Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 21 1995 PC Minutes11-21-95 '*OW NOVEMBER 21, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, in the Auditorium of the 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 the November 7th Public Hearing and the November 7th Work Session were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at the November 8th and November 15th meetings. Comprehensive Plan - Public Hearing for the Proposed Revisions to the "Developed Environment" Chapter, Which Includes the County Land Use Plan Mr. Benish briefly described the process which has been followed in the development of the proposed Land Use Plan and highlighted how the proposed plan is different from the current plan. Public comment was invited. The following persons addressed the Commission and read prepared statements. Their statements are made a part of this record as noted: Ms. Kathy Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters - Attachment A Mr. Ronald Elford, a resident of the Terry Brook Subdivision - Attachment B Ms. Cindy Parry, a resident of Pritchett Lane - Attachment C Ms. Karen Dame, representing Citizens for Albemarle - Attachment D Mr. John Hermsmier, representing Citizens for Albemarle - Attachment E Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle - Attachment F Mr. Jim Barnes, representing the Ivy Creek Foundation Board of Directors - Attachment G Ms. Elizabeth Murray - Attachment H Mr. Reuben Clark, Chairman of the Albemarle/Charlottesville Board of the Piedmont Environmental Council - Attachment I 11-21-95 2 '`" Ms. Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council - Attachment J Ms. Judith Perkins (her statement was read by Mr. Forbes Reback) - Attachment K Ms. Lisa Harmon, representing the Earlysville Area Residents' League - Attachment L Mr. Lindsay Robertson - Attachment M Mr. Norman Beil, representing UVA Student Environmental Action - Attachment N The following persons also addressed the Commission: Mr. Warren Estes, a property owner in the Proffitt Road area - He was opposed to this area being designated for growth because of the limited possibilities for access and the inadequacies of the roads. He supported in -fill development in areas which are already designated for growth. He feels more information about the impact on utilities, taxes, transportation, and property values is needed before the residents of the area can respond to the proposal in an informed way. He pointed out the area is in the North Rivanna River watershed. He doubted the residents of Proffitt are aware of what is proposed and the potential impact. Mr. Mark Parry - He expressed dissatisfaction with the process thus far. He said the identification of the area "north of Proffitt Road" as "Hollymead" is very misleading to the Proffitt area residents. He also thought 17 days was not enough time to respond to the proposed plan. He objected to the format of the notification letter which had been sent and the fact that the hearing was scheduled for a holiday week. It was his opinion that "a series of steps were taken to minimize turnout at this meeting." Ms. Catherine Carlson (Black Cat Road) - She reported on a meeting she had attended regarding the proposed commercial development at Glenmore. Questions were raised about the actual acreage which is proposed for commercial use and what type of uses are envisioned. She said there has never been any plan for commercial area in Glenmore. She said her neighbors feel this proposal needs further discussion and traffic and market studies need to be done before this commercial area is added. Mr. Charles Mitchell, resident of Rt. 201Marshall Manor - He was opposed to a growth designation for the property directly across from Marshall Manor. Concerns included noise, lower property values, increased crime and traffic. He referenced a petition which he had in his possession, which was signed by all Marshall Manor property owners. All are opposed to the development of this property. Mr. Desmond A. Cormeir - He expressed opposition to additional shopping areas. He questioned how planning decisions are made. He expressed the belief that planning decisions are driven by the development community and "the more money you have the more you get." Ms. RuthEllen Outlaw (Old Lynchburg Road) - She expressed support for a policy requiring that "affordable housing be densely built and be built as in -fill in the loose fabric of our urban areas." She suggested consideration be given to guidelines which "propose a more compact relationship between building and street, between 1�1:91 11-21-95 3 automobile and building, between one building and another." She was opposed to the expansion of the growth area and suggested the Commission "look further into how we can make the already developed areas of Albemarle County more dense and more vibrant and livable." Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association - He complimented the Commission and staff on their thorough study of the land use question and stressed that there had been many work sessions and many opportunities for public comment. He stressed the following information which had been derived from the County Survey: 90% of the County's residents approve of the current growth management policy; 64.6% said to keep the same amount of growth area; 65.1 % said subdivisions should be restricted in rural areas. He expressed support for the county's current policy to "direct growth into the growth areas and to protect the rural or natural environment." He believed the current policy is working because in the period 1990 through 1994 approximately 70% of new development (subdivisions and building permits) were in the growth areas. He called