HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 31 1995 PC Minutes5:15 Work Session 10/31/95
WORK SESSION
October 31, 1995
(5:00 p.m., Room 5-6 County Office Building)
Present: Commissioners Blue, Dotson, Huckle, Imhoff, Jenkins and
Nitchmann
Staff: Benish, Scala
Others: Babette Thorpe (PEC)
Topic: Rural Areas (Development Activity and Development Potential)
Mr. Benish explained that the Piedmont Environmental Council has studied this topic in
detail. Ms. Babette Thorpe gave a presentation which highlighted the findings of PEC.
[NOTE: Many of Ms. Thorpe's comments were unintelligible due to inadequacy of the
recording equipment.] She said all parcels created in the County, in the Rural Areas,
since 1980 had been mapped by PEC. The information gathered indicates two factors
are responsible for the fragmentation of rural land: (1) The exercise of the small lot
rights through by -right development; and (2) Tendency for many lots to be larger than
the 2-acre maximum lot size. She said PEC hopes to present to the Commission,
when it begins looking at the Rural Areas after the first of the year, some
recommendations, working within the current system of development rights, to try to
find ways to conserve farm land. She said a possibility mentioned by some agriculture -
forestry support groups might be to increase the residue acreage from 21 acres to 42
acres.
Ms. Imhoff asked if there were any way to tell how many of the lots shown on the map
were already deve loped --"maxed out." Ms. Thorpe responded negatively.
Ms. Scala presented staffs report related to the development potential in the rural
areas --including how many lots are available, and what has been the depletion over the
last five years. She gave a detailed explanation of the process followed by staff in
arriving at the figures in the staff report. [Staffs report is made a part of these minutes
as Attachment A.]
Mr. Blue suggested tying the rural areas into the Census data might result in more
meaningful data. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Census data shows the price of the
dwellings being constructed in the Rural Areas.
/9$
5:15 Work Session 10/31/95
2
Ms. Huckle asked if there was information available as to how many residue tracts in
Rural Preservations Developments are actually being farmed.
Commission observations and comments:
BLUE: In comparison to other counties, Albemarle County is developing with larger lots
and larger houses
DOTSON: The number of dwelling units in Albemarle County has risen steadily since
1982, going from 500 units in 1982 to almost double that in 1994.
IMHOFF: "If we are issuing 900+ building permits/year ... we are lucky we have this
potential in the growth area to receive a lot of the lots because (otherwise) there would
be a lot of pressure. It also strikes me that average lot size really works against our...
(sentence unfinished). You said you may interpret that conservation is not working. I'd
say you have just proven that we're not really meeting the conservation of land policy of
the rural area section of the Comp Plan."
She said the urban area density of 1.7 du/acre is "not good enough in terms of
absorbing the kind of growth pressure we're seeing." (Mr. Benish later clarified that 1.7
du/acre is the average in recent large developments (Forest Lakes, Mill Creek), but the
density in the urban area is about 2.5 du/acre.)
HUCKLE: She noted that the Glenmore development "kind of changes the numbers
because it's called growth area, but it was once rural land."
BLUE: "People who are opposed to growth don't want that much land in the growth
areas, so then there will be pressure on the rural areas. You can't have it both ways.
So we have to decide whether we want to guide most of the growth into the growth
areas or whether we are willing to cut down on the growth areas and let them take their
chances in the rural areas. And my feeling is, if we did the latter, probably it would
curtail growth because I think the rural areas are too expensive. " (Ms. Imhoff thought
another part of this question is "is there a way to encourage less land consumption in
your rural area subdivisions?" She suggested the Rural Preservation option should be
examined to see why it is not being used more readily --is there just not much potential
for that, and if so, are there are steps which should be taken?
NITCHMANN: He noted that even the Rural Preservation option causes concerns from
adjoining property owners because even though a large portion of land is preserved,
there is the necessity for separate wells and septic systems for each developed lot,
which can have an impact on surrounding properties. He thought the best way to
address growth is to direct it to areas where public utilities are accessible.
