HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 21 1995 PC MinutesM
3-21-95
MARCH 21, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March
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. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials
present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala,
Senior Planner; and Mr. Tom Leback, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner
Vaughan.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of March 7, 1995 were unanimously approved as submitted.
Ms. Imhoff introduced Mr. Hugh Miller, former state Director of the Department of
Historic Resources, who was visiting the meeting as an observer.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the March 15th Board of Supervisors
%W meeting.
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 indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA-94-12 be indefinitely
deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
CPA-95-2 MILTON AIRPORT AREA B STUDY - Proposal to amend the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan to include recommendations of the Milton Airport "Area
B" Study as stipulated in the Three Party Agreement between the County, City of
Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia.
/,�
3-21-95 2
*rr
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. Staff was recommending the Comprehensive
Plan be amended to include the following statement in Chapter Three, The Developed
Environment, at the end of the Rural Development section, under "Other Issues:"
Consider the recommendations of the City/County/University Planning
and Coordination Council's Milton Airport Area "B" Study as a guide for
future planning of the Milton area. Consideration should also be given to
the results/recommendations of the Milton historic/archeological village
survey and historic context report, currently underway.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there had been any changes in the University's plans to get rid
of the property.
Mr. Leback said nothing had changed since the last meeting. The University will be
beginning the surplusing procedure within the next three weeks. He explained the
following steps in the procedure: (1) Other state agencies will have a chance to
acquire or use the property. (2) If that does not occur, then local govemments will
have a chance to acquire the property at fair market value. (3) If neither of the first
two occurs, the property will be offered for public sale.
Ms. Imhoff asked how this property will be designated in the land use element of the
�%Nw Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it will be shown as Rural Area,
with recognition that a study has been done on the property.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Jean Hammer, a resident of Lafayette. Lane, expressed support for staffs
recommendation. She said it was the overwhelming consensus of the residents of the
Milton area that the recommendations of the Study be accepted. Though there was
some discussion at the neighborhood meeting about the area being used as a
recreation area, there was concern about increased traffic on Rt. 729. All residents
support the use of the property remaining as it currently is. (There were
approximately 9 people present at the meeting who expressed support for Ms.
Hammer's statements by a show of hands.)
Mr. William Orr, a property owner in Milton, felt the property would be an ideal place
for a future park on the eastern side of the County.
Mr. Ed Barbour, a regular user of the Rivanna River, expressed the desire to
participate in any archeological discussions about the area. He was particularly
interested in the boat which has recently been discovered, and may have been built
by Monticello slaves. (It was determined the location of the boat was not on the
Milton property which was the subject of the Commission's review.) Mr. Barbour
expressed support for the "bucolic nature of the scenic river."
7
3-21-95 3
Mr. Fritz Franken, representing the University of Virginia Engineering School, advised
the Commission that the Engineering School is presently looking into the possibility of
obtaining the property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that CPA-95-2 be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as recommended by staff.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Leback pointed out that the recommendations made in the Milton Airport Area B
Study are in priority order. He also stated that the University of Virginia Board of
Visitors feels that the preservation of the Monticello viewshed should be an important
factor in any considerations for development of this property.
WORK SESSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DISCUSSION OF GROWTH AREA INVENTORY
Mr. Benish explained the inventory, which had been revised to show areas which
have development constraints.
Commission comments:
HUCKLE - Referring to the January 31, 1995 staff report which had information
showing the major developments approved and developed in growth areas over a 5
year period, she presented some figures showing the number of lots which are still
available for development: University Village = 166 units; Branchlands = 91 units (75 +
16); Briarwood = 66 units; Highlands = 266 units; Ashcroft = 150 units; Rio Hills and
Lakeside (currently under construction). These total 2,812 possible units in properties
that have already been approved. She noted that staff has calculated a need for
2,103 units needed by the year 2000. She concluded, based on her research, that
there are already enough units approved to last through the year 2000. She felt this
needs to be considered when discussing how much more land to add to the growth
area.
IMHOFF - Regarding further expansion of the growth area, Ms. Imhoff expressed the
belief that "less is more." She noted there appears that there is enough industrial and
commercial land. She said: "We focus most of our efforts looking at residential units
and it seems to me by very modestly expanding the growth areas, we would allow
13
09
3-21-95
4
more than enough. I want to suggest that we have a strong, conservative bend for
the next 5-year period."
