HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 18 1995 PC Minutes09
7-18-95
J U LY 18, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July
18, 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; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were:
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of June 27, 1995, were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Keeler briefly reviewed actions taken at the July 12th Board of Supervisors meeting.
SP 95-25 Wendall Wood/United Land Corp - Petition to establish a mobile home park
[18.2.2(17)]. Property described as Tax Map 32, parcels 50, 53, 54, 55 and 56 consists
of approximately 57 acres zoned R-15, Residential. Property is located on the east side
of Rt. 606 approximately 0.6 miles south of Rt. 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per
"► acre) in the Community of Hollymead.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He also distributed to the Commission the following
additional information:
--A letter from the Virginia Department of Transportation dealing with the
reduction of speed limit on Rt. 606 to 45 mph.
--Two letters of opposition from members of the public.
--A letter from Brian Elliott (the Airport Authority) describing the circumstances
surrounding the acquisition of right-of-way and sight easement and the process
followed in revision of the Airport Master Plan which resulted in a reduction of the
Airport Noise Impact Area. (It was determined the Commission had already received
this letter.)
--Additional comments from the Inspections Department and the Service
Authority granting the appropriate approvals.
--A map of the average day/night sound level that is contained within the Airport
Master Plan 2012 and a map showing the same information from the 1992 plan.
The staff report concluded: "Staff is unable to identify any negative change in
circumstance or conditions since the original approval of the special use permit and
therefore recommends approval of this request subject to the original conditions. ...Staff
does note that the recently adopted Airport Master Plan does not include this site in the
noise impact area. Staff opinion is that approval of the special use permit until January
,�lr
7-18-95 2
SWW 1, 1996 would be appropriate. The land use component of the Comprehensive Plan is
anticipated to be approved by that time. Expiration of this permit on January 1, 1996
would allow for additional analysis to be performed at that time to determine if any
changes in circumstance have occurred. "
Mr. Fritz explained that conditions 3 [Staff approval of all mobile home units proposed
for location within the mobile home park to ensure compliance with the acoustical
performance standards of Section 30.2.5.] and 8 [No plan of development shall be
submitted for review until the necessary easements and/or right-of-way acquisition for
the Route 606 entrance have been obtained.] of the original conditions are no longer
necessary because the property no longer lies within the airport noise impact area and
because the Rt. 606 right-of-way easement has been obtained. He explained that staff
had not deleted these two conditions in order to "provide continuity" and so as not to
create confusion as to why 2 conditions had been deleted. He said the conditions could
be deleted as there was no need for them to remain. He recommended the addition of
the following condition: Approval of the special use permit shall expire on January 1,
1996, unless the use or activity is commenced in accord with Section 31.2.4.4 prior to
January 1, 1996.
Ms. Imhoff asked why this item had not come back as an extension request, rather than
a new request. Mr. Keeler explained an extension request had originally been
scheduled to be heard by both the Commission and the Board prior to July 14th (the
expiration date). However, an error in the notification process (on the part of the
County), prevented the Board from being able to hear the item prior to the 14th. Mr.
Keeler pointed out that the request for an extension had been received with adequate
time for the item to have been scheduled.
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission. He said he was in
agreement with the staff report. He explained the reason the project had been
delayed was because it took 9 months for the right-of-way to be acquired from the
airport (12/93 to 9/94) and then it had taken another 4 1/2 months (11/94 to 3/95) to get
the issue of the Rt. 606 speed limit resolved by VDOT. The plan could not move
forward while the right-of-way acquisition process was taking placing and was thus "in
limbo for 9 months." He said: "So out of the 2 years, we were dead in the water for 1
year and 2 months of this process." He said he was anxious to move the project
forward. He said he has received tentative approvals from everyone. He asked that
condition No. 2 [Planning Commission approval of final site plan.] be deleted so that
staff could approve the final site plan administratively. He said allowing administrative
approval would eliminate further delay.
Public comment was invited.
