Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 17 1995 PC Minutes10-17-95 Work Session 5:15 WORK SESSION October 17, 1995 (5:15) Present: Commissioners Blue, Nitchmann, Dotson, H-tickle, Jenkins, Imhoff and Vaughan (note: Ms. Vaughan and Ms. Imhoff arrived late.) Staff: Cilimberg and Benish Topics: Finalization of Proposed Land Use Plan to take to Public Hearing Commission Response to Public Comments Decisions to be made by Commission: --Consensus on the acreage proposed for growth (3,200 acres) --As a compromise to the 5-year vs. 20-year debate, should some areas be designated as "future growth area?" (Referring to item 4 in the staff report, Ms. Imhoff said she thought it should be made clear at the public meeting that it refers to "phasing of the existing areas." Mr. Jenkins thought this was more a "policy" issue than a compromise situation.) --Consensus to go to public hearing with two residential land use designations. (Final decision about the low end number to be studied further.) --Consensus on the land use designations for the proposed expansion areas, Should there be "floating" designations for commercial and residential areas? (Mr. Nitchmann said lower end designations do not help the affordable housing issue. He also expressed some concern that a floating commercial designation could lead to development along Rt. 20. He thought it should be made clear that is not the Commission's intent. Ms. Imhoff said she thought it was unfortunate that so much area is being shown at the low density. She preferred to see more urban density, „especially in neighborhoods IV and V." Staff explained they were seeking a consensus from the Commission on the Land Use Plan which was to go to public hearing November 21, 1995. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the status of the review thus far: --No major changes to the Rural Areas development policy will be undertaken. That issue will be discussed during the second phase of the review. (Mr. Blue noted there is no public support for decreasing restrictions in the rural areas at this time nor is there enough political support to tighten restrictions in the rural areas.) General Commission comments: HUCKLE (Note: Because of deficiencies in the recording set-up, some of Ms. Huckle's comments were not audible.) /610 10-17-95 Work Session 5:15 2 Referring to minutes of the public meetings, she noted there had been questions as to why more development is planned for the 29 north area and whether it is necessary to recommend so many acres for expansion (3,250 acres). She questioned why so much effort had been made to gather public comment if the comments are going to be ignored. (Mr. Benish again explained staffs growth management approach: "We limit our growth areas to very limited areas we feel are necessary to accommodate the 20- year time frame. So any time you expand growth areas you will, inevitably, be moving into areas which have not previously been designated for growth. We don't have any transitional areas that are designated for future development --it's either one or the other.") "I hate to see us designating large tracts of rural land and leaving these maybe less desirable pieces because they are more difficult to develop or they don't have as good a view.... If you take rural land and say'this is a growth area,' it is still rural land with a different name.... We're not creating new land we're just calling the old land something else." She pointed out that the Blue Ridge Homebuilders have said it is their goal to build 500 units/year. With an existing capacity of 12,233 units, she wondered why it is necessary to designate so much more land at this time. (Mr. Benish explained that staff focuses on a 20-year planning period rather than a 5-year period.) Ms. Huckle expressed concern about having to make such an important decision in such a short period of time. There was a lengthy discussion about the time frame. Ms. Huckle said her goal was not to limit growth but rather to address topics which have been discussed previously such as in -fill, and whether or not this is a 5-year or a 20- year plan. She said it seemed some of these discussions "had not made much of an impression." She pointed out that it is not possible to know if there will be sufficient water resources in 20 years. "I think 20 years with all those variables unanswered is too long to plan ahead for." She thought the reason in -fill development has not taken place is because new land gets designated for growth so developers are not forced to use some of the less desirable land. JENKINS Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the 3,250 acres has been discussed many times by the Commission and even though the Comp Plan is reviewed every 5 years, it should be as visionary as possible so that infrastructure can be planned for. "The idea that you can limit growth in Albemarle County by making this less acreage, I don't believe is the way to address limiting growth." He said the comments made by the public at the school meetings had not changed his mind. "But when it comes down to it I can only vote based on my experience from the years I've sat here and listened to people in the County and I cannot vote anybody's thoughts but my own." /0/ 10-17-95 Work Session 5:15 NITCHMANN 3 (Addressing Ms. Huckle's comments about the 20-year planning period.) "Even if we don't (know all the answers) at this time, I don't think it is going to stop people from coming here. We need longer term planning." He pointed out the purpose of this meeting is to agree on a proposed plan to take to public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it is time for the Commission to give staff some definitive direction as to what is to be taken to public hearing. He explained that the final decision on the land use plan will come after the public hearing. IMHOFF She said it will have to be stated at the public hearing that there was not unanimous agreement among the Commission on the proposed plan. "I find it very hard, personally, to make a decision about just how much land we should be adding without having some sense of the capacity of the rural areas. That is why I wanted some discussion of the rural areas. I haven't, personally, made a decision as to whether this is the right acreage, I have tended all along to feel it is too much, particularly when the development community says the thing which bumps the price of land up the fastest is having it shown on the Comp Plan (as growth area).... I think we are adding too much land, particularly when I think about how much development potential is in the rural area as well. I have also been pushing getting this voted on before the end of the year. I can live with this so long as it is made clear to the public that this is not the Commission's final recommendation." She suggested that October 31st be used for a work session to discuss the