DOTSON - He recalled that the Commission had tentatively arrived at a figure of
3,100 acres, and had directed staff, at a previous work session, to "show us the best
3,100." He felt it is now time to start putting everything together to arrive at the most
logical locations "that build on the areas in existing growth areas that are still vacant,
that make some incremental additions, growing outwards." He said he was ready to
"look at a package" because he had a better understanding of the components that
will go into the makeup of that package.
IMHOFF - She expressed concern about being "driven" by the 3,100 acre number.
She favored discussions about higher densities and "not developing everything at 1.9
du/acre density in the growth area."
Mr. Benish explained that staff is currently redrafting maps and developing scenarios
for those areas which the Commission has identified, at previous work sessions, as
being the most feasible areas for growth based on the guiding principles adopted by
the Commission. He also pointed out that staff has never said that the next five-year
inventory is "insufficient." He explained: "I think we've always said it was sufficient. It
was the character of the area that was practicably available in the short term, and the
feeling that we might have a constrained market in trying to address the housing
affordability issue that the Housing Committee has identified as an issue."
IMHOFF - "One thing about the restraint of the owner's unwillingness to sell ... if we are
conservative and try to promote infill development by not allowing too much leap -frog
out, it may change these owners' willingness to sell. - For me, the owner's
unwillingness to sell is probably the constraint I pay least amount of heed to because
that is so uncertain and subjective for individual landowners." She pointed out that
having a large supply of land for residential development does not result in affordable
housing. She gave as examples Prince William and Loudoun counties. "We can't let
ourselves off the hook by simply providing a large volume of developable land."
Mr. Benish explained that the next step in the process is for the Commission to review
the development design standards in the Comprehensive Plan. These standards set
up the functional descriptions for the growth areas and the scale of development.
These direct staff as to where and how to designate land uses. After that has been
done, staff will finalize a draft growth area map.
DOTSON - He explained that by the term "package" he meant "it's not just the acres,
but the theory of 'why' these acres."
HUCKLE - She pointed out that two of the larger developers have said the item which
has the most effect on raising the price of land is the fact that it is designated as
05
M
3-21-95
5
growth area. She also noted that some of the small parcels of land, close to the
existing growth area, might be developable by some of the smaller builders.
DOTSON - Addressing Ms. Huckle's comments about the smaller parcels of what he
described as "passed over land," he pointed out that it might be an advantage not to
develop these parcels right away, but rather have them available later when higher
density development is desirable in central locations. He suggested that staff should
look at these small parcels in terms of their location and what they are adjacent to.
(Mr. Benish felt what Mr. Dotson described is "an evolution that is usually seen in an
urbanizing area.")
BLUE - He reported on a neighborhood meeting he and Ms. Imhoff had attended in
the Proffit area. He said the residents feel they are "under the gun," because they are
on the edge of the largest growth area in the County. He explained that the two
properties which are developable in this area are in two different ownerships. One of
these property owners is not interested in developing his property. The desires of the
other property owner are not known. Mr. Blue asked how staff will approach a
situation like this, i.e., where the property is needed for growth area; is on the edge of
an existing growth area and is developable, but owners of the properties do not plan
to sell the property.
Mr. Cilimberg addressed Mr. Blue's question. He said staff identifies potential growth
areas from a planning standpoint in terms of "what makes sense from the
infrastructure which is in place and in terms of being an extension of what already
exists." He explained that consideration of whether the property is likely to be for sale
or not would result in a "hop -scotch" type of approach which is not good planning.
BLUE - He pointed out that decisions about how best to provide utilities to the area to
the west (which wants to be designated for growth) of this Proffit area, could be
influenced by the development of the Proffit area.
IMHOFF - She said the Proffit residents had also raised questions about traffic, i.e.
"are these really good growth areas if you have to pump in millions and millions of
dollars to get tolerable roads." Also, the Proffit residents wanted some type of "no
development buffer" around the Proffit neighborhood.
HUCKLE - She asked if there was any chance of opening up the Avon Street
Extended area by the constructinn of a c*nne,tor road. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
two roads--Rt. 20 to Avon Street and Avon Street to .Fifth Street —are recommended by
theconsultant 11F/� �4 f� r e+nn� �.-.o er4enn F�� e# �� �sani hinh nn,c�# The �In nn4 n� .^1;4r nr
consul a l♦,%, VVIly1 L!i•Le!/!1 A+6�t ! L lM !er. _!!�!! V\/VL. 4 fiV r bVl :q!!6wl4!J !yi
secondary road mo i; s so the County must decide whether they are irrrportant
erougc, i.-, terms of yuN ems ciCri[Ct CC/iil u-lil�i7i, it , lriFv
cW,....