/A J
5:15 Work Session 10/31/95 3
HUCKLE: She recalled it had originally been intended that Rural Preservation
developments not be more than 20 lots. She suggested that limitation should be
enforced more strictly in the future.
Mr. Benish clarified that the 3,200 acres proposed by staff for addition to the growth
area (with another possible 600 in 2 additional public requests) is intended to
accommodate 20 years anticipated growth at a factor of 2 times the anticipated
demand. Part of that acreage is also to replace acres lost by the proposed deletion of
two growth areas. He noted that approximately 3,000 acres have been consumed by
development since the 1989 Comp Plan.
DOTSON: He questioned how long the County could continue to add 3,800 acres
every five years. He wondered "where we will end up" if that logic continues. However,
he agreed there was a need for designated growth areas in the urban area to relieve
pressure in the countryside. (Mr. Blue pointed out the present proposal is based on the
trends of the past years, trends which he doubted would continue. Mr. Benish said that
the number of acres designated for growth has been decreasing since 1971.)
IMHOFF: She asked: "What would be the incentive to make sure that it gets used at a
density that is less consumptive than in the past? Part of my incentive to not provide 2
1/2 times, and working with a 20-year time period is that I would like the next Planning
Commission, five years from now, to have the option to add some more land and
would also like there to be an incentive for people to make better use of the existing
growth area."
Mr. Benish pointed out that it is necessary to use a 20-year time frame in order to
address transportation and utilities planning.
HUCKLE: "Designating so much land for growth is not going to motivate people to do
in -fill .... They take the easy lot to develop and leave the rest."
IMHOFF: "Is there any modeling taking place to determine our groundwater capacity?"
She felt this was a very important issue in "terms of encouraging or discouraging the
size and location of rural area lots." (Ms. Huckle thought the Supervisors had
considered, at one point, requiring proof of water availability prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Mr. Jenkins did not think that was an issue which could be solved by
the County. )
JENKINS: "I don't think we can solve these problems. We can come with all these
'what ifs,' but the basic question which we have gone around and around with is 'what
do we do about the growth area?' I feel like we need to go forward with the staffs
recommendation because it's the best hope for having the infrastructure in place and
it's the best hope, as far as we know right now, for relieving some pressure on the rural
/ 1D
5:15 Work Session 10/31/95 4
areas. It's not any kind of ideal solution for limiting growth. It certainly isn't that, but
don't know if we can come up with a document that does that.... Let's just go on and get
up front with it, instead of trying to play around with the land, and say 'that's all the
building permits we're going to have."' He understood enabling legislation does not
presently exist to allow this approach, though it is possible in some areas of the
country.
DOTSON: He thought the public concern at this time is more with where the growth is
going, how can it be accommodated, and what is its character, rather than what is the
quantity of growth. "So the question is really'what can we do to see that the
development that is going to take place takes place in designated growth areas?' To
some degree that means expanding them --maybe; to some degree that means an
attempt to increase and improve density. He said he would like to look at what some
other areas have done which have comparable terrain and have been able to achieve
higher density in such a way that the area is still a desirable place to live. He
questioned whether the 1.7 du/acre was a density which would work into the distant
future.
BLUE: He wondered if 1.7 du/acre is one of the reasons Albemarle County is one of
the most desirable places to live in the country. (Ms. Imhoff pointed out that Boulder,
Colorado was rated highest in the country and its density is far greater than Albemarle
%W County's. ) Mr. Blue said that Boulder has a lot more land surrounding it which is not at
high density.
IMHOFF: "I don't think density is bad living, which is sort of what I am hearing (here).
Responding to Mr. Blue, Ms. Imhoff said that is exactly what we are trying to do here --
"create a place that has community, and keep the rural areas rural." (Mr. Blue
responded: "That's what we have stated as our philosophy and the question now is just
how do we do that.")
