr. Horne stated the possibility of "differentiating
areas" would have to be studied and "we have to be sure we can draw a
defensible line."
Mr. Horne suggested that if the RA zone is to be studied specifically, it
might be advisable to have Mr. Keeler and his staff give a review of how
the RA actually works, e.g, what actually drives development and what
makes people do certain things. He stated there were other issues involved
besides lot size, such as road requirements, frontage requirements, etc.
Mr. Michel wondered about the possibility of restricting development rights
if they are not. used within a certain period of time.
Mr. Cogan felt there should be more incentives devised for people to come
into agricultural/forestal districts.
Mr. Cogan summarized the following issues for future discussion:
--Determine what villages really have potential for development;
--Perhaps conduct a survey to determine whether villages are acceptable
to developers and the public;
--Try to determine the potential of a 1/2 to 1 acre density "suburban ring."
It was determined the Commission was in favor of staff trying to identify
potential villages that are not currently so designated, but might be
reasonable for future designation.
Mr. Horne asked that the Commission, independent of the work sessions, be
thinking of ways to accomplish the desired goals of the Plan.
Mr. Horne called the Commission's attention to a joint meeting with the
Board of Supervisors scheduled for October 1, 1986. He stated this would
be an opportunity for the Commission to seek direction from the Board as
to their desires for the Plan. E.g., "Do you want me to think about
drastically reducing development rights in the rural areas? Do you want
me to think about expanding the urban ring?"
19
/ O_T
September 16, 1986
Page 5
Mr. Michel again stated he did not like the way the first policy was written.
He felt it was incomplete. This seemed to be the consensus of the Commission.
No formal actions were taken at this work session.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to a draft of a new site devel-
opment plan ordinance which reflects the recommendations of the LURC Committee
for preliminary and final site plans where in some cases the staff would
be authorized to approve the final site plan. The topic was scheduled
for the September 30 meeting.
Northridge Office Park - Mr. Cogan explained that originally this site plan had
shown an entrance off Folly Road, leading under the building. However, that
road has been eliminated, thus making the original Highway Department
recommendation for a decel lane on Folly Road no longer necessary. He
explained that the Highway Department is still under the impression the
decel lane is required. Mr. Cogan explained that the developer needs a
letter from staff explaining that the entrance has been eliminated and
the decel lane is not needed. Mr. Keeler confirmed he would take care of
the matter.
Camelot Treatment Plant - Mr. Michel expressed interest in the status of the
treatment plan in the Camelot Subdivision. Mr. Michel stated that the plant
is at capacity and asked Mr. Keeler about the schedule. Mr. Keeler stated
there is no schedule and all County approvals have expired. Mr. Horne
added that the University is seriously considering purchasing the industrial
park in that area and something will have to be done with the treatment
plant before such a transaction is finalized.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
i%
OM