attention to the Goals, Objectives and Strategies found in the Plan, on pages 54-57 and 61, which deal with residential densities, development design and in -fill development. He said: "We believe these are critical in maintaining the shift from rural to growth area development. However, implementation of these goals should be more definitive for action early in 1996." He urged the addition of some "action verbiage" to see that County work programs could be designed so as to start, immediately in 1996, an evaluation of Zoning and Subdivision regulations that would identify methods of increasing development densities. He stressed that these changes are "not just applicable to encourage infill in existing growth areas, but will help increase densities in new growth areas and have a positive effect on affordable housing." He urged the incorporation of these goals in the Comp Plan. On the issue of growth area expansion, he suggested expansion should be planned by considering: (1) There is no argument with the prediction that population will increase by 20,000 people over the next 20 years. By existing law and custom, a locality can neither control nor stop population expansion. The issue is not the amount- -the issue seems to be where. Adding acres to the growth areas does not cause growth. (2) The County staff and PEC have done recent studies for rural area capacity development. (He quoted: "The amount of by -right development in the rural areas is compromising the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.") These studies indicate there may be as many as 50,000 lots available in the rural areas. If rural area development is to be discouraged, adequate growth area acreage should be made available. (3) Much of the existing growth area is reduced for development for the following reasons: --Topographic or wetland problems; --Land subtraction because of the Meadow Creek Parkway and Western Bypass; --Loss of acreage to the Village designation because of the removal of Earlysville and North Garden (which Blue Ridge Home Builders agrees with); --Large tracts of land are not available for amenity -based development which is what many of in -migrating people desire; --Prices of land in existing growth areas is unrealistic in many cases. Restricting the amount of growth area could further escalate prices and force more rural area /4.� 11-21-95 4 �ftw development and also effect affordable housing. (A large tract of land in one of the proposed new growth areas is not for sale at the present time.) -42% of the land in the existing growth area is in land use taxation and not available for development at this time. --3,800 acres, if approved in this Plan, is less than 1 % of Albemarle County. Mr. Watson concluded: "The years 1990-1994 were positive when compared to the County's goal. The trend toward rural area development was reversed. The factors that caused this trend should be continued. The Blue Ridge Home Builder's Association supports adding the proposed acreage to the Comprehensive Plan. Public policy is not created in a vacuum. It is the result of desires, fears and frustrations that form public opinion. Enter at that point government to enact regulations that reflect public opinion. ... We urge you to adopt this plan unanimously and send it to the Board of Supervisors for adoption." Mr. Tom Loach (a resident of Crozet) - Referring to a staff report dated December, 1994, Mr. Loach disagreed with staffs reasoning in determining that 3,800 acres should be to the growth area. He said it appears the desires of the Planning staff and the development community are "in direct opposition to the 1994 Survey which showed that 65% of the respondents neither wanted an increase or decrease in the amount of land in the growth area." He asked if any studies have been done to determine the cost of additional infrastructure which will be needed to serve the development of these 3,800 acres. He felt the addition of this 3,800 acres will not address the affordable housing issue because "the truth is we are not talking about providing affordable housing, but rather we are determining the level of affluence that will be the standard for the County." He concluded: "I live in a growth area and I support the growth area concept. However, the most important reason for opposing the rezoning is the fact that nowhere in the reported documentation is there any mention of how the County will measure the cumulative impact of growth. ... In the community visioning statement, it states the following 'We visualize our community as one where each individual is valued and where we can all live affordably and safely.' My question is, if we never measure the cumulative effect of development, how will we ever know if we meet this goal?" Ms. Sherry Buttrick (Whitehall resident) - "One of the best hopes for equitable land use planning is the enabling of transferrable development rights. I hope the Commission will defer upzoning of land that it may wish to serve as receiving areas should we get TDR's in the future." Mr. Dan Beeker (a North Garden resident) - He expressed support for the statement read by Mr. Olivier. He said he thought it was premature to expand the growth areas at this time without first addressing increasing the development in existing growth areas. Ms. Anne Price (a resident of Pritchett Lane) - She pointed out that Hollymead School is already very overcrowded and she was opposed to further growth in the Hollymead/Proffitt Road area. 14� 11-21-95 5 Ms. Jana Briedis-Ruiz (a resident of Pritchett Lane) - She was opposed to the Proffitt area being designated as a growth area. She did not want the character of her neighborhood to be changed. Mr. Ed Floyd (Rt. 785) - Referring