M
E9
7-18-95 3
The following people addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the
proposal: Karen Strickland (Earlysville resident); John Sweeny, Sr. (Earlysville
resident); William Sipe; Charles Trachta (Woodbrook resident - Attachment A); John
MacDonald (Forest Lakes Transportation and Land Use Committee); Susan Butler
(Earlysville resident); Cynthia Hash (Forest Lakes resident); Denise Gaines; Matthew
Darby; and Jack Kidd. Their reasons for opposition were as follows:
--The Board of Supervisors took the planning process out of the hands of the
Commission and the staff for this particular project because of the desire to have
sewer extended to the airport.
--The public has been "left out of the negotiations."
--It is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.
--Increased traffic on Rts. 606 and 743 will compound problems on already
dangerous roads. It will be many years before Rt. 743 is improved.
--How will this type of "temporary housing" impact an already burdened school
system?
--Additional burden on emergency services.
--The close proximity to the airport and the associated danger of plane crashes.
--The Hollymead Community should be looked at "as a complete entity."
--Increased traffic at an already dangerous intersection (at the airport).
--This type of housing is not really "affordable."
--The County has an obligation to keep "designated growth areas" attractive.
This design should be rejected and the County should hire someone to design this
community.
--This property will not be accessible by public transportation, which is an
important factor for low-income residents.
Mr. Trachta also read a letter from the residents of Raintree which expressed support
for the Earlysville residents' position. That letter is made a part of this record as
Attachment B.
Some speakers described problems in existing mobile home parks in the County, e.g.
small setbacks, lack of parking, poorly maintained roads. Mr. Keeler later explained
that those parks all pre -date the Zoning Ordinance and current regulations governing
mobile home parks are at least as strict, and in some instances stricter, than with
conventional residential developments. For instance, distance between units in some
subdivisions is 12 feet, whereas in mobile home parks it is 30 feet.
Ms. Hash suggested that if the request is approved, extra buffer and landscaping
should be allowed. Clear cutting should be kept to a minimum,;endangered species
should be protected; and the speed limit on Rt. 606 should be reduced.
[NOTE: At the end of Ms. Strickland's comments, Mr. Davis corrected a statement
made by Ms. Strickland, i.e. "If this mobile home use is denied, the property does not
,5/y
7-18-95 4
revert back to RA." The proffer was that it would be used as a mobile home park for 15
years. The rezoning cannot revert without a legislative action taking place. So if the
mobile home park was denied, you would have a piece of property with a proffer which
says it is to be used for a mobile home park and because it was not being used for that
it would have to be dealt with in some other fashion."]
Mr. Wood was allowed a final statement. He objected to this project being described as
a "trailer park." He said many of the statements made by the public were "absolutely
false." He stressed that this type of housing is regulated by both the State and local
code and is built to the same standards as houses in existing subdivisions such as
Forest Lakes, Earlysville Forest and Glenmore. He said the density proposed (4
units/acre) is less than in some townhouse subdivisions (e.g. Briarwood = 12
units/acre). He felt the basis for opposition to this proposal was totally the "not in my
backyard" way of thinking. He questioned the motives of speakers who said they were
trying to "protect" low-income people.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Wood if the property will be clear cut. Mr. Wood responded: "It
will not be clear cut. That's expensive to do. We won't do it. ... It will be a minimal (cut)
situation. The park has been laid out to conform to the contours of the land." Ms.
Huckle asked if the plan on display was final. Mr. Fritz explained that the plan on
display was the original and had been used because the staff report refers to that plan.
He added, however, that the plan which is currently under review, is "in general
compliance with the original plan and is one phase of that plan." Mr. Wood added that
some road alignments have been changed to meet Code requirements.
Ms. Vaughan asked if the term "property owner'in condition #5 [Maintenance of
recreation facilities shall be theresponsibility of the property owner in accord with
Section 4.16.3.2.1 refers to the owner of the mobile home park, or the individual owners
of the mobile homes. Mr. Fritz explained that the "property owner" is the person who
owns the park.
Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to compare mobile home park requirements to
requirements for an R-4 development. Mr. Keeler explained that the current regulations
were developed in 1986. They differ from single family requirements "only as to
peculiar aspects that might be present in mobile home parks, such as a central laundry
building, etc., but in terms of setbacks and normal regulations that apply to a single
family dwelling, there is no significant difference. Mr. Nitchmann said: So, if this land
was zoned R-4, four individual units per acre would be allowed." Mr. Keeler responded:
"Yes, sir, and you could put them closer together if the fire flow is adequate. ...There
are also requirements for a developed outside area on each lot, and similar things
which don't apply to single family developments. There are probably more regulations
for a mobile home park than for a single family development." Mr. Nitchmann asked:
"Is the parking more restrictive or less restrictive?" Mr. Fritz responded: "If it were
_S�2Q
7-18-95 5
submitted as a single family, detached, subdivision plat, the ordinance does not
address on -site parking, but in a mobile home park it does require parking be provided
on the mobile home lot (2 spaces per unit) as well as recreational vehicle parking (1
parking space per 10 units)."
[NOTE: Commission comments, from this point, are transcribed in detail.]
IMHOFF: "I have been torn by this project and there is a whole way of thinking about
it which I was not part of and there is a lot of history which precedes us on this. In its
favor, it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and it does provide a housing
opportunity that is, to some degree, unmet in the County. I am always looking for
ways to have density in the urban area where it is served by water and sewer and I
believe that manufactured housing projects can be very attractive and can be well
done. On the other side, to say this is not an ideal site is a real understatement.
Everything that I would not want a residential property to have, whether it is
manufactured or any other kind of housing --(including) its close proximity to the
airport --says to me that what we should be using this propperty for is Light Industrial
or Office Park Development or regional attractions of micro -industries. The fact that
the property is isolated and will make people incredibly auto dependent and is not
linked to other residential areas really concerns me. The traffic on Airport Road for
this level of residential development concerns me. I am very torn by what message to
send on to the Board of Supervisors. ... I truly question whether the Comp Plan R-15
N%'" designation is appropriate on this piece of land, but I have been trying to weigh these
issues."
HUCKLE: "I feel this is an inappropriate placement for what is, at best, a questionable
facility. ... I ask, is it humane to subject people and children to noise and pollution
from planes simply due to their need for affordable housing? Is it sensible for people
to invest their money in housing which depreciates so rapidly that in a few years they
will have little equity? Is this really affordable? Is it sensible for the County to
subsidize this facility by providing schools at over $5,000/year/pupil when the average
tax returns last year on trailers were $25.14/year? Would the County be wiser to put
these subsidies into helping low income people buy real houses which appreciate in
value and will provide taxes to help pay school costs? Some localities help low-
income families with downpayments or closing costs for existing homes. Rt. 606 and
743 are overused at the present time and very dangerous. ... I can't support this now
any more than I could before."
Mr. Blue read a letter of support for the project from the Piedmont Environmental
Council (Mr. Clark).
Ms. Huckle called attention to the letter from the Airport Authority which said that the
approval for the right-of-way had taken place in September, 1994. She felt the
applicant had had sufficient time since then to proceed. She pointed out that Mr.
Clark
-2l
7-18-95 6
had not seen the Airport Authority letter when the PEC letter was written.
Mr. Blue asked: "And do you think that changes PEC's support?" Ms. Huckle
responded: "I don't know. I'm just pointing out there is that discrepancy."
IMHOFF: She had concerns about the temporary nature of the park and what will
happen to the residents if the park closes at the end of the 15 year period. She
wondered if provisions are being made in the Comprehensive Plan for those people to
be able to move elsewhere. Mr. Keeler said the 15 years was a requirement placed on
the permit by the Count. He did not recall that the applicant had ever said that the park
would be closed at the end of the 15 year period. Mr. Benish recalled that the Board
had been concerned that the park might only exist for 4 or 5 years without a time limit,
whereas staffs position had been if there were no time limit, then the park would be
considered as permanent and any change in use would require an amendment to the
Comp Plan. The Board felt 15 years was a reasonable amount of time. No
consideration has been given to what will happen, in the 16th year, if that site is lost.
Ms. Huckle recalled there had been discussion at that time about a small mobile home
park in the City which had closed and it had been very difficult for those residents to
relocate.
