Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 21 1995 PC Minutes2-21-95 FEBRUARY 21, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 21, 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 and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner. Absent: Commissioner Dotson. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.and a quorum was established. The minutes of January 31, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the February 15, 1995 Board of Supervisors Meeting. ----------------------------------------- WORK SESSION Guidinu Principles for Land Use Plan/Growth Area Engnsion Ms. Imhoff read a statement, prepared by her and Ms. Vaughan, which outlined their shared concerns about the process thus far in relation to the discussions about future expansion. That statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. Mr. Blue also read Mr. Dotson's comments on the growth area expansion materials which were in the form of a memo dated February 20th, directed to Mr. Cilimberg. Those comments are made a part of these minutes as Attachment B. At Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Benish explained the schedule for completion of the Land Use Plan, i.e. a draft plan for public comment by the end of April, with the draft of the final text to go to the Board by August. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Cilimberg to comment on the two statements which had been read. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "We've tried, since August, to lay out a general path. It seems we get somewhat along that path and then there are things that pop up, all of a sudden, that we decide we haven't done, that we need to do. So we drop back a couple of steps. All along the way we are trying to get to something at the end of April that we can take to the public for comment. We haven't had one public hearing yet. We had initial community meetings, but we want to have the same type community meetings when we get into April, May and early June, before school is out. That was one of the purposes for initially having the guiding principles come to you at the very beginning. There were some fairly broad assumptions we were making with that, one of which was that we were accepting the basic resource protection 79 2-21-95 of the county that was laid out in the last plan. One of the big areas had to do with rural development and continuing our approach to rural development, obviously recognizing that the open space plan was adopted since the last comprehensive plan and it is pretty much up to date in what it is trying to do for the county. So we wanted to use that, and, in fact, have referenced that repeatedly... as a guiding principle to what we were doing. So, I think we've done that. What we've been doing, in a very general sense because we don't have but so much staff, and we don't expect to have but so much staff, and we don't have much consultant money.... We're doing all that we can within the staff that we have and what we're trying to do is arrive at a point where we've said, 'O.K., we know our guiding principles; we know what our situation is within our growth areas,' --and I think there are still questions to be answered with that. I don't think you are being asked to make any final decisions. We also have potential for expansion areas. We've got potential for public request areas, but let's don't get into a lot of detailed analysis of all those areas until we have a pretty good idea from the planning commission what direction it wants to take --how far it even wants to think about going. We don't want you to decide on specific growth area boundaries, yet. I don't think it's time. I think it is time to decide what makes sense to move forward with and what doesn't ... what is worth carrying on. It's going to get pared down from there. I don't think it is going to stay at those limits. It's only going to get pared down and defined after the planning commission has a complete understanding of the current growth area and what is happening within that area, and makes a conscious decision on which of these expansion areas and requests make sense .... That gives us more of a definition of what to work with, and when you don't have but so many staff, you don't want to get into so many broad runs and different directions that you feel like you aren't getting anywhere but you're doing a lot of work." Mr. Cilimberg addressed specifically Mr. Dotson's items 2, 5(a)and 5(b), related to public hearings, the fiscal impact model, and traffic impact assessment. He explained that public meetings will be held throughout the county after the draft plan has been completed (end of April). He anticipated the fiscal impact model would be available in late March. Mr. Jenkins expressed reservations about the feasibility of being able