HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 29 89 PC MinutesAugust 29, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, August 29, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development, Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr.
Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 15, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
CPA-89-1 Eastern Growth Area -- Amendment to the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan to add a new village growth area in Eastern
Albemarle County. The proposed growth area is located in the vicinity
east of Shadwell, south of Rt. 250, north of the Rivanna River, east of
Rt. 729 and west of Rt. 808.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The followingpersons expressed their support for the proposal:
--Mr. Frank Kessler - He felt the development would meet the needs of
the County by providing: (1) Smaller, less expensive lots for upper -
priced housing; (2) Smaller retirement -type homes for aging population;
and (3) Another country club. He also felt Glenmore would preserve the
rural areas by drawing population away from those areas. He noted that
he (the developer) would be living at Glenmore and, therefore, would have
the same concerns -as his neighbors.
--Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters -
She read a statement, a copy of which follows these minutes as Attachment
1. In particular, she asked that the following be added at the end of
staff's second recommendation: "or west of Route 22." She concluded
that the League "essentially agreed with staff conclusions." (Mr.
Bowerman asked Ms. Thomas if her organization would be willing to share
their source materials with staff. Ms. Thomas responded affirmatively,
but pointed out that most of the material was the result of conversations
and experiences.)
--Mr. James Gercke - He felt it was important that the County "stay
ahead of growth pressures."
--Mr. Lynn Mayhew - He stressed the need for an additional golf course.
--Mr. Ivan Romenesko
--Mr. Jerry Dixon - He felt this proposal offers an acceptable
alternative to 10-acre development that is "chewing" up the community.
//O
August 29, 1989 Page 2
The following persons expressed their opposition to the proposal: Mr.
Fred Westervelt; Mr. Don Payne; Ms. Cheryl Sneed; Ms. Bunny Murray; Mr.
Niel Means; Ms. Marianne Lang; Mr. Woody Baker; and Mir. Ruben Hitchcock.
Their reasons for opposition included:
--environmental concerns such as pollution of river from the treatment
plant and the golf course maintenance, destruction of aesthetic beauty of
the scenic river, odor from the treatment plant, etc.
--Future implications, e.g. will the water line invite future development?
Mr. Westervelt asked that development not be allowedto extend south of the
Rivanna River.
--Destruction of natural wildlife habitat.
--Increased traffic on already over -burdened roads.
--Only that area proposed for the Glenmore development should be
designated for growth.
Ms. Cheryl Sneed asked for anexplanation as to why Running Deer Subdivision
was included and why only 1/2 of the subdivision. She asked what effect
inclusion would have on the subdivision. (Staff answered this question
later in the meeting and explained that the boundary established was
chosen because it is a natural boundary and the only effect this will
have on the subdivision is that that portion which is included in the
growth area will have the option of connecting to public utilities
when they are available.)
Mir. Kessler responded to some of the public comments. He stated he was
very cognizant of issues related to the scenic river and water protection
and in that regard he has hired a private Environmental Consultant, Mir.
William Norris, who.will ensure that those issues are addressed. He
stressed that he. would be preserving 500 acres in its natural state.
Regarding Mr. Hitchcock's concerns about the size of the water line,
he felt this was just a "no -growth tactic." He stated that growth is
controlled by the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan and the size
of the water line is determined by fire protection requirements.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark asked Mir. Brent, representing the Service Authority, to comment
on some comments made by the public as to "how much the river can take."
Mr. Brent responded that he was unsure what was meant by this. He
explained that any development that takes place in the urban area will
eventually empty into the Rivanna River. He noted that the State has
very sophisticated and competent regulatory agencies to oversee and
set guidelines for waste treatment.
There was a brief" discussion as to whether Rt. 808 would be used as an
access point for the Glenmore development. Mir. Kessler explained that Glen -
more would only have access to Rt. 250.
Though there were other questions from the public regarding specific
issues of the Glenmore proposal, the Chairman reminded the public that
those issues would be addressed at the time the rezoning and site plan
are submitted.