to the area east of Proffitt, he hoped some of the natural areas would be preserved. Mr. Fred Gercke, Proffitt Community Association - He expressed support for Mr. Paul L. Peery (who would speak later in the meeting). He explained that Mr. Peery's farm is a part of that area which is being proposed as additional growth area but Mr. Peery has no intention of selling his farm. He questioned why another piece of unavailable property would be designated as growth area. Mr. Jared Loewenstein - President of the Proffitt Community Association - He posed three questions: "(1) Can the proposals be physically supported in the Hollymead area given the topographic constraints, access to Proffitt Road, potential pollution of the Rivanna River and the negative impact on traffic and public services? (2) What are the effects of this expansion on adjacent land use? (3) Is there justification for the expansion of the Hollymead Community at this time?" The Proffitt neighborhood residents have the following concerns: "Schools. Other public services, including police, fire and rescue, library and recreational services would all require improvement and expansion. Roads. Perhaps the most serious negative impact of this proposal, upon the Proffitt neighborhood in particular, concerns vastly increased traffic levels. Rt. 649, Proffitt Road, and Rt. 643, Polo Grounds Road, are of special concern %W to Proffitt residents in this regard, more so since portions of Proffitt Road are currently considered (quoting from VDOT) 'non -tolerable by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Current road access to this area is poor at the crossings of the Norfolk/Southern Railway Track on both Rts. 643 and 649. Access to Rt. 20 from Proffitt Road is generally good once past Proffitt, however the bridge crossing at the Rivanna River floods in heavy storms. Access to Rt. 29 from Proffitt Road is generally not good with horizontal and vertical curvature problems and numerous small lots and driveways stripped along road frontage. Upgrading Proffitt Road would be costly and difficult to achieve.' The Proffitt Community Association concurs with this negative assessment of Rt. 649's suitability for upgrading and we note particularly that there have been suggested road improvements from Rt. 29 North, east to Laurel Cove Lane if the present proposed expansion is approved. The present proposal to enlarge the community would increase traffic problems enormously in an area already beset by them with no clear alternative solution in site at this time. As to effects on adjacent land use, it seems obvious that any revision in zoning which would allow considerable increased residential densities, including urban densities as recommended, would have a negative impact on those areas adjacent. To Proffitt residents, this would mean that our community, now more than 120 years old, will lose its identity and its sense of place entirely. Existing land use patterns which have not changed fundamentally since the Civil War, would begin to more closely parallel those of the adjacent Hollymead Growth Area. The rural landscape, with important surviving remnants of a 19th Century village would disappear in the wake of increased housing, business and traffic. Open spaces might gradually be developed as well. These alternations would eliminate forever the /� S 11-21-95 6 present character of the Proffitt neighborhood. A recently completed Virginia Division of Historic Resources village survey has identified the Village of Proffitt as one of six eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. To summarize, the Proffitt Community Association believes through wise use of the resources of the existing environment and the heritage of the past, our land, our homes and our way of life need not be threatened or abused as the result of poor -conceived planning decisions. I urge you to take all these factors into consideration before acting upon this proposed expansion of the Hollymead Growth Area." Mr. Jim Eddins, representing Preservation Piedmont and a resident of the Proffitt area - "The proposed planning document demonstrates a commendable attempt to incorporate results of the 1994 community visioning forums. In seeking higher density development and the designated growth areas, the revised plan charts a path away from sprawl and toward better conservation of our rural areas. We, therefore, support that recommendation on page ii, under Summary of Recommendations. Unfortunately, the next recommendation on the same page undercuts the conservation of our rural areas by expanding the designated growth area to a total of 9,000 acres. Given the uncertainty of demographic predictions, the existing inventory may suffice for more than five years, particularly if the increased density recommendation is relentlessly pursued. We, therefore, oppose this recommendation.... As a final observation, incorporation of former Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan wording on preserving historic resources appears to be insufficiently comprehensive in the document." Mr. Gary Honeywell, a local builder and a resident of the area proposed for growth to the south - He said growth is inevitable and "we ought to take a look at the whole picture and add to these growth areas." He thought growth would occur more "gently" if the County provides the infrastructure. Ms. Darcey Phillips (a city resident) - She expressed concerns about the potential impact of the development of the Rt. 20 south area on the existing Belmont neighborhood. She hoped consideration would be given to providing community services and employment opportunities within neighborhoods so that people will not have to "clog up the arteries of Charlottesville." She