1LI-6
3-21-95 6
Mr. Jenkins asked if staff needed an action from the Commission on the 3,100 acre
figure. It was noted that the Commission had already reached a consensus on that
figure. Mr. Nitchmann expressed the belief that the Commission was "still of one
mind" on that figure. He directed staff to proceed. Ms. Huckie said she was not in
agreement on the 3,100 acre figure. She said: "I don't like a number until we have
had time to assess some of these things."
Mr. Cilimberg said staff will proceed to develop the in -fill policy criteria, will focus on
the "orange" areas (on the map), and will bring the development standards to the
Commission for discussion, and then, ultimately, will draft the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Benish pointed out that there has been no definite decision that there will be a
3,100 acre expansion. Rather, that is a figure which staff is using as a guide.
HUCKLE - She commented briefly on minutes of the January 23rd meeting of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in relation to Crozet: She said that ConAgra,
which has been using 350,000 to 400,000 gallons of water per day, increased usage
to 500,000 gpd in January, and expects to increase to 600,000 - 700,000 gpd by the
end -of 1995. The minutes stated the planned growth will exceed the water treatment
plant's capacity of 1,000,000 gpd. She felt the Commission should keep this. in mind
when considering the designation of land in the Crozet area for growth.
---------------------------------------
,%W
WORK SESSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Update Schedule for Comprehensive Plan Review
and
Proposed Public Input Process (Land Use Plan/Villages)
Mr. Benish explained the status -of the review process.
Mr. Nitchmann commented on the September through November schedule, which was
Phase 2 of the review process. He asked if it was required that the entire Plan be
reviewed every five years. He questioned whether there was a need to review all
those sections of the plan which were listed in the September - November period. Mr.
Cilim�bter/g�/�exappl#ai}n�etde that Phase 2 will
f�beYprimarily review of recommendations from
various committees. MP . 41 !t lima.III`/ \+xpf essed V r: or 1 that luh sci iodulle, vi`{/s i.* j
intense. He hoped that staff could be very specific as to what needed to be reviewed.
He questioned whether staff will have the time to accomplish, satisfactorily, the
completion of the review in the time frame proposed. Staff felt Phase 2 would not be
a long, involved process. Mr. Nitchmann questioned whether this particular
Commission could review these topics in a "broad brush" manner. He pointed out that
it took two years to get through the Economic Development Policy..
/W
3-21-95
In
Ms. Huckle expressed the feeling that the topic of Culture/Arts should not be a part of
the Comprehensive Plan. She felt this was a subject which should be left up to
individuals.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Open Space Plan was adopted in 1992. She said she
did not feel a real need to spend a lot of time reviewing it at this time.
Mr. Jenkins agreed, saying: "These things that are pretty much cut and dried, let's let
them stay. Let's don't wake them up." Mr. Jenkins also pointed out that there is a
good possibility there will be new Commission and Board members in 1996. He
hoped that staff could stick to the schedule because he felt it would be unfair to ask
new members to approve a plan which they had had no part in developing. Mr.
Nitchmann agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Board has directed that many of these items (which
are in Phase 2) be addressed. He noted, however, that there is no requirement that
they be addressed within a certain time frame.
On the topic of Mountain Protection, Ms. Imhoff said it had been her understanding
that Supervisors Thomas and Martin had wanted the process to begin on the
Ordinance work.
Mr. Dotson was not as concerned about the fall schedule as he was the spring
schedule. He questioned whether the Land Use Plan would be ready for public input
by May. He suggested that either the Commission and staff had to commit to the
public meetings in late May or early June, and "work backwards to make it happen," or
else plan for the public meetings to be held in September after the summary has been
completed. He felt "we should not go to the public until we've got the questions teed
up, so they have something to respond to."
Mr. Blue was in favor of sticking to the May/June schedule for the public meetings.
Ms. Imhoff had no concerns about the schedule, but she wondered if there needed to
be so many public meetings. She suggested that some could be combined. She
also wondered if consideration should be given to Saturday meetings. Mr. Blue did
not think Saturday meetings would be successful.
Mr. Blue felt it was particularly important that meetings be held in those areas where
major changes are proposed, such as Red Hill and Earlysville. (It is being considered
that these two areas have their Village designations removed.)
On the topic of villages, Mr. Dotson favored "undesignating the village areas." He
added: "But I feel like we need more in the text to talk about how we might be willing,
M
cm
3-21-95
in the future, to designate villages." (He had written down some thoughts which he
offered to make available to staff and the Commission.)
