HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 07 1995 PC Minutes2-7-95
FEBRUARY 7, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 7,
1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff,
Vice Chair; Mr, Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief
of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Hipski,
Planner; Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney; and Mr. Tom Leback, UVA Representative.
Absent: Commissioner Dotson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
January 24, 1995 were unanimously approved as submitted.
ZMA-94-12 River Heights - Petition to rezone approximately 63 acres from Rural Area to LI,
Light Industrial. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 32, parcels 5 (part of) and 5C
(part of) and Tax Map 33, parcel 14 (part of), is located on the east side of Rt. 29
approximately 0.5 miles north of the North Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Industrial
Service in the Village of Piney Mountain.
The applicant was requesting deferral to March 7, 1995.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that ZMA-94-12 be deferred to
March 7, 1995. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-94-41 Virginia Land Trust - Petition to allow a stream crossing of the floodplain
[30.3.5.1(2)]. Property, described as Tax Map 20, ParceI 6A consists of approximately 522.1
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Route 743 approximately 0.2
miles west of Route 641 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
The applicant was requesting deferral to February 28, 1995, due to a posting error.
MOTION: Mr.Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that SP-9441 be deferred to
February 28, 1995. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-94-42 Steven Leavell - Petition to allow a stream crossing of the floodplain
[30.3.5.2.1(2)]. Property, described as Tax Map 81, Parcel 56B consists of approximately 91
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the north side of Route 648 approximately 1.4
70
2-7-95
2
miles west of Route 22 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
The applicant was requesting deferral to February 28, 1995.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that SP-94-45 be deferred to
February 28, 1995. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-94-45 Silvia D. ills - Petition to establish a day care on 4.0 acres [10.2.2(7)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 92, Parcel 54E, is located on the south side of Route 53 approximately
0.7 miles east of Route 795 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This parcel is zoned RA,
Rural Areas. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. She also summarized the applicant's letter which
described this request. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant, Ms. Silvia Mills, addressed the Commission. She briefly described the type of
day care she intended to provide and her reasons for choosing to provide this type of service.
Though she preferred not to have to upgrade the entrance, she indicated she would do so if
required.
'there being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms.Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-94-45 for Silvia D. Mills,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Enrollment shall not exceed nine (9) children.
3. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance
including minimum 550 feet of sight distance.
(For the benefit of the applicant, Mr. Blue pointed out that the motion did include the
requirement that the entrance be upgraded and the sight distance requirement met.)
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Growth Area Expansion (Comprehensive Plan)
Before beginning discussion, the Chairman allowed Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue
Ridge Home Builders Association, to correct an error in a document which he had sent to Mr.
71
2-7-95
Cilimberg. The document was related to ideas which his organization was recommending be
considered in planning for growth area expansion. He read the following corrected sentence,
which was found in paragraph 2 of that document: "Density has averaged about 2 units for
every 1 acre," (not "1 unit for every 2 acres" as mistakenly stated.)
Staff explained (later in the discussion) that it was hoped that the result of this work session
would be agreement on "an amount of acreage that we would use as a target to work from in
the expansion of our growth areas." Mr. Cilimberg explained later that the land designated
must be land which is feasible for development in terms of the extension of utilities, the
availability of infrastructure and community facilities. He cautioned that the existing
availability of schools is not a determining factor. He pointed out that only two existing
schools can accommodate new growth and those are in areas which are not a logical "next
step out for growth."
The Commission took a few minutes to read a memo from Mr. Dotson to Mr. Cilimberg
which outlined Mr. Dotson's thoughts about Growth Area Expansion as related to this
particular work session. Because this memo was referred to several times during the
discussion, it is made a part of this record as Attachment A. (There was a discussion about
this memo later in the meeting.)
Mr. Benish felt Mr. Dotson's "basic principles" were a good representation of what "we need
to get achieved."
Mr. Benish and Mr. Cilimberg explained staff s approach and methodology in arriving at the
inventory figures in the staff report, including how staff had arrived at a figure of 4,800 acres
projected as needed to accommodate 100% of growth needs, in the growth area, for the next
five-year period.
Specific Commission questions included the following:
--What is preventing in -fill from occurring? ANSWER: Much of the land is not for
sale at a reasonable price to develop. Lack of utilities, lack of adequate roads and access
problems, are others factors.
--Mr. Blue asked about the "down side" of designating more land for growth area?
ANSWER: Ms. Huckle recalled that a developer had answered this question at a previous
work session and had said that once land is placed in the growth area it's price increases. Mr.