/J/
August 29, 1989 Page 3
Mr. Benish explained that the boundaries selected for growth areas
are natural or physical features. He explained this was the reason
Running Deer Subdivision was "split" because that is the watershed boundary
for Carroll Creek. Regarding internal access, he stated: "Glenmore
would have the potential of cutting off some property adjacent to it,
and not allowing them reasonable access other than going directly to
250 possibly. What we wanted to ensure by this recommendation is
the fact that when we look at a planned development proposal there is
the possibility for Mr. Kessl.er's road system to accommodate some of
those properties that lie adjacent to it. It doesn't necessarily
indicate that access would go out toward 808 but that some of the
properties that7agready developed towards the front of Glenmore
Downs and some of the properties adjacent to it, that we need to
take into account the need to provide them adequate potential for
access, and that access should be centralized and minimize the number
of accesses to Rt. 250." Mr. Benisb also explained staff's reasoning
behind the suggested boundaries, but noted that the ultimate
decision was one for the Commission and Board to make. Mr. Cilimberg
also commented on staff's reasoning for the suggested boundaries.
Regarding public suggestion that the growth area be further limited
as follows --"not west of Rt. 22 and not south of the Rivanna River" --
Mr. Cilimberg explained, "We don't propose that that be included now,
obviously the boundaries don't include that; however, it is reality
that there, will be a water line down Rt. 250 and there may be future
decisicns to include that as part of the urban area or some type of
expansion."
There was a brief discussion about the acreage of the proposed village.
Ms. Diehl commented on the proposed name for the village. She felt that
the other two suggested possibilities should be given consideration,
especially Rivanna. She felt that the name should be more general
and not tied to one particular development. The Commission expressed
no opposition to Ms. Diehl's suggestion.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the proposed boundaries are similar to Mr.
Kessler's specific proposal (as was noted by members of the public), but
that is a reflection of community concern for the size of this develop-
ment. Regarding access, he stated it is always a policy of the
Commission to restrict the number of entrances to major highways, which
would include Rt. 250 and Rt. 808. He continued: "We try to have
internal circulation of traffic with limited points of access to highways
as a way of limiting traffic, primarily in terms of safety in controlling
the flow points and friction points where traffic can come onto a
highway. Those are also things that we get concerned with at the
development stage and not at this stage which, theoretically, is not
specific as to what's proposed. What we have before us, because of the
concerns of the community, is somewhat specific in terms of the recom-
mendations that we've included in the Comprehensive Plan text which
will determine the ultimate development of this village in terms of the
type of housing, the number of houses and the amenities there and what
the County can require in terms of proffers on the part of the developer
in terms of land and cash contributions, to county infrastructure. ...
Dealing with the needs of human beings vs. the environment is a very
Ill
August 29, 1989 Page 4
difficult question. For those of us we would like not to touch the
environment at all and still deal with human needs and it's not possible
to do that. It is possible to manage growth in such a way as to minimize
any potential effect or actual effect upon the environment and I believe
that that is what this Commission has always tried.to do .... On balance
though, I am in favor of.the plan we've put together here tonight which
was before mostof you in three work sessions where we did take your
input and we did try to incorporate that along with the basic point
of view that, in my mind, a village designation like this in this
specific area does go a long way to promoting the goals and objectives
contained in the newly revised and adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Specifically, it preserves and protects the rural and agricultural
character of the County which is the primary goal of the rural areas
in the County plan. It also protects the water supply of the County
and it also concentrates some population in an area where public
services can more easily be provided to it instead of scattered
throughout the County. The primary premise that I operated on ... is
that this development will indeed pull growth from other rural areas
of the County and stop some of the 21-acre lot generation for single-
family homes that's been occuring. ... On balance., I think the positive
benefits of this application do outweigh the negatives and I am in
favor of moving this along to the Board of Supervisors with an
affirmative action."