NITCHMANN: "Two years ago I supported this for a number of reasons. The key
reason, which I still believe today, is that this IS an affordable housing issue. ...
(Research done at local banks) says that (a lot of) people who are just starting out in
life can afford these. I've had some experiences with mobile home parks and the ones
I've had experience with are not the ones we see in this County. They are kept up and
the people are proud of their homes. They provide many different people, young and
old, with a safe place to live. Looking at the applicant's background, and some of his
other trailer parks, I have to believe that he, as a businessman, will have to keep this
looking nice or it will not continue to be a profitable item for him. It has received Airport
and VDOT approvals. The development restrictions on a mobile home park are more
restrictive than for R-4, and taking all those things into consideration, I continue to
support this. I haven't seen anything here tonight that changes my mind. It is
unfortunate this has been delayed so long because there are people out there who
might have a home today if this had proceeded faster. Because of those reasons I am
going to recommend approval...."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Vaughan, that SP-95-25
for Wendall Wood/United Land Corporation, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval, subject to conditions in staff report, including addition of No.
10 as stated previously in this record. (Motion did not include the deletion of conditions
3 and 8 as had been suggested by staff nor did it delete the requirement for
l Commission review of the final site plan.)
�.a2eZ
7-18-95
Comments made after the motion:
7
HUCKLE: This project was originally justified as providing low-cost housing and there
has been much talk, as there was again tonight, criticizing those opposing this use as
treating low and moderate income families as second-class citizens. To the contrary,
feel that those who support this use are saying, effect, let's put low and moderate
income priced housing under the flight path. These people don't deserve anything
better."
VAUGHAN: "I take a different view. I do have some concerns about safety, but then I
look at it from the aspect that this does give another form of housing, not necessarily
low-income, but another form of housing. Though many comments referred to this as a
trailer park, my notes say we are discussing a mobile home park. I see there is a
difference between the two. I understand the restrictions on this mobile home park will
be higher than some subdivisions. One speaker addressed the issue of
'attractiveness.' Does attractiveness only mean a Forest Lakes or Glenmore?
Attractiveness can also mean clean and neat. I believe the developer in this instance is
going the extra mile and I hope other developers will do the same. He has spent two
years working on this. The delays occurred --why or whose fault is not important. They
occurred and now he has come to us, in good faith, to help him continue with the
project. I think we have to start somewhere in this County (to provide affordable
housing), because it's not there."
IMHOFF: "This has been very difficult because I do think the County has an obligation
to provideaffordable housing. I just don't think this is the site to do it. I think it has all
the wrong reasons for being residential property, and for that reason I will be voting
against it."
BLUE: "The reason I am going to vote for this tonight --well there are several. There
were many questions asked tonight by the residents of the area that it is not our
responsibility to answer, but they have actually already been answered in the staff
report. They are available. If they have not been answered, I am sure staff can answer
them, and will. I believe that it is not necessarily the most ideal place for a mobile home
park, but you have to take what you can get, and the most ideal place, for many
reasons, primarily financial and availability, is not going to be there and I think this is the
best we can get. I agree it is probably not affordable housing to a lot of people, but,
nevertheless, you have to admit, regardless of what the interest rates are or what the
payments come out, there are an awful lot of people who can only afford to live in a
mobile home park, at least initially, and for those reasons, I think it is essential that we
provide this opportunity for them to have this park. I do think the traffic problem that
has been mentioned is going to happen and, unfortunately, the schools are going to get
crowded, but that happens every time we approve something. It is almost impossible to
,,, get the County, supported by the taxpayers, to approve money for schools in advance
8 a5
Elm
7-18-95
of the needs, or roads in advance of the needs. It is just a fact of life. So even though I
sympathize, I think staff and the applicant have done a good job, together with VDOT,
to try to solve these problems as much as they can be solved at this time. I am going to
support the motion.
The motion for approval passed (3:2) with Commissioners Blue, Vaughan and
Nitchmann voting in favor, and Commissioners Huckle and Imhoff voting against.
(Commissioners Dotson and Jenkins were absent from the meeting.)