JENKINS: "Our definition is fast becoming one of 'a house and 10 acres' --that's rural.
The idea that'you can't see a house' is rural --I think that's already gone by us. You're
going to have to adjust your definition of what you're calling rural."
JENKINS: "One of the things that eventually comes out in this kind of meeting is there
are a ton of lots out there that were created before we ever had this zoning ordinance,
period."
NITCHMANN: "One issue we should be looking at is why do developers tell us it takes
much longer to get through the development process in a growth area than it does in
the rural area. What is causing that? Is the building permit process too restrictive?
Does it come back to mountainous standards on the roads? How have we preserved
the rural area just in the last few years? We're doing something right. I think part of
/J/
5:15 Work Session 10/31/95 5
that is because we had a large inventory of land for developers to go into to satisfy the
demand. Developers aren't creating the demand; it is coming here on its own. We
can't stop people from coming here, but we need to plan for how to handle them once
they're here."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Karen Dane addressed the Commission. She said it is difficult to find the rural
areas referred to in the staff report on the map on display. She agreed with Mr. Jenkins
that the definitions "are not quite right." She said there is a mandate in this area for
having "true" rural areas and "true" urban areas. She hoped it might be possible, in this
planning period, to "make those areas truly what they are supposed to be, instead of
just trading them off." She thought it would help to achieve higher densities in
Neighborhoods 1-7 if they could be surveyed and become neighborhoods with "grids of
roads and connected things so that they are like little villages and neighborhoods."
Mr. Jack Marshall addressed the Commission. He thought Mr. Dotson's comment
about the possibility of expanding growth areas until there is nothing left was significant.
He said: "I hope you recognize it will be a blacktopped county unless --unlike what Mr.
Blue has been saying that growth will come-- we have the right and the obligation to
look growth straight in the face and say we are going to control it rather than have it
control us."
Mr. John Hermsmier addressed the Commission. He said: "If you are serious about
protecting all components of the rural areas, you have to actively protect them. It can't
be done indirectly or by stopping their destruction. We need mechanisms to look at
getting more green on that map than 2% and to spend equal energy on a coordinated
plan for protecting what we value in this community.... I also fail to see the logic of
protecting the rural areas by expanding the growth areas. That doesn't make any
sense at all to me. It's like having a hunk of cheese with a bunch of mice. One takes
off a hunk and goes over in the corner to eat it and when he's finished he doesn't want
any more."
Mr. James King, a city resident, addressed the Commission. He expressed support for
the previous speakers and also said "concentration and integration of development in
the growth areas and in the existing urban areas, including Charlottesville, can be
designed in a much better way so that we are able to actually decide how much we
want in preservation areas as well as conservation areas and we are able to decrease
the growth rate, which, as Mr. Marshall has pointed out, is going to destroy us. I don't
think we have to continue to accommodate at the same rate as we have before. I think
we can stabilize."
5:15 Work Session 10/31/95 6
Mr. Blue responded to Mr. King's and Mr. Marshall's comments. He said: "If I, and
perhaps two other people in this room had made that decision 50 years ago, the rest of
you wouldn't be here, and it might have been a nicer place to be."
Ms. Libby Baker suggested looking at the planning history of Aspen, Colorado, which
she described as being "beautiful" 50 years ago and now a "nightmare." (Ms. Imhoff
noted that many Aspen residents who "work for that government," must be given
housing subsidies in order to be able to live in the community, and it is also the first
locality to require a special permit for dwellings greater than 5,000 square feet.")
Mr. Eddie Cleveland, a life-long resident of Albemarle County, asked why "we have to
run it into the ground so that those of use who have lived here all our lives have to
move somewhere else to find what we already had."
The work session ended at 6:30 p.m.
[NOTE: Attachment B to these minutes is Commissioner Huckle's statement. She did
not read it into the record but asked that it be filed with the minutes.]
Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw
1.55