Mr. Nitchmann felt that input should be sought from the Town of Scottsville
representatives, but he did not feel there was a need for a public meeting in
Scottsville.
Mr. Dotson suggested that copies of the material which will be ready for the public
meetings should also be made available to surrounding jurisdictions and to the City.
It was suggested that a map of the City of Charlottesville and the Town of Scottsville
be on display at Commission work sessions and also at all public meetings.
Staff concluded the discussion by saying that the top priority was the completion of the
Land Use Plan and also that staff will work with the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee to fine-tune the public participation process.
WORK SESSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Historic Resources Program
vmw Staff was recommending that the Board of Supervisors create a historic preservation
committee to devise a preservation plan for the County, which is called for in the
Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan. Staff was also recommending an ad hoc
committee to address basic questions regarding the future of historic preservation
activities in the County.
Staffs report explained that staff has obtained cost -share grants for two projects from
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The first project is a historic and
archaeological context report for the County which consolidates all available
information on historic and archeological resources and the second project is to have
surveyed, at reconnaissance level, 12 villages which were not included in a historic
sites survey of the County completed by the State in 1983.
Mountain Protection
Staff was recommending the creation of a mountain protection committee to devise a
mountain protection plan for the County, including recommendations regarding a
mountain protection ordinance.
Mr. Blue commented on the suggested composition of the committee. He felt "there
may not be a wide enough range to represent private property. The two owners of
private property could, conceivably be ones that definitely want to protect their
3-21-95 9
E9
mountaintop property." He wondered if the development community should be
represented on the committee. He wanted to be sure that "we get a true private
property owner's opinion." He did not want the work on the ordinance to be "one-
sided." He did not have the same concern about the makeup of the Historic
Preservation Committee.
Ms. Imhoff addressed Mr. Blue's comments, saying: 'The only problem I have with
what you said is the idea that a true property owner would be against mountaintop
protection." She suggested a member of either the Chamber of Commerce or the
Home Builder's Association. (Her suggestion was acceptable to Mr. Blue.)
Mr. Nitchmann suggested: "When you are interviewing these people, you want to
make sure that the two individuals who are property owners don't have all their land in
a forestal district so that they would be all on one side of the fence. We need to look
at some property owners who are concerned about their property rights." He also felt
there should be "someone who lives in the lowland who will be looking up at what is
happening there." He felt the makeup of the committee should be more diversified
than what was suggested by staff.
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the Commission will be reviewing the ordinance and it
would be the Commission's fault if an "unbalanced" ordinance was approved.
Both Commissioners Nitchmann and Jenkins offered to work with the Mountaintop
Protection Committee. Commissioner Imhoff offered to work with the Historic
Preservation Committee.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Karen Strickland, a resident of Earlysville, addressed the Commission. She had
prepared a list of properties in the Earlysville area which have been (or will soon be)
approved for development, but have not yet been approved: Teledyne property = 66
lots; trailer park = 236 lots; Deerwood = 38 lots (yet to be approved); Advance Mills =
97 lots; Hickory Ridge = 22 lots; Claymont = 15 lots; Graemont = 7 lots; Loftlands =
26 lots. She also noted that Forest Lakes South has approximately 400 lots and
Towers Land Trust, 1,305. She said this totaled 2,205 lots "that are ready to be
developed" and when added to Ms. Huckle's inventory, the total is over 4,000. She
had also done some research on the number of homes available for sale in the area
(including Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Fluvanna County and Greene County).
Referring to a comment in the staff report which stated "these undeveloped areas
would continue to be holes in the otherwise developing growth areas until property
owners are willing to sell or market forces operate to make them more attractive for
development." She felt this was a polite way of saying "until we can put enough
pressure on these people to make them sell...." She was discouraged by the idea that
M
3-21-95 10
"somehow it is in everyone's best interest if developers get easy access to more land."
Mr. William Sipe, a resident of Earlysville, expressed support for Earlysville being
designated as a "no growth area." He pointed out the lack of adequate roads and
public utilities which make Earlysville unsuitable for growth.
Mr. Tom Oliver, a resident of the Scottsville District, asked for a clarification of the
schedule for the beginning of the work sessions for Phase 2 of the Comp Plan review.
Staff explained those sessions are scheduled to begin in September. Ms. Imhoff
pointed out that the committee discussions on mountain protection and historic
resources will begin sooner.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Cm