WORK SESSION
Comprehensive Plan - Review of Land Use Map Changes Including Growth Area
Expansion
Mr. Benish presented information on revisions to the land use map, specifically
expansions to the designated Growth Areas and public requests for changes to existing
land use designations.
Neighborhoods 1, 2 and 3 were covered.
Public comment was invited. Comment was offered by the following property owners
who have made requests for changes in land use for their property: Mr. Lynn Hartman;
Mr. Jim Hill (Virginia Land Company); Mr. Steve Blain (representing Ray Graham,
owner of Edgehill); Stephanie Kerr (Rt. 29 South Land Trust).
Mr. Nitchmann had received letters from landowners in the Rt. 20 South area who were
interested in having their property included in the growth area. He presented copies of
those letters to staff.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
V. Wayne imberg, S ry
I
61�
cm
Work Session 7-18-95 / 5:15 p.m.
WORK SESSION
1
The Commission continued discussion of the Land Use Plan (which had started at a
work session on July 11th). Discussion began at page 10.
Pagel (last sentence of third paragraph) For those parcels extending from Growth
Areas into the Rural Areas, development of the Rural Area portion should not exceed
Rural Area densities - Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was a process which would allow
the increase of the rural area densities which would not require a full Comp Plan
amendment, e.g. if the land was contiguous to the growth area." Mr. Blue said he had
had this same thought, but because this could significantly change the growth area he
was not sure that would be desirable without going through the Comp Plan amendment
process. Mr. Blue said, however, that it would be simple for the landowner to change
the parcel boundary. Mr. Nitchmann felt "if something makes good common sense
there should be another path to take rather than a Comp Plan review." Ms. Imhoff
suggested that perhaps those properties could be identified now. Mr. Blue thought and
identification process would be time-consuming. Ms. Huckle felt it should continue to
be approached on a case -by -case basis as it is now.
Page 12
No. 1 -...gross density not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. - Ms. Imhoff said she
was hesitant to put caps unless there was a reason to do so. She said she could
"potentially live with higher density, depending on how it is designed." After hearing
staffs explanation, Ms. Imhoff said she felt the statement "probably didn't say enough."
She said she was struggling with what the base density should be if water and sewer
are available. She wanted to avoid suburbanization of both the urban and village
areas." She felt more guidance should be given to the effect that "we are looking at 4-6
or 4-8 dwelling units/acre. She said she could envision creating villages "with one
house per acre and providing water and sewer, which doesn't contribute to a village nor
to affordable housing." She asked if there should be a statement about a minimum
density. Mr. Blue felt such an approach could put more pressure on rural land and "if
the possibility of a village area is eliminated... then where is that purpose going to go."
Ms. Imhoff said she gets frustrated with the idea that "if you get any density, all of
sudden you have eliminated any yards or ability to have a garden." Mr. Blue said Ms.
Imhoff was exaggerating his point. Ms. Imhoff said if this document (the Comp Plan) is
meant to be used as a guide, then we should be giving more a directive that we want
our villages to function as villages and, as a guide, we would like for the density to
range from --whatever-- e.g. 2 du/acre to 6 du/acre. Don't say that you aren't going to
allow it to be less than that, but give them some sense that it is going to be more to
village scale." Mr. Blue said that some people think that Village scale implies Rural
Residential and what Ms. Imhoff is describing does not have that same meaning.
3a
09
M
Work Session 7-18-95 / 5:15 p.m. 2
Some other district would be needed for a rural residential. Ms. Imhoff disagreed. She
pointed out that Forest Lakes is 1.9 du/acre and does not look like a village. She felt
"we are missing the point as to what villages are supposed to do." Mr. Blue said Ms.
Imhoff was trying to change the philosophy of many people who live here and he felt
that was wrong. Ms. Huckle thought the Villages were transitional areas between
suburban residential and rural. Ms. Huckle felt increasing the density would create the
need for the support structure (stores, gas stations, banks, etc.) to be increased. Ms.