Jenkins did not think that should be a driving factor. Mr. Nitchmann felt the logical approach
was to "add land in logical steps that is close to the infrastructure which is in place, and
where we would like that growth to be in terms of schools, roads, and utilities. If it makes
good sense that we are going to get full utilization of those assets that we have, then that's
what we probably need to do." Ms. Imhoff answered this question as follows: "If the idea is
to try to build out from the center and have compact development, if you add too much, I
think it contributes to (developments) coming in at too low density and leap -frogging out.
I'd rather see good pieces of land which have a lot of development potential, and not worry
so much about whether they are all in one single ownership or one really large size, because I
/ oZ
2-7-95 4
am hoping you will see some smaller scale developments." Mr. Blue responded to Ms.
Imhoff s comments: "I think that is really the crux of the whole issue and whether we can
either encourage or force, whichever you prefer, for developers to do that, and I am not sure
that we can. I agree with you that if we have a lot of area out there and the farther out the
developer goes he gets cheaper land, that also contributes to cheaper housing, If we restrict it
so much, we get into --we got people coming here and they have to have a place to live and a
developer only has a certain area that he can buy, then the price is going to go up." Mr.
Jenkins wondered about the possibility of declaring the "upper limit" of area for growth and
then controlling the rate of development by restricting the number of building permits, e.g.
"only issue building permits for 10% of the area in the first year, 20% in the second year,
etc." (Mr. Cilimberg said this approach is not legal in Virginia. (This approach was
discussed later in the meeting when Ms. Imhoff called attention to Mr. Dotson's item (h)
related to a two-tier growth concept.) Mr. Jenkins commented: "It seems to me that the
Comprehensive Plan whichh is in place has served us pretty well. I don't know that there are
that many problems. It seems that we have not really said there are problems, except we
seem to be going back to this matter of in -fill. Some of that was in the Plan, as (staff) has
said, one or two plans back. The same property sets there, and I am just in favor of thinking
in terms of things other than limiting the amount of acreage we put in the growth area to
solve the in -fill problem. What that will be, I don't know at this moment, The other point
which has been passed over lightly is that the last plan did a pretty good job at limiting the
growth in the rural areas, which we've said is a goal which hasn't been discussed here tonight,
but I think everyone here is in favor of doing what we can to minimize growth in the rural
areas. So I think it behooves us to look at this number on the high side, because I just don't
see how much is wrong with that. I don't hear much on the down -side of that except this
matter of in -fill, and we had in -fill (concerns) for two plans back."
Individual Commission comments included the following:
IMHOFF: "I am feeling very conservative about adding the upper limit of 4,800 acres to the
growth area. It seems to me if we want to encourage infill, the way to do is not to continue
to allow people to continue to develop out at the edges of the growth area. There has to be
some incentive for looking at some of these other tracts of land."
IMHOFF: She did not want to dismiss small parcels of land which are close to the growth
area and have utilities available. She did not think everything needs to be in large tracts.
IMHOFF: "The past is not always prologue. My argument is that we need to be a little
more proactive about this infill and this inventory. I agree with Mr. Nitchmann that I really
want to understand why it did not develop more. I'm not closing the door on expanding the
growth areas and if we have to come up with some magical number tonight, 1 think Bruce
Dotson has offered a very good compromise. I do think it is somewhat crystal -balling and I'd
rather understand a little more some of the characteristics of the land and how many units the
land can absorb rather than just pull some number out of the air.
75
2-7-95
JENKINS: On the issue of infill development, he felt that other incentives, "other than
limiting the amount of land that is available" need to be considered.
HUCKLE - The availability of transportation is an important factor when considering new
growth areas.
NITCHMANN - "The more there is of something (land), the lower the cost. If we don't
expand the growth area sufficiently," developers will be driven into the rural areas to do small
developments in a scattered fashion.
IMHOFF - She recalled there had been discussion at a previous work session about
expansion in Neighborhoods IV and V (approximately 2,500 acres south of town)_ She also
recalled she had expressed concern at that meeting about "the small strip of land along Rt.
20 S." She had asked that staff answer the question of how many dwelling units could be
accommodated. She felt there had been consensus at that meeting about this particular land.
(This area was discussed again later in the work session.)
Mr. Dotson's memo (Attachment A of these minutes) was discussed to determine if there was
a consensus of agreement on the "basic principles" which he listed as items (a) through (h).