feared the proposed land use plan, if adopted as proposed, will result in "an unlivable urban situation in Charlottesville." Mr. Fred Payne - He supported the idea of in -fill development in the urban area. "To make in -fill development work, it is necessary that you allow substantial flexibility in the uses that are allowed. ... In addition to flexibility, the other word to bear in mind is sensitivity. In connection with the transitional area that is proposed in the revisions, the developer needs the opportunity to have flexible opportunity to develop, but you must hold his feet to the fire and you must see that the adjacent uses, and particularly the adjacent residential uses, are respected. I suggest strongly that you consider revising the text of the plan as we have suggested, particularly in connection with the transition area, to emphasize that it is the sensitivity and respect for the adjacent property of the development that is critical in the transitional areas." /4e 11-21-95 7 **MW Mr. John Marston (Crozet resident) - He supported in -fill development of already designated growth areas. Mr. Boyd Peery (owner of 450 acres in the proposed Hollymead growth area) - He expressed strong opposition to his land be designated as growth area. Mr. Charles Tractor - He expressed opposition to the designation of any additional growth area. He said that the proposal to expand the growth area, "to accelerate the rate of growth," is in opposition to the wishes of 97% of the county's residents. He expressed concerns about traffic, overcrowded schools, insufficient water supply, waste disposal, and lack of employment opportunities. He questioned why growth is considered an inevitable part of the county's future. Mr. Mike McMahan (Sherwood Farms) - He supported Ms. Phillips' comments about impact on the City's neighborhoods. He expressed opposition to the possible development of the Jessup property, which is adjacent to his property. He said the property acts as a buffer between the wild, natural areas and the city. He questioned the developability of the property given it's steep topography. He said the property also acts as a filter for the water which runs into Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek, and eventually to the Chesapeake Bay. He suggested the property would be best suited for a low -impact, community type use. Mr. Deforest Mellon - He expressed opposition to the proposed expansion of the growth area. He supported the comments made by the representatives for Citizens for Albemarle. He thought the proposed expansion would "do real damage to the County." S, Ms. Karen Firehaugh - (a City resident) She supported John Hermsmier's comments about "planning for rural preservation." She said that, acre for acre, suburban lawns contribute ten times more pollution than agriculture. She expressed concern about additional traffic through the City which will result from additional growth in the southern part of the county. Mr. Steve von Stork (Sherwood Farms, property adjoining the Jessup property) - He expressed opposition to the development of the Jessup property. He reminded the Commission the Jessup property was included in this study because of a request by the developer of Redfields. The Planning Staff had not recommended inclusion of the property originally. Mr. David Booth - He felt that growth in Albemarle County is linked to the quality and quantity of the water supply. He pointed out that presently the Ivy Landfill is leaking and, presently, the County has the right to vertically expand the landfill, in the headwaters of the reservoir, with no required protections at all. He suggested that the County consider changing the direction of waste disposal "from maximizing waste disposal in the watershed to removing waste disposal from the watershed." Ms. Alison Campbell (resident of Ivy and member of Peacock Hill Community Board) - "As a resident of Ivy who lives in the watershed of the City of Charlottesville, I urge you to also consider the value of potable water and the cost and impact of the disposal of municipal solid waste in this equation that you're working on tonight. The Ivy Landfill is in your watershed. Where will the municipal and industrial wastes generated by these new residents and industries be disposed of? Will you continue to dispose of it upstream of your water supply?" fi, --;7-- 11-21-95 g *WW- There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Blue announced that due to an advertising error, a second public hearing will be held November 28th. ----------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS Meadow Creek Parkway - Additional Information - The Commission debated the question of whether or not to hear this additional information during December (either December 12th or 19th) or to wait until after the first of the year. Mr. Nitchmann questioned the wisdom of the current Commission hearing this item in December given the fact that a new Commission will then take the item to public hearing after the first of the year. Ms. Imhoff questioned whether or not the Commission will be able to finish all the items which are already scheduled for December. Mr. Jenkins agreed. Ms. Huckle favored hearing the item December 19th. Mr. Blue polled the Commission and determined that the majority favored hearing the item in December. Mr. Cilimberg suggested public comment be taken at the December 12th meeting and if there is not time for the Commission to take action at that meeting, the item can be placed on the December 19th agenda also. Mr. Jenkins suggested the December 12th meeting begin at 6:00. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. X: 09 6 U, � �' e, f, /' V. Wayn Cilimberg; Sec etary i