Imhoff said: "Village is not a transition to the rural area. My concern is, the way we are
setting up villages right now, we are going to end up at the low end unless we either
say we want this to come in at least at a Forest Lakes density or ... (sentence
incomplete)." Ms. Huckle suggested that the statement remain as written "and see
what happens."
No. 4 - Mr. Blue felt this was an especially good statement.
Ms. Imhoff suggested there should be a statement saying that villages should go into
areas with existing adequate roads, low impacts on viewsheds, and areas which are in
compliance with the Open Space elements. She described these as "limiting factors."
Page 13
No. 6 - Ms. Huckle wanted designated Village Growth Areas to be changed to "any
future Village Growth Areas."
No. 8 - It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those
already living and owning property in the area. Ms. Huckle called attention to this
statement in relation to the Crozet residents and in consideration of the work they had
done on their community plan.
(Ms. Imhoff suggested that some of her previous comments could be included in No. 8)
Page 14
Ms. Imhoff said she had a "big concern" about setting up just 2 residential districts. She
said: "I think by not having a minimum density (for areas served by) water and sewer in
the urban area, we are going to end up with a lot of Forest Lakes type density, which
will consume the urban area. I can see some areas of 1-2 dwelling units/acre because it
is a transitional area, but I would like to see us discuss getting more of the urban area
at least in the range of 4-6 dwelling units/acre." She asked everyone to think about
the following approach: "What if we said in the Comp Plan, we'd really like to see the
urban area --color the map --with most of this land at 4 dwelling units/acre. If you want to
go below 4 units/acre, you can do it if you're doing planned residential development or
you can get a special permit, or there can be another process where you ask to go
CTI
cm
Work Session 7-18-95 / 5:15 p.m.
3
lower, but send the message with the Comp Plan that we are trying to build an urban
area."
Ms. Huckle asked if there was some way to tie the density to the topography of the
land.
Mr. Nitchmann said that developer's requests for certain densities will be market driven.
Mr. Benish pointed out that no limitations are proposed on net densities. He also said
that all the major expansion areas will have statements saying that "we will consider the
higher, moderate densities within those areas, under a Planned Development
approach." Ms. Imhoff said she thought that was particularly important for expansion
areas 4 and 5.
Mr. Blue asked if there were any further comments about the proposed two residential
densities (low and moderate). Mr. Nitchmann said he preferred 1 - 8 dwelling
units/acre, but he wanted to hear the public's comments on the issue. Mr. Blue said: "I
feel we're trying to fool them in calling it moderate. Mr. Blue felt County residents
have long had an understanding of what they think low density means, and it is not
what is proposed here.
Ms. Imhoff suggested the possibility of using terms other than "low" and "moderate."
She suggested: Neighborhood Density 1-6; Urban Density 6 or greater. Ms. Huckle
said she thought that was a good idea. Ms. Huckle again repeated her feeling that
design is the crux of the issue, i.e. with good design you can make 6 or 8 du/acre look
good; with bad design, 2 du/acre can be objectionable."
Page 15
(Next to last sentence in first paragraph) Typical primary uses should be identified for
each designation, with appropriate secondary uses, which would be limited to certain
percentages of the designated area, also identified. Ms. Huckle asked how the
percentages are determined. Staff said the percentages are defined either in the
Zoning Ordinance or can be found in Table 46. He said: "Usually, the subordinate
uses do not exceed 20-30%."
Ms. Imhoff said she had been unable to locate any Neighborhood Service on the map.
Ms. Imhoff asked if staff had discussed indicating Neighborhood Service for
Neighborhoods 4 and 5. Mr. Nitchmann thought it should be indicated so that potential
buyers in those areas would be aware of the location of those areas.
S,�7
gn
Work Session 7-18-95 / 5:15 p.m.
Page 16
4
Ms. Imhoff asked if any thought had been given to mobile home parks in transitional
zones. Mr. Benish said he did not recall there having been any thought of allowing
mobile homes in transitional areas. Both Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Nitchmann favored the
inclusion of a statement "somewhere" about mobile home parks. Mr. Blue suggested
they could be added to the third statement under the Transitional heading.
