Loading...
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