HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 25 1995 PC Minutes7-25-95
JULY 25, 1995
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July
25, 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; 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; Ms.
MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr.
Pete Anderson, UVA Representative.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of July 11, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the July 19th Board of Supervisors
meeting.
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Property described as
Tax Map 28, Parcel 7, contains approximately 60 acres, and is located on the west side
*4w� of Rt. 671 (Ballards Mill Road) at the intersection of Rt. 821 (Blufton Mill Road), north of
Millington.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
There was neither applicant nor public comment.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Addition to the
Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Comprehensive Plan - Continuation of Review of Land Use Map Changes
Including Growth Area Expansion
Mr. Benish led the continued discussion of the Neighborhoods. Using the Land Use
Map he pointed out areas proposed for change including requests which were received
from the public.
7-25-95
Commission comments included the following:
Neighborhood 3
At Mr. Nitchmann's request, there was further discussion of the property located in front
of Westminster Canterbury, adjacent to Flynn's restaurant (Rt. 250E), for which staff is
recommending that the R-15 zoning remain. He questioned the compatibility of R-15
zoning with the retirement community. He suggested this property might be better for a
transitional type of support office uses. Ms. Imhoff noted that the new transitional
designation which is under consideration can include high density residential as well as
office uses. She felt there is a real need for high density residential and this is one of
the few neighborhoods where there is at least some limited capacity for that. Mr.
Dotson felt there was some benefit to having additional residential in this area because
it will support the commercial uses. Mr. Benish said staff had not envisioned this area
for transitional zoning. Mr. Dotson thought the area on the north side of Rt. 250 might
be possible for transitional because he viewed this area as being "different" from the
rest of the area.
Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that there will not be multi -story buildings in front of
Westminster Canterbury.
*00Mr. Blue asked if there would be further opportunity for those property owners who
have requested changes to their property's zoning to make additional comments. Mr.
Benish confirmed that there will be opportunity for further discussion during the public
meetings which will take place this Fall. He said that the Commission will probably
have to take formal action on those properties where there is no consensus.
Neighborhoods 4 and 5
Mr. Benish said the biggest issue in these neighborhoods is the large quantity of acres,
2,020, which are shown for expansion. Two requests for inclusion in the growth area
were received from the owners of Somerset Farms and the Jessup property. Those
two properties have not been recommended for expansion because staff feels that the
areas shown on the map are a higher priority for growth area expansion at this time.
Mr. Benish confirmed that the Jessup property is presently landlocked, though there is
potential for connection through the Redfields development. He also confirmed that
staff had been able to locate the target number of acres (actually more) for expansion
without the Somerset or Jessup properties.
Mr. Blue felt that further additions to the acreage would make the in -fill problem worse,
i.e. "if we continue to make expansion areas larger than we really need for the next five
years, then we will not help our in -fill problem."
3 a Ig---
7-25-95 3
Ms. Imhoff stated: "1 have been very reluctant to see a lot added to the urban area
and I think the staff exceeded my comfort level. But I do agree with the deletions that
the staff has recommended with the land on the east side of Rt. 20 and, at least at
this point, not considering the Jessup property. I am' somewhat more comforted that
there will be some guidance in the Comprehensive Plan language that when we are
looking at the land uses in Neighborhoods 4 and 5, hopefully people will understand
that it is not all going to come in at neighborhood density residential, that we will have
urban densities and we will have mixed uses. I want this to be clear for both citizens
and the development community."
Ms. Huckle called attention to the following statement in the land Use Plan: Guiding
principles for land use planning rely on adequate and functional transportation and
utilities. She said: "To me that means that I can't support more land being added to
the growth areas on the North 29 area. The citizens survey showed that people don't
want more growth in the Rt. 29 area. The reason for my reluctance to support (growth
in the North 29 area) is we only have one road and until we have some accessory
roads that take traffic off of Rt. 29, 1 would like to see some growth in other parts of
the county. The southern part, being very close to 164 and having water and sewer
available seems attractive as an alternative to the area on 29 North, so I would not
like to foreclose any thought about that southern area."
Ms. Huckle said she had visited the Jessup property and found it to be very beautiful.
She wondered if this might be an alternative location for people who like to develop in
the rural areas who might be looking for a view or a certain size lot.
Mr. Nitchmann said he did not necessarily agree with setting a certain acreage
(whether it is 3,100 or 3,900) for expansion. He favored an approach of "what makes
good sense" in terms of 7-10 years in the future. He said: "If the infrastructure is in
that area (Neighborhoods 4 and 5) to service it, then I think we should make it as
large as the property owners would like it to be.... I also feel the larger the growth
area is, and if it is a planned growth area, the value of that land will not be as fought
over if the area is larger." Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the Somerset property has
a mile of road frontage, is only 1,800 feet from sewer, 1,500 feet from a public bus
stop, and will be very close to the new high school. He felt this property could be
developed in a price range that would be affordable for the first-time home buyer.