Mr. Rittenhouse commented: "I think there are two overriding concerns
that we are faced with and I thinlk it is important to remember what
the benefit to the County is in promoting the growth area. It is
not to aid a developer and his work, but our overriding concern is
to discourage growth in the rural areas and in this case to concentrate
it where it can be planned for and thereby reduce the overall scattered
growth in the rural areas. I think it's important to remember that
that is central to what we are trying to accomplish. At the same time,
I sense a concern by the residents, and I share that, that this growth
area not be a magnet for future more intensive growth surrounding it --
that it not be an open invitation for other developers to come in and
magnify the boundaries. Along those lines, I think we have, in previous
work sessions leading up to these recommendations, indicated some of
those concerns. We've made an effort to specifically exclude commercial
development in the growth area. We've made recommendations that deal
with where the growth should not take place. along those lines, at this
time, I support these requests for further definitions of boundaries
to include Rt. 22 to the west and the Rivanna River to the south,
recognizing that these boundaries are subject to change by some future
action, subject to consideration for change by some future action, but I
think inclusion of those boundaries is an important message. I think it
effects the flavor of what we're doing here --that we intend for this to
be a definite area, not just a general area, but one that has boundaries
so that if we choose to promote it to the Board, that would have a
specific area that we're talking about for growth, not a general
designation whereby we would give a specific area whereby growth would
encroach from. I a-m interested in providing those boundaries, in part,
to give it a flavor of defined growth within certain well-defined
boundaries. I'm sensitive to the aspects of rampant growth too. The
League of Women Voters, in their letter which we received tonight,
113
August 29, 1989 Page 5
talks about the importance of that Rt. 22 boundary in terms of not
encouraging strip development between this growth area and the urban
areas, and I think that's a worthwhile concern which should be reflected
in our recommendations to the Board, and I sense that that southern
boundary of the Rivanna River in some way protects the integrity of
the rural areas and the farm areas that are south of the Rivanna
and gives a message to potential development there that we don't
intend for it to cross over and to encroach on the rural areas
that are there. I am sensitive to people's needs when they have
located in an area. I think we have a responsibility to the County
as a whole to limit rural growth and I think we have a responsibility
to you who are already located in the rural areas not to compromise the
environment that you have chosen to live in. Hopefully, we can
reasonably accomplish both for the benefit of the County as a whole
and not to the detriment of those of you who have chosen to live
in the rural areas. I will support this because I do see it as a
real means, given the steps that I believe will be taken in the
specific development, to draw rural growth into this growth area. ..,
I am going to support this with the addition to the recommendation
No. 2 related to the Rt. 22 boundary and the Rivanna boundary."
Mr. Wilkerson endorsed Mr. Rittenhouse's statement.
Mr. Stark also noted he was in agreement with Commissioners Bowerman
and Rittenhouse.
Mr. Stark moved that CPA--89-1, to add a new village growth area in
Eastern Albemarle County located in the vicinity east of Shadwell, south
of Rt. 250, north of the Rivanna River, east of Rt. 729 and west of
Rt. 808, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with
the following recommendations, and further that the village be
designated the Village of Rivanna:
Preserve the extensive floodplain along the Rivanna River, Carroll
Creek and other streams as open space. Protect the unique scenic and
historic characteristics of the river with the development of the
village.
• Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/scenic significance to the
County and region (including possible designation as a Rural
Historic District) and have large acreage in an Agricultural/forestal
District. To preserve and protect these resources, do not expand the
village boundaries north of Interstate 64 or west of Rt. 22 or south of
the Rivanna River.
• No development of properties above current allowable zoning densities
shall be permitted unless public water and sewer are made available.
Ultimate gross density with the provision of water and sewer is not
to exceed village density as described under Residential Land Use
designations.
• Residential development dwelling unit type whall be limited to single
family detached.
August 29, 1989
Page 6
a Existing local convenience commercial uses in combination with the
proximity of urban Area commercial are sufficient to serve the
village.
• Consider development proposals under a planned development approach
to allow for the coordinated planning of utilities, public facilities
and roads necessary to support the entire growth area.
• Access within the Village between Route 25U and the Rivanna River
is currently provided by roads which do not connect. An internal road
network should be planned to provide an alternative to travel on Route
250 and is to be incorporated into development proposals.
• As this area could function as a public service center for the eastern
part of the County, necessary public facilities are to be located consistent
with objectives and strategies of the Public Facilities Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the inclusion of definitive boundaries
at this time. She asked Mr. Bowling to comment on whether including
that language in the Comprehensive Plan at this time would "preclude
the consideration of expansion in future years?" Mr. Bowling replied:
"I think you already know the answer to that and it's 'No."'
Ms. Diehl also asked that a recommendation be included as to the name
of the village. The Commission was not opposed and Mr. Stark modified
his motion to recommend that the village be designated Rivanna. Mr.
Wilkerson, who had seconded the motion, was agreeable to this
modification to the motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated there was no inevitability that Rt. 250 would develop
as Rt. 29 did from Pantops to this area,that that was one of the reasons
for restricting the limits of the village to an area that wasn't along
Rt. 250. He stressed that the existence of a waterline along 250 was
not7certainty of the inevitability of development. He noted that there
has not been development along the sewer line from Charlottesville to
Crozet and that doesn't have to occur so long as there is political
will not to let it happen.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he did not feel strongly about the name of
the village though he tended to favor a precise designation as opposed
to a "broad" one.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt it was important NOT to designate it as a
particular parcel.
The Chairman called for a v to on the previously stated motion for
approval. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
-4. Way Cilimberg, etary
DS