to use the fiscal impact model and still being able to keep to the timetable for completion of the Comp Plan review. (Mr. Blue agreed.) The Commission discussed the 9 guiding principles set forth in Mr. Benish's memo dated February 15, 1995. (Attachment C to these minutes) HUCKLE - She supported the guidelines as presented, but felt there should be a guideline which states that "we should stick to areas that have adequate traffic potential" already in place. Ms. Imhoff offered the following wording: "Expand growth areas where there is existing road capacity. Mr. Blue disagreed with this suggested addition because he felt it would be difficult to find all the growth areas where the roads are already in place. VW 2-21-95 3 IMHOFF - She made the following comments about guidelines 2, 3, 4 and 8 and suggested an additional principle: (2) She felt it should be a „cleaner" statement, She suggested that the Phrase "as much as possible" should be deleted. NOTE: Mr. Blue also com ?Tented on this -1 deline. See his comments beho::,; (3) She agreed with Mr. Dotson that this would be better if broken doivT Into eeko prllielples. (Y) "We (she and Ms. Vaughan) think we are trying to accommodate growth for, basically, a five-year period, not a 20-year period." (8) She expressed concern about the "20-year term of the Plan." She explained: "That may be fine, but in terms of the Land Use plan, just acknowledge that we are looking more at a 5-year period.." (New principle) "Discourage road stripping." JENKINS: He commented on guideline l: "The whole Crozet area is in a primary water supply watershed." He wondered if this guideline needed to be modified. (Mr. Cilimberg said that there could be further elaboration on Crozet.) Mr. Blue suggested the following addition to guideline L "No encruachnleilt froul the Cruet gruwih area info the Beaver Creek watershed." Mr. Jenkins responded: "That would tend to address it." NITCHMANN: Referring to guideline 1, he asked: "Isn't that limiting a great deal of the land in this County --just completely taking it out of the picture?" He envisioned "where someone would want to develop 100 acres of land and there would be a corner in the watershed area." He felt guideline I should be stated more realistically. He felt every issue had to be considered with "some common sense." BLUE: He supported guideline 2--"Avoid as much as possible significant areas as designated in the Open Space Plan." --which he felt "was a compromise between what Mr. Jenkins said and what Ms. Imhoff said, which is 'no encroachment,' period." He suggested: "I think if we change this statement about the water supply to the same thing, it would amount to the same. I am not quite as concerned as Mr. Nitchmann because I know that we haven't encroached growth areas into the water supply." HCTCK.LE - Commenting on Mr. Blue's and Mr. Nitchmann's statements, she felt it was important that guideline I remain as originally stated. She explained: "It hasn't prevented growth in the past and we are just channelling it into the proper places. If you want to cut off all growth, the way to do that is to destroy the water supply." Mr. Nitchmann responded: "I understand all that. I'm just saying, for this review of the Comp Plan, I don't want to restrict myself to saying these are all the areas we can't possibly look at and let's not even discuss it." IMHOFF - Commenting on Ms. Huckle's and Mr. Nitchmann's statements: "I was thinking of these not as the Ten Commandments, but, truly, they are, guiding principles and they are just providing framework. So we need to talk about the language a little." Mr. Blue asked: "So, a 2-21-95 4 you'd be willing to (extend growth areas into open space areas)." Ms. Imhoff replied: "I personally would, yes." Mr. Blue: "I thought your suggestion was to tighten up the language." Ms. Imhoff: "I think I am probably the only person who feels that way and I will bring up the Open Space Plan at every opportunity during the Comp Plan review." Regarding the wording for guideline 1, Mr. Blue stated: "For the past 10 or 15 years we have had no designated growth area in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed, but we have had plenty of rural development. And I think that that has worked reasonably well. I guess I would prefer that maybe we not say 'Avoid as much as possible,' but I think Mr. Nitchmann feels otherwise, and maybe Mr. Jenkins does. I think you just propose something and we will have to vote on it." Ms. Huckle commented: "I agree with (Mr. Blue) that it has worked well in the past and we should stick with it." Ms. Imhoff added: "But I think naming the watersheds is very helpful." Staff was to re -work the guidelines, based on Commission comments, and bring them back to the Commission on February 28th for final adoption. There was a brief discussion about the future usage of Chris Green Lake. Ms. Imhoff was under the impression the Commission had previously agreed it would be held in reserve as a future drinking water source. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the RWSA is in the process of addressing that question at this time. Ms. Imhoff suggested that, in the future, the Commission should actually vote on issues such as this so that staff will be very clear on the Commission's position. [NOTE: The issue of Chris Green Lake was discussed again later in the meeting during the discussion of request No. 13.1 ----------------------------------------- WORK SESSION Public Requests for Additions to the Growth Area There were 23 of these requests. (See Attachment D to these minutes.) The Commission decided that the following deserved further study: No. 3 - TM 78/P 50 (part) and 48 (NOTE: Requests 2, 3 and 4 are discussed in more detail below at the end of the meeting.] No. 4 - TM 791P 10 (part) eastern parcel No. 5 - TM 91/P 18 and 19A (Ms. Imhoff reminded staff that she had previously expressed an interest in knowing how much growth this parcel could absorb. She was concerned about "stripping Rt. 20.") The owner of this property was represented by Ms. Stephanie Kerr. She pointed out that Mr. Brent (RWSA) had said at a previous Commission meeting that these parcels are some of the most accessible to serve with water and sewer. RAJ 2-21-95 5 She pointed out also that it is less than 1 mile from public transportation. She described the property as being 1 mile long, 2,200 feet deep, totaling 200 acres. She suggested the property would be well suited to a medium to high density usage. No. 6 - TM 89/P 73 - The applicant's representative, Mr. Elbert Morris, explained that though there are no plans to actually begin development of the property in the next five years, the applicant would like to be able to begin the planning and engineering process within the next five years. Ms. Huckle expressed the feeling that this property seemed to be a logical extension of what already exists in this area, and "we've got to find these acres someplace." Mr. Nitchmann agreed. Mr. Blue pointed out that this property would be accessed through the Redfieids subdivision. Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that those areas above 580 feet elevation should not go into the growth area. No. 8 - TM 55/P 103F, 103, 84, 81, 80 and 21; TM 55A/P 40 and 2 - Though staff was recommending that this request not be studied at this time, Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the property is adjacent to a growth area and drains into the Lickinghole Creek Basin. She also noted that consideration of this property for inclusion in the growth area does not necessarily mean that it will be considered for residential development only; it could be designated for commercial or industrial development. Commissioners Jenkins and Nitchmann agreed with Ms. Imhoff. Mr. Blue and Ms. Huckle did not agree. Mr. Loach, a Crozet resident, expressed the opinion that this request was "premature." No. 9 - TM 55/P 87 and 88A1 - Mr. Paul Clark, the owner of this property, pointed out that the area is close to good roads and he felt it had a lot of possibilities. Mr. Dick Brantd, an adjacent property owner, expressed the opinion that this would result in "leap frog" development. Mr. Brandt felt that the inclusion of requests 8 & 9 in the growth area would cause the "opening up" of this entire area. He pointed out the dangerous condition of. Rt. 684. Mr. Sandy Wilcox, an Ivy resident, expressed agreement with Mr. Brandt's comments. Mr. Phil Unger asked questions about the remaining steps of the process. No. 10 - TM 46/P 14A - Though staff was recommending that this request not be studied further at this time, Mr. Nitchmann disagreed. He pointed out that industrial growth is going to occur in this area and he saw no value in this l l acres remaining as RA. The owner, Mr. Wendall Wood, pointed out that the property is within 200 feet of the existing Comp Plan's designated industrial property to the north. He also pointed out that the property fronts on Rt. 29 and has several radio towers behind it. Ms. Imhoff did not agree with Mr. Nitchmann. She pointed out that designating this property for growth was contrary to the guiding principle against "stripping" along roadways. Ms. Huckle wondered if this was premature since the final alignment for Alternative 10 of the Bypass has not yet been determined. Ms. Jenkins was somewhat concerned about the Alternative 10 alignment also. Mr. Jenkins also expressed the feeling: "I think the river there should be the end of commercial area on that highway if we can at all control it." Mr. Jenkins was not opposed to getting more information from staff on this request, but he described his position