Addressing Mr. Nitchmann's comments, Ms. Imhoff said: "Speaking against some of
those attributes --if we say we want to put growth where there is infrastructure to
support it --we have there a very non -tolerable road. It is also a State Scenic Highway.
1, personally, think that the idea that the staff has here, kind of hard -edged planning,
where you are going to have high and medium density on one side of the road, but
keep it rurat on the other, I think it works extremely well. I don't know where you draw
833
7-25-95 4
the line, but I am certainly not real excited about putting more traffic on Rt. 20 and
seeing houses go up to the 700-foot elevation on that roadway entrance to
Monticello."
Mr. Nitchmann asked what criteria make Rt. 20 a non -tolerable road, because "if it is,
we better start scaling back the rest of the growth area on it --we talking about 2,600
homes here."
Ms. Imhoff felt staff was trying to do that by pulling more traffic off of Rt. 20 with more
east -west connections and north -south connections.
Mr. Dotson commented: "One of the limitations here --we are sort of flying blind in
terms of traffic information. i have a lot of concerns about growth area increases to
the north, just as Ms. Huckle does. At this point we have little or no traffic information
as to what that means, or about the consequences or the alternatives. It seems to me
that Rt. 20 south is going to change. It is not going to stay the scenic road that it is
now, so there may be additional capacity down there. I think the addition of the new
high school is a real landmark facility that ought to influence our thinking." He asked
staff: "Have you thought about what the residential density designation might be if this
were, some or all of it, to be included (the area east of Rt. 20). Would it mirror the
area west of Rt. 20?" (Mr. Benish said he thought it would probably be mixed with low
density on part and higher density in the narrower part, to maximize the development
potential and keep it off the critical slope areas.)
Mr. Dotson asked if a Rural Preservation Development approach would result in
"density being taken off the hillside and pulled down to the road?" Mr. Benish said
staff would emphasize mountain protection with an RPD. Mr. Dotson asked if a Rural
Preservation Development would achieve close to a neighborhood density. Mr. Blue
responded: "Nowhere near."
Mr. Nitchmann noted that the Somerset property is not in the Monticello viewshed.
Mr. Nitchmann did not want this property to be "written off." He pointed out that it has
a developer willing to develop it in the 1-6 du/acre density range. He also noted that
the developer has offered to limit access points to Rt. 20 to three, whereas by -right
development could result in many more.
Mr. Jenkins asked if it was possible to add just these two properties on the east side
of Rt. 20, without having to designate others on the same side. Mr. Benish said it is
possible but then it becomes difficult to come up with logical boundaries.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed the hope that the maps which will be used in the public
meetings will have the public request areas more clearly designated. Mr. Cilimberg
suggested that those areas which are still being deliberated can also be shown on the
33�
7-25-95
maps. Ms. Imhoff felt it was very important to show where other potential expansion
areas are located.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Commission's comments: "What we heard is there is a
pretty good consensus for the area that staff did recommend in 4 and 5 and outside of
that, properties along Rt. 20--the Somerset and Jessup properties --have not yet been
decided upon."
Mr. Nitchmann said it is important to also plan for commercial areas at this time to
serve this area 4 and 5 expansion, so that future property owners will know that there
could some day be a small regional shopping center in the area.
Public comment was invited for Neighborhoods 3, 4 and 5.
Mr. Andrew Drucopoli, representing the Worrell Land and Cattle Company, addressed
the Commission. He expressed the fear that if a designation is made on a map, "that
will become everybody's view of what it is supposed to be." He reminded the
Commission that the approved plan for Peter Jefferson Place has considerable
flexibility in terms of the exact location of the residential, office, etc. He was reluctant
for areas to be designated as specific uses when the ultimate arrangement might be
different. He said his concern about the residential part of the site, on Frontage Road,
is that the proposed changes in residential descriptions will not fit the current
categories. He said he was reluctant to see a reduction in the current approved
density (medium 1-10 du/acre). He felt the time the density should be set for that part
of the property is when it comes in for rezoning. The traffic can be studied at that
time. He felt it is premature to set the density lower than is currently allowed.
Mr. Hunter Wood, representing Somerset Farm, addressed the Commission. He said
the request is for 220 acres of a 400 acre tract to be included in the growth area
("everything below 700 foot elevation"). The developer believes that affordable housing
could be achieved on the property, given the fact that sewer and water are readily
available. He confirmed the property is not in Monticello's viewshed and there are no
significant critical slope areas in the 220 acres. He said the developer is willing to
limit entrances onto Rt. 20 to three to four. (10-12 could be achieved by -right.)