Ms. Imhoff expressed concern only about item (h), which was related to the exploration of a
two -tiered growth area concept. She did not believe there was legal authority in Virginia for
this concept. She was concerned about "tying the hands of future Planning Commissions."
Mr. Blue wondered if this type of approach could be followed in an unofficial way. He
explained: "I don't see any sense in future Planning Commissions or staffs, to have to
reinvent the wheel. For instance, if we look at this and say 'if we're going to grow, this is
where we ought to grow, but not necessarily say this is going to be the growth area." Ms.
Imhoff felt it might be possible by "verbal description." but not by actually "putting hatches
on a map." On the question of legality, Mr. Cilimberg commented: "1 don't know about a
Comprehensive Plan level of saying 'this is an area with designated land uses, and here is an
area beyond which is for the future.' We're not necessarily designating anything; we're just
saying it is the natural next step out. I don't know that that is illegal. I guess it comes down
to how a zoning decision might be made on that next step out." Mr. Cilimberg suggested that
this question should be answered by the County Attorney. No Commission concern or
disagreement was expressed about any of the other principles listed in Mr. Dotson's memo.
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that they were "common sense" items.
Referring to Mr. Dotson's memo in relation to total acreage needed, Ms. Imhoff asked: "If
you followed Bruce's suggestion that we try to accommodate 75% in the future, how much
acreage would you need at the 1.7 dwelling units/acre?" (Staff had not done these
calculations.) Ms. Imhoff said she would be "willing to work with that if 75% is the target."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the 3,100 acres in the staff report was "somewhat finely
tuned," and was not a "raw" figure. He explained further: "So when you are talking about
replacing it (remember) it is not in raw acreage but more in developable acreage." (Using
Neighborhoods IV and V as an example, Mr. Benish explained how staff had focused on
74
2-7-95 6
'*40W, actual developable acreage, i.e. total designated acreage, less critical slope and floodplain
areas.] Ms. Imhoff said she would only be comfortable with designating the 65% to 75%, as
suggested by Mr. Dotson, "because we are talking about a much higher quality, more
developable land, than in the past."
Mr. Benish confirmed that the technique used by staff in focusing on the actual developable
land means that designating 3,100 acres for growth area in this Plan will actually translate
into more land than the 3,100 acres which was designated in the last Plan, provided 3,100
"good acres" are designated. He explained how this technique differed from that which was
used during the last Plan review.
Using a figure of 3,100 acres, Mr. Benish pointed out on the map the most feasible areas
which could be designated for growth (based on previous Commission work sessions). Those
areas included approximately 2,100 acres in the Rt. 20 South area (Neighborhoods 4 and 5),
approximately 1,050 acres in the Piney Mountain and Hollymead area (in two separate
parcels), and approximately 1,440 acres "south of the river and east of the railroad track,
extending to the Rivanna River, but not quite to Rt. 20." (He noted several constraints with
this third area, including the Village of Proffit, the Proffit bridge, and Proffit Road itself. Ms.
Imhoff said she thought the Commission had basically ruled out this Proffit Road area
because of those constraints listed by Mr. Benish.) Mr. Benish then pointed out other smaller
parcels of land.
`fir Referring to the Rt. 20 South area, Ms. Huckle felt there had been a consensus that this area
was very developable because of its proximity to I64, a new school and the availability of
water and sewer.
M
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that there is going to be a lot of commercial and industrial growth
in the Rt. 20 North area, and making it possible for persons who work in that area to also live
in that area will ease traffic problems further into town. He expressed no objection to the Rt.
20 South area being the "primary" area.
There was determined to be a consensus on the following issues:
--That staff focus on 3,100 developable acres, with the understanding those acres will
be of a "higher quality" for development potential than with the last Plan;
--That there be a focus on infill development;
--That there was agreement with Mr. Dotson's basic principles, with the exception that
there was some question about item (h);
--That the two areas to focus on are (1) that area in Neighborhoods IV and V along
Rt. 20 S; and (2) the two parcels in the Piney Mt. and Hollymead area.
The Commission asked that the following questions be answered before the February 21st
work session:
175—
2-7-95 7
HUCKLE - She wanted a more definitive list of "available space" (available lots) in existing
developments. She felt it would be helpful to hear from some of the smaller developers, i.e.
those persons who are actually involved in building the houses. She also felt it would be
helpful to know "if there is some physical constraint on area that has been designated as
growth area, but has not developed, or whether it was that the developers found a parcel that
was more attractive at that particular time." She pointed out that once all the land with
desirable features (such as views, etc.) has been developed, then perhaps some of those areas
which have been passed over previously may become more attractive to developers. (Mr.