as "marginal.,, No. 13 - TM 32/P 8, 2 (part) and 1 (part) - In relation to the request, the staff pointed out that a decision about the future of the Earlysville Village needs to be made by the Commission. (Staff reported that a great deal of public opposition has been expressed about the possible expansion of this area. Some people even support the removal of the village R, U 2-21-95 6 designation.) Also the question of the future use of Chris Green Lake as a water supply watershed needs to be resolved. (Mr. Cilimberg explained that the RWSA will be deciding next week whether to do the Raw Water study.) Ms. Huckle was opposed to further study. She pointed out that half the property is impacted by the Airport Noise Zone, development will impact Jacob's l2un, and it is adjacent to an argicultural-forestal district. The owner of the property, Mr. Alan Kendrick, addressed the Commission. He expressed the strong feeling that Chris Green Lake is not suitable as a source of drinking water because there has been a "great deal of change in both the quantity and quality of the water" since the lake was constructed. He believed the lake has been polluted by runoff from the airport. He also believed there were two landfills, which were created during the construction of the airport, which impact the lake. He explained that all the water courses to the lake are privately owned. He stated: "When the time comes and I'm asked to take my cattle out of the creek, we are going to have to have some serious discussion; they are not going to be able to tell me to do it. I am going to be compensated simply by the way I own the land." Mr. Kendrick summarized his comments by saying that he did not feel that the use of Chris Green Lake as a water source was feasible and he should not be penalized for that. After hearing Mr. Kendrick's comments, Ms. Imhoff stated: "After hearing the applicant, in my mind I feel we shouldn't be looking at it for addition to the growth area. Regardless of whether we use Chris Green Lake or not, it becomes an even more important issue that we not do any development that would effect the North Fork Rivanna watershed." She felt it should not be included for further study at this time. Comment was invited from Mr. Brent on the question of Chris Green Lake. Mr. Brent explained that the RWSA would decide on Monday (February 27) whether or not to hire an engineer "to look at Chris Green to try to answer some of the questions that have been raised about it's viability as a drinking water supply." He reminded the Commission that the lake was built as a drinking water supply for the purpose of supplying the North Fork water plant, but its use as a recreational facility has blurred its original intent. He estimated the study would take 3 to 6 months to complete. (Mr. Blue asked that the RWSA get in touch with Mr. Kendrick regarding some of the issues he raised.) Mr. Nitchmann felt he did not know enough about the Earlysville Village to discount it at this time. Ile was the only Commissioner who expressed support for further study. It was decided that this request would be studied in relation to the entire Earlysville Village issue. No. 14 - Part of area east of Rt. 785 and north of Rt. 649 (Proffit Road). No. 15 -kart of the area east of Rt. 29 North, and north of the North Fork Rivanna River The Commission decided that the following would not be studied further at this time: No. 1 TM 45/P27 (The Commission agreed with staffs analysis.) No. 2 - TM78/P 60A, 44, 45 and 45A - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. No. 4 - TM 79/P 5 (part) western parcel No. 7 - TM 57/P 29 (The majority of the Commission agreed with staffs analysis. Mr. Blue expressed the opinion that "it is possible to design a sedimentation system within an area that can do just as well, or perhaps even better, than can the Crozet sedimentation basin, .aL/ 2-21-95 7 but I'm not gating to argue that we should keep it in just (fur that reason)." Mr. John Marston, a resident of Crozet, expressed opposition to this request. No. l l - TM 46/P 98A and 22C - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. No. 12 - Bentivar Subdivision - The Commission agreed with staff s analysis. No. 16 - TM 31 /P 12 and 12A - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis, No. 17 - TM 79, P 24B - Mr. Nitchmann pointed out access problems. The property owner, Ms. Dawn Hayes, addressed the Commission. She pointed out that there is water available at the far end of the property (the Glenmore water line) and that it is accessible via a commercial entrance from Rt. 729. She described problems she is having with re -financing the property which are the result of its present RA zoning. She did not think she would be able to sell the property unless it is added to the growth area. Mr. Nitchmann was not opposed to studying the property further, if it would help the applicant's situation. He explained to the applicant, however, that he had serious doubts that VDOT would allow an entrance which would have to cross Rt. 250. Mr. Blue pointed out concerns about serving the property with water and sewer. He also pointed out that recommending further study on this property might be giving false hope to the owner, given the drawbacks to the property. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Commission is trying to narrow the list and had been very inclusive. She was opposed to any further study on either request 17 or 18. No. 18 - TM 79/P 79C-I - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. No. 19 - TM 19/P 4A, 8, 30, 32, 32A and 32B - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. No. 20 - TM 58A1/P 40D - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. No, 21 - TM 126/P 31 - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. No. 22 - TM 126/P 21 and TM 199/P 14 - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. No. 23 - TM I II/P 15, 8A1 and 8V - The Commission agreed with staffs analysis. There was considerable discussion about requests 2, 3 and 4, in Neighborhood 3. Ms. Imhoff supported staffs recommendation on all three requests, (that these areas not be included in the growth area). She felt all three of these requests were contrary to the guiding principles. Mr. Nitchmann was in favor of No. 3 being studied further. He pointed out that there are already industrial properties in this area and that there does not appear to be a major traffic problem with this property. The owner of this property (No. 3), Mr. Hartman, addressed the Commission. He felt LI designation was the best use for the property. Mr. Michael Musilo, representing the owner of the westemmost parcel in request No. 4, asked that the owner be given the opportunity to respond to Commission comments in writing. Mr. Blue agreed with staff on the westernmost parcel of request No. 4, but he felt that the easternmost parcel (which had been before the Commission previously for a special permit proposal) deserved further study. Ms. Huckle agreed with Mr. Blue (though she later changed her mind when these requests were discussed again at the end of the meeting). Mr. Cilimberg explained that a study of this area would actually include a study of all three requests. (These same three requests were discussed again at the end of the meeting .) Ss- 2-21-95 Mr. Peter Hallock (a resident of Keswick), addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about possible water hook-ups to the Rt. 250E water line. He stated: "We were told there would be none." He pointed out that requests 2, 3 and 4 are located on Rt. 250E. The point raised by Mr. Hallock was discussed by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that if these properties were placed in the growth area they would be "put under the allowance for water." That being the case, Mr. Blue wondered why the Commission had decided to study request No. 3 and the westernmost parcel of No. 4. Mr. Benish explained: "On numbers 2, 3 and 4, the issues that were laid out are basically policy issues and though we can study what the potential uses can be and what the impact of those uses are, our analysis will come down to those same policy issues, whether water and sewer is available, whether you want to strip along an entrance corridor, (etc.)." Mr. Blue wondered whether the Commission should reconsider it's decision to study these requests. Mr. Jenkins was not in favor of changing the Commission's previous decision on these 3 requests. Mr. Nitchmann agreed, saying, "I want it studied. Water is there and I think it ought to be utilized." Both Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Huckle favored no further study of these requests. Mr. Blue concluded the discussion with the following statement: "Well, I think at this late hour I'm not going to bring it up again and (we're) just overburdening staff." [NOTE: These minutes were approved by the Commission on March 7, 1995. At that time it was clarified that the Commission did not reverse it's earlier decision on these three pracels.] Mr. Hartman, owner of the property in request No. 3, was allowed to address the Commission again. He said: "I had a former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors make a statement to me that he could see no way that they (can keep us from getting water). You can hold us back now, but we'll get it later. It's public water. It might cost money, but we can certainly get it." MISCELLANEOUS It was decided a 5:15 work session would be held on February 28, 1995 to finalize the guiding principles. Action would be taken on the principles at the public hearing. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 1# Elm