Page 17
Industrial Service - Ms. Huckle questioned the term water and/or sewer availability in
the third statement. She pointed out that all other references have required water and
sewer. She said: "If something is a major employment center, it presumably may have
some sort of discharge from its manufacturing process. It is very important that it be
served by sewer. If it is to be a major employment center, a lot of people will need
facilities." Mr. Blue asked why and/or had been used. Mr. Nitchmann suggested
deletion of or, saying that he could not imagine an industrial site without water and
sewer. (No objections were expressed to removal of the word or.)
There were no objections to the deletion of the Office/Regional Service category as
s*4W presented in the report.
Page 18
Mr. Nitchmann asked where the definition of truck stops should be included. He felt this
should be addressed somewhere. There was support for Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion.
Page 19
Interstate Interchange Development - There was a brief discussion about the minimum
separation distances proposed (from interstate ramps). Staff explained that the
distance is different for the Fifth Street ramp because a use is already in existence at a
distance of 800 feet. Ms. Imhoff said: "I think it would be worth being consistent and
just recognize that there is one that will not conform because it is existing."
Miscellaneous
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the document would include a section of definitions. He
specifically asked about the difference between a community and a village. (It was
pointed out that the characteristics of both communities and villages were listed on
page 11.) Ms. Huckle suggested there should be a numerical standard for villages, i.e.
"maximum number of inhabitants." There was a lengthy discussion about the definition
M
Work Session 7-18-95 / 5:15 p.m.
5
of village. Staff was to work further with the definition to see if scale could be more
clearly defined by population, land area, etc.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the potential location of a future connector road between Avon
Street and 5th Street could be shown on the land use map.
Mr. Benish asked for a clarification of the Commission's final recommendation on the
issue of making waivers for critical slopes an administrative process (page 9),
particularly the sentence stating Make review of critical slopes waivers an administrative
process. The issue had been discussed at the July 11th work session. He asked if the
Commission had decided to delete the statement completely or rather had it been
decided to amend it to say Consider making the review of critical slopes waivers an
administrative process." Ms. Huckle was in favor of deleting the statement, though she
was not opposed to "simple" requests being placed on the Consent Agenda. Ms.
Imhoff thought the statement had been deleted and the recommendation had been to
"make the language conform to more general with recommendations elsewhere in the
section." Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about those projects which, because of the
need for a critical slope waiver, then become "open for scrutiny from anybody who
wants to shoot it down for reasons other than critical slopes.' Mr. Blue anticipated that
this issue will require "an up or down vote" on the part of theCommission. Ms. Huckle
questioned the staffs ability to determine the slope accurately based on topographic
maps. (No definitive direction was given to staff.)
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing PEC, read an article entitled "Discarding Outdated
Ideas" taken from a publication of the National Association of Home Builders.
Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, said he did not want to rely on "common sense" for
determining growth area expansion. He was in favor of definitive standards for growth
area adjustments. He reminded the Commission that the Crozet report had
recommended that the medium density in Crozet be moved to the areas which feed into
Rt. 250 but the County said that was not possible because the owners of that land have
expectations as to how it can be developed. So now, when discussing the possibility of
"increasing density", the same reasoning should apply, i.e. "the people who bought
adjoining that land had the same expectations. He agreed that, with proper design,
some higher density infill development would be acceptable. He said he thought the
biggest flaw in the proposed Land Use Plan is the lack of "outcomes and
measurements." Exclusion of these two components may mean that by the time
damage is apparent in the growth areas, it will be irreparable, and "it is the community
that pays." He said he could not find any references in the Plan to community
involvement, nor are there any references to how recently completed community plans
Work Session 7-18-95 / 5:15 p.m.
In
are to be used in land use decisions.
Ms. Karen Strickland, representing the Earlysville Area Residents' League, said she felt
the definitions for low and moderate densities deserve to be "argued." She did not think
citizens of the County will envision moderate density as being an urban density. She
felt the suggestion for an Urban Neighborhood was a good one because she felt that is
better understood by most people. She felt item No. 7, under the Village heading, was
very good, because she felt "this is the type of place where people like to live."
The work session ended at 6:45 p.m.
IR
5 30