Nitchmann commented that this would happen only if the parcels were of a scale large
enough to interest developers.)
IMHOFF - What are the characteristics of the vacant land (i.e., that land in the growth area
which has not developed)? Ms. Imhoff felt this was "critical" information. She said she
would have a difficult time arriving at a figure for how much land should be added without a
"better sense of just how realistic some of the development of the vacant existing growth area
land is." She suggested that it might be that land which has not developed should no longer
be included in the inventory. She asked for a map of these parcels so that she could visit
them prior to the February 21st work session.
NITCHMANN - How long has some of the land which is in the existing growth area been
designated for development? (Mr. Cilimberg later answered this question, saying that most of
these properties "have been around since 1980.") For what reasons has this land not
developed? "We have to understand what we have available today and why it is not being
utilized." He felt it was essential to understand why development has not occurred on some
of these properties to determine if the reasons are ones which can be avoided when
designating future areas for development.
IMHOFF - She asked for a more definitive description of the total acreage of the area in
Neighborhood IV and V discussed earlier in the meeting and how many dwellings would be
absorbed by the strip along Rt. 20 (both sides).
Following Ms. Imhoff s question, Mr. Nitchmann asked if staffs analysis would address
possible densities. Mr. Cilimberg felt that was a policy question which needed to be addressed
because staff had, in the past, tended to consider the additions to the growth area at low
density, and "then had gone back into existing areas to look at higher densities where more
development was taking place." He said the Commission might decide it wants medium and
higher densities closer to the edge in these new areas. Ms. Imhoff felt to achieve Mr.
Dotson's proposed 75% of growth in the growth areas, it will be necessary to have more
medium and higher density. Mr. Benish explained that staff is considering making the
recommendation that property which is designated for high density development must be
developed at high density.
Mr. Benish reported that at future work sessions the Commission will be discussing the
following citizen requests regarding growth area designations:
I (a
2-7-95
--Rivanna: Two requests on the area west of the existing boundary, between Rt. 729,
Stone Robinson School, and the boundary. Three requests "between Neighborhood III and the
Rivanna Village, along the 250 corridor between 250 and 164, including the Edgel;ill property,
a small parcel near the Interchange requesting industrial, and the motel area requesting
consideration to be included with the growth area.
--Hollymead: One request on Rt. 785, just east of the Towers Land Trust area and
the property in Piney Mt. that is an extension of the industrial property; the Advance Mills
property; a property north of the Earlysville boundary, just south of the Chris Green Lake
area.
--A number of requests (for I -acre lots) for properties in the Alberene area.
Ms. Imhoff expressed the hope that the Commission could have a map showing the location
of these properties.
Public comment was invited.
--Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association - He offered to
provide site -specific information on why existing growth area properties have not developed.
--Mr. Peter Hallock (a Keswick resident) - He asked what had happened to the
Citizens' Committees which were supposed to have been formed and to the citizen comments
from the Fall community meetings. (Mr. Benish explained that the Board had decided these
Committees will be formed later in the process with the intent being that they will react to
Commission and staff drafts of the Plan.) He asked if comment is being sought from both
citizen organizations and developers. He suggested that the "bigger picture" needs to be
considered and not just that which is represented by developers. He asked if any study is
being done on houses currently available to determine why they are not selling. (Ms. Imhoff
suggested that extra time be allotted at a future meeting for citizen comment.)
--Ms. Karen Strickland (an Earlysville resident) - She suggested that other localities,
who have managed to "force infill," be contacted to see how they have accomplished this.
--Mr. Fred Gercke (a Proffit resident) - He pointed out the transportation problems and
lack of available large tracts of land in the Proffit area.
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Imhoff asked that the Commission be provided with a copy of the Economic
Development Policy after it has been acted upon by the Board.
Staff was targeting the end of April for having a draft of the Land Use Plan available for
public response, with the final document to go to the Board in August.
711
2-7-95
0
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concerns about the intersection of Rt. 250 East and the Louisa
Road. He was very concerned about the increasing traffic volume in this area and the high
incidence of accidents which have already occurred. He asked that the County Executive be
asked to initiate a study of this intersection,
------------------------
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission of the invitation to meet with the City Planning
Commission on February 14th. No f'egulaf Commission nieeting was to be held on the 14th.
There being no fifrther business, the meeting adjourned at 930 p.m,
19