Rural Areas. After hearing some other comments about Ms. Imhoff's suggestion, Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Commission's direction: "What I hear is that you really don't want a full-blown review of the Rural Area as part of this growth area decision. What you want to know is what are the trends and the existing circumstances in the rural area so as you make your growth area decision you know you are doing that with full knowledge of the potential the whole county has for development of lots." Ms. Imhoff responded: "I think that is more what I'm tending towards. That opinion might change depending on what happens at the public meeting, but based on some of the comments I've heard from meetings ... I feel there is a lot of support for being more stringent on rural area protection. I'm not sure I'm convinced it is working quite as well as Tom Blue does, and I need that information in order to determine how far I am willing to expand the urban area." 10A 10-17-95 Work Session 5:15 DOTSON 4 He said it is necessary to make a decision as to the proposed plan so that staff can then complete reports as to the impact of that proposal in terms of traffic, etc. He said he would find it helpful to know how many lots are available in the rural areas. He said: "I'd like to keep that in mind as we think about adding 3,200 acres in the urban area." (Mr. Jenkins added it would be helpful to know "what has been the depletion over the last five years.) Specific Commission comments about the proposed plan displayed by staff: IMHOFF "I (strongly favor) deleting the area on the east side of Rt. 20. 1 don't think that area absorbs enough units for what it is going to do to that road." (Mr. Blue asked her feelings about the Jessup tract.) She said: "I might be willing to trade the Jessup tract to get rid of the stripping of Rt. 20 South." HUCKLE "I would like to see more development in the southern area because there is much better transforation with 164 there. I think it is only fair to spread the growth around and not concentrate it in one area. I can't support, at this time, any more development in the 29 North area, but would support it in the south." (Ms. Imhoff asked if Ms. Huckle supported all the proposed southern area.) Ms. Huckle responded: "I would be willing to delete the area on the east side of 20, but I'd like to see the Jessup property developed." NITCHMANN "I am not willing to support (deletion of the area on the east side of Rt. 20). That, to me, is not stripping. If it was a city -block deep, I would say something, but there is land that is a mile or two of road frontage, very close to bus stops; it is close to water and sewer. It makes good sense to do that. It is out of Monticello's viewshed. It has everything going for it. The land on the road is going to be there. The road is going to have to be upgraded at some point.... You're calling it stripping and I'm not calling it stripping." DOTSON "I can imagine that area being designated like on the north. What I'd like to see is more evaluation of what it means --are we creating a problem on 20? 1 favor leaving it in in /0.3 10-17-95 Work Session 5:15 5 order to be able to analyze it and take it out later." Mr. Dotson clarified he was referring to both the Jessup property and the piece on the east side of Rt. 20. BLUE He agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's position on the southern property. "As far as the north is concerned, I'm satisfied with what we've got (proposed at this time). After the public hearing we can take those comments into consideration and then make the decision. I would recommend leaving it all in there and reserving the right to take it out after we hear from the public or get more information." There was a consensus all the southern properties shown on the proposed plan would remain designated for growth for the public hearing. Two new requests for inclusion in the growth area were discussed briefly. --Commercial area in the Rivanna Village (18 acres) - Mr. Runkle presented a plan showing the location of the proposed area and briefly described the property and the proposal. Ms. Imhoff expressed support for this request because she feels it is important to have internal commercial areas within villages. She perceived there to be public support for the commercial area, given the fact the location is not directly on Rt. 250. --(The location of the second request was not clearly defined.) - Ms. Imhoff commented: "On the other one, which would add to the land area --I feel until we see more fill-in at Rivanna, this is not the time to expand." Mr. Blue said he agreed with Ms. Imhoff on both requests. It was the consensus of the Commission to include the Rivanna commercial area in the plan to go to public hearing. Ms. Imhoff recommended adjacent homeowners and the Glenmore Homeowner's Association be notified of the proposal. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Commission's direction to staff as follows: --"Go to public hearing with the growth area expansion that has been indicated here and we will provide a synopsis of the possibility of not all that getting designated initially, with some being shown as transition or further growth area. We're taking it as a land use plan for the entire area shown for expansion with those areas described, knowing that is not a unanimous decision. That is what you've agreed to go to hearing on. -"Within those expansion areas, we will indicate the opportunity for internalized commercial and we will also make reference to the opportunity for urban density residential and planned development types of approaches." --"That you will use the two residential densities --the neighborhood and urban as shown in this land use plan and the existing neighborhoods would be referenced under 10-17-95 Work Session 5:15 6 the neighborhood density so that there is an indication they are existing at certain densities." "That you want to see two pieces of information before you wrap up your decision making after the public hearing: (1) You want to get information on rural development potential so that you know as you make your final decision on growth area expansion you also know how much potential for rural development is out there; and (2) For the areas shown for expansion, you want to take a look, in some detail, at the traffic impacts of those areas." No Commission objection was expressed to Mr. Cilimberg's summary. Finally, Mr. Cilimberg asked Commissioners if they wished to try to complete the entire Comp Plan Review before the end of the year, or if they wanted to focus on the completion of the Land Use Plan, leaving the second part of the review until after the first of the year. It was the consensus of the Commission that there was not enough time to complete the entire review; therefore, it was better not to begin the second phase. The work session ended at 7:00 p.m.