Mr. Gayland Beights, representing Redfields Development Corp., addressed the
Commission. He commented on two issues.
(1) He asked that 40 additional acres of the Redfields property, which was
excluded from the "urban ring" previously, be included in the growth area at this time.
(Mr. Benish said staff has already recommended that this property be added to the
growth area.)
(2) He asked that the Jessup property be added to the growth area and viewed
as a logical extension of Redfields. He presented plans showing how the two
7-25-95
properties could be connected. He felt approximately 300 of the 580 acres would be
developable at a density similar to the existing Redfields (1.7 du/acre).
Mr. Steve Runkle addressed the Commission. He agreed that Mr. Beights proposal
for the addition of the Jessup property was reasonable. He also felt it was important
to consider that many of the properties staff has included in their proposed expansion
areas are not likely to be developed in the next five years.
Crozet
Referring to a public request for the addition of 237 acres to the growth area, Mr.
Jenkins said that he did not think the need for additional residential designation could
be justified, given the amount of property already designated for residential growth.
Both Commissioners Blue and Huckle agreed.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Carroll Connolly, President of the J. Bruce Barnes Lumber Yard, addressed the
Commission. He asked that the Commission support staffs recommendation that the
lumber yard property be re -designated as Industrial Service, so that the use will be
conforming.
Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission. He was opposed to
the request for the addition of 237 acres of residential for the same reason stated by
Mr. Jenkins. He expressed support for Mr. Connolly's request.
Mr. Paul McClure, a Crozet resident, addressed the issue of the 237 acres. He said:
"We may not need it now, but if we do need it, I don't think the road should be the
dividing point."
There was determined to be a consensus that the request for the 237 acres was
premature and should not be included in the growth area at this time.
Hollymead and Piney Mountain
Though Ms. Huckle agreed that it was inevitable that the areas under consideration for
expansion will need to be developed at some future time, she questioned whether
they need to be designated at this time. She said: "My feeling is if there isn't more
land designated in the 29 North area, it might motivate some of these owners to
(participate) in improving the roadway system."
Ms. Imhoff said she looks at it differently than Ms. Huckle. She said: "I see all this
Industrial Service land that we have designated and (we keep discussing) wanting to
put housing close to where our jobs are, even though we are finding out that people
,3 3(
7-25-95
Wftw put housing close to where our jobs are, even though we are finding out that people
don't necessarily work and live in the same neighborhood. I think we need to have
some discussion about having more residential capacity. One of my questions to staff
was 'How built out is Hollymead already; is there 5-year capacity; or do we need to be
adding this land to meet those needs?"'
Ms. Imhoff suggested it might be advantageous if the Land Use Plan does not show
areas as being developable if they are, in reality, non -developable.
Mr. Dotson said he would prefer that there not be any more commercial areas
designated close to the Greene County line. He said Greene needs to develop more
community and neighborhood service so that Greene residents will not have to come
to Albemarle to shop.
Mr. Dotson said that though there may still be some question as to how large the
expansion area should be in the Hollymead/Piney Mt. neighborhoods, he said he had
no objection to proceeding to the public meetings with the areas shown.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the road capacity which will ultimately be made available in
the northern part of the county (through the bypass, the Meadow Creek Parkway, and
the widening of Rt. 29) is far greater than in any other direction from the city. He said
that fact must be considered in long term planning.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Fred Gercke, Chairman of the Proffit Community Association, addressed the
Commission. He noted that part of the Peery's farm has been included as growth
area expansion. He said that the Peery's are out of town, but he was certain that they
are opposed to their property being included in the growth area at this time.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Dotson suggested that thought be given to the idea of re -development of existing
commercial areas and what incentives might be identified which would result in re-
development. Mr. Blue questioned how this would be addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dotson was uncertain as to what tools could be used to
accomplish re -development. Mr. Benish said that staff discussions about in -fill
development had included re -development. Mr. Dotson proposed that a more detailed
study and plan be prepared about the commercial areas along 29 north --something at
the level of detail of some of the county/city/university studies of Area B locations. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that such a study would be especially useful in the areas of the
29 North/Hydraulic Road intersection.
g3-7-
7-25-95
Ms. Huckle expressed lhe'fear That by'adding so many acres to the growth area the
idea of in -fill development is being lost. She suggested the smaller developers are the
ones who should be encouraged to do in -fill development.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned'at 9:35 p.m.
M
V.
V. Way ' 'Olimbe a etary
53