Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-22 adjFebruary 22, 1989~(Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 287 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 22, 1989, at 1:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from February 15, 1989. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 1:45 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 1:32 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 1:45 P. M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Appeal: River Heights Preliminary Site Plan (deferred from February 1, 1989). Mr. Horne said there have been a number of different schemes of access proposed to this development. The subdivision plat was debated extensively by both the Planning Con~nission and on appeal by the Board a few years ago on this same question of access. At that time, the Board chose to uphold the Planning Cor~nission's decision that access to this development should be ingress/egress from Route 29 and ingress/egress from the rear access road. At the last meeting, action was deferred for staff to have time to determine whether the proposed access from Hilton Heights Road was to be for both entrance and exit. Mr. Home said the site plan presented to the Board today proposes construction of an entrance only from Hilton Heights Road from a new turn lane, as well as the former entrance andlexit from Route 29, and ingress/egress from the Sheraton access road.: Mr. Home said staff and the Virginia Department of Transportation both felt this proposal is the second best choice. The best still remains a two w~y entrance/exit at Route 29 and a two way entrance/exit at the Sheraton access road, with no access from Hilton Heights Road. Mr. Home said this proposal, lhowever, would be the least obtrusive alternate. ~ Mr. Bowie asked what the objection by s{aff is to the entrance only proposed from Hilton Heights Road. Mr. Horne'said it was staff's feeling that this entrance is not necessary to support a reasonable level of retail devel- opment. Staff would prefer not to have an access to the site from this busy through road. Mr. Horne went on to say, however, that the traffic speed is likely to be fairly low at that entrance since traffic has to slow to turn onto Hilton Heights Road. The major problem will be the weaving movement of traffic getting into the right lane. He said the turn lane would offset that to some extent. The public hearing was reopened at this time. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, said helfeels they have come up with the best solution after several revisions on thiSproject. If the entrance and exit were located at the Sheraton access road~ the road would have to be enlarged. In order to do that, the radius and the slopes could not be achieved to make it adequate for the amount of traffic that will be using it as an entrance. That enlargement would substantially decrease the planned development to such an extent that it would no longer be feasible to develop. He said one of the main goals in developing the site was to try to eliminate traffic making "U-turns" on Route 29. Mr. Wood feels the proposed plan would do that, as well as direct the traffic in a safer and more appropriate pattern. He further said that when the develqpment of Hilton Heights as a through road is completed, much traffic will not go back onto Route 29, but will continue toward Rio Road. He feels their proposed solution is a workable one and will be suitable from the standpoint of the public choosing to use it. There being no others present to speak, ~he public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. 288 February 22, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Horne if he had received any comments from citizens objecting to this plan. Mr. Horne said he has not. Mrs. Cooke said she feels this proposal is a much better plan than was previously offered, and that it will go a long way in helping to eliminate "U-turns" on Route 29 North. She said she has no problem in supporting this proposal. Mr. Bain asked if there are any conditions that need to be set on approval of this proposal. Mr. Home said the conditions would be set at the time of review of the final site plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support this proposal with the clear under- standing that the normal conditions applicable to final Site plan approval will be attached by staff at that time. He also pointed out that the require- ments for the deceleration lane on Hilton Heights Road may be made more pronounced by staff at that time than what is now proposed in order to pre- clude its use as an exit. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr~ Bain to approve the preliminary site plan as submitted to the Board on February 22, 1989, and initialed JTPH by Mr. Horne. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~ Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. The work session began on Page 272 with a continued !summary by Mr. Horne of the strategies under "Rural Development". Mr. Home and Mr. Cilimberg then explained Table 58 'on Page 273. Mr. Lindstrom said he hopes in the discussions of the rural areas that the concerns and goals are clear because there are so many ways of looking at the rural areas. He feels there may-be a basis for the Bbard to agree if the goals are clear from the onset. He said when looking at ~he number of by- right lots that can potentially be developed, it is up tol the market as to how many of those lots will actually be used. One of the concerns expressed to Mr. Lindstrom by people in the community is the cost of the parcels that are created. In parts of the County, prices are unbelievablyi:~igh. He said the zoning ordinance is not causing that to happen. It is because Albemarle County/Charlottesville is in an international real estate'.market. People who have money and values unrelated to others in this area are coming here to live. On the other hand, Mr. Lindstrom says he has been following the admin- istrative approval of mobile home permits. Clearly, at the lowest level of home building activity, there are rural lots available for people to place mobile homes. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows from personal experience that land in the County close to the City limits can be bought at very reasonable prices. He added that that is not the case in his district, but he feels it is not the Board's obligation to make every part of the CoHnty available to all possible income levels. The Board's obligation is to.make sure there are lots available, and he feels there is a sufficient supply:~vailable. If the market wants to develop them, they are available. He said!it is not evident that this proposal for the rural areas by the Planning Commission will be forcing people to live where they do not want to live. Mr. Bain said he feels the County is taking the right'<steps to encourage growth where it is best suited, preserve the open spaces, ~and do what needs to be done in the rural areas. He said he does not agree with all the fine points set forth in rural development, but there are some.elements that are critical, such as water supply and efficient service delivery. He feels that to make the Comprehensive Plan work is important, and the Board is headed in the right direction. Mr. Way said on the other hand, his concern is that there already are fairly stringent restrictions within the rural areas. He ~aid his feeling is that the regulations are strict enough without adding to them. February 22, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 28 Mr. Bain said in a sense then, Mr. Way is talking about giving what is already in the Plan a chance to work. If the growth areas do absorb more development with what is being implemented to help, that in itself is enough to slow down what is happening in the rural areas. Mr. Home said that in the Planning Commission's thinking, there did not seem to be the balance of growth that is desirable through the current regulations. Further, ten years into the future there still does not seem to be a limiting factor to help balance the growth. In the absence of that "light at the end of the tunnel", the Commission felt that something needed to be done to turn that growth around. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that since Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman of the Planning Commission, was present, he might possibly have something to add. Mr. Bowerman said he had not come prepared to make any statements, but he would answer any questions about the thinking of the Planning Commission involved in the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say that it is important, in his mind, to look at the Comprehensive Plan as a total package. The Commission looked at increasing the incentives in the urban areas, villages and communities by increasing the acreage and the densi- ties as well as looking at providing infrastructure support through expendi- tures of public funds to encourage development in those 'areas. At the same time the Commission felt it necessary to discourage development in the rural areas while protecting the resources. The idea of the small lot option and the provision for open space were both aimed~t that. Incentives were also added in the more restrictive rural areas policy in that the small lot option of clustering allowed certain economies to accrue to the property owner because of less infrastructure cost. This two-pronged approach to encourage development in the urban areas and discourage it in the rural areas, the Commission hoped, would go a long way in addressing the imbalance of growth. Mr. Bain asked how staff arrived at the~orty acre lot size. Mr. Home said there were two factors involved. It was~apparent to staff that there was an increasing trend toward using the 21 acre iparcels for houses, which had been thought of as potential farm and forestry parcels. It seemed that 21 acres was too small to discourage their use aP housing lots. In talking to the VPI-SU Extension Service and the Soil Conservation Service, it seemed that 40 acres would clearly be large enough to operate many of the kinds of agricul- tural or forestry activities seen in this Co~ty. That was the justification for raising the acreage. He said there is, h~wever, no magic to 40 acres versus 50 or some other intermediate range. Mr. Perkins said he feels the same trend toward developing the land for houses rather than using it for forestry or f!arming would happen with a 40-acre minimum lot. He does not feel 40 acres is a viable lot size for forestry use because of the changes that have,occurred in harvesting timber, such as the use of large and costly equipmen~ There has to be enough of a tract to operate the equipment, and fairly large tracts of timber to harvest. Mr. Bowie said he could not be convinced!that people who come to this County and buy land are going to use less land by making the minimum lot size 40 acres rather than 21 acres. Mr. Lindstrom said less land could be used if developments were clustered. Mr. Perkins said he does not think they will cluster. Mr. Bowie said clustering would hav~ to be made easier, because he could not see the economics of clustering unR~r current regulations. Mr. Lindstrom said if clustering can be done with'6ut going through the complica- tions of a special permit, then the economicSlof putting in the roads and knowing that the small lots will sell more easily will result in people clustering. Mr. Bowie said the point should De to make the clustering process easier. The lot size would give the development rights, then if open space is what is wanted, make clustering easier. Bigger lots will only use up more and more land. Mr. Perkins said he thought everyone was !concerned about the same things, that is, the preservation of farms and forest lands. He said it makes him sick to see proposals come in for so many two acre lots and so many 21-acre lots. He said nothing is being preserved in his opinion. Whether the discus- sion is about 21 or 40-acre lots, the land is being "gobbled up". Mr. Horne said it really comes down to what is likely to happen to the large residue acres. Currently land is being divided into 21 acre lots, 290 February 22, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)- (Page 4) rather then going into open space. The hope is that with 40 acre lot minimums a limited number of people will want to market them. Therefore, most people will trade those rights in for small lots in a more economical pattern and be willing to put the residue into open space. Staff is being told by the development community that you can sell a four or five acre lot for about the same as a 21-acre lot. Mr. Perkins said he also has a problem with landowner rights. It seems the "County giveth, and the County taketh away". Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees that the Board cannot tell someone they absolutely cannot use their property. However, he does not get too exercised about reducing the potential develop- ment rights of a property owner when much of the value they are reaping is not the value they have sown. Mr. Way said he just does not feel that all the scheming and conniving to try to accomplish a growth balance is necessary at this time. He said maybe he just does not have enough vision, but in his thinking for the next five years the proposed changes would just not accomplish what is expected. He felt the County would be better off left as it is. If the County gives something, then it has to take something. Then there has.to be a scheme to make another thing work. He said he understands the motivation behind the proposals for small lot options, but he just does not feeI~it is necessary at this time. ~ Mr. Bowie asked staff to explain what would have to be done to make it easy to cluster. Mr. Way said staff could think over the-lanswer to that question while the Board took a break. ~i The Board recessed at 3:35 P.M. and reconvened at 3:50 P.M. In answer to Mr. Bowie's question, Mr. Home said the RA zoning district would have to be amended, which is what has to take place i~nder this proposal anyway. There would be additional provisions in the RA zoning district and potentially some provisions in the subdivision ordinance. ~Mr. Bowie said he thought people would cluster now without extra incentives if they could. Mr. Horne said that is right. He said people would cluster, hht they still bank on ~ change in the zoning ordinance to get the economic value from the residue parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said there is already the perception that there is a possibility of a change in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to look at the concept of creating incentives for clustering. He suggested that if the owner chooses not to cluster, the residue has to be 40 acre parcels. If he chooses to cluster in appropriate locations, there is a 50 percent increase in density on th& residue, based on the 40 acre lots. Mr. Home said in terms of clustering on the best soils, etc., staff has already anticipated doing that. Creating i~his incentive would not be that much more work for staff. It would be primarily a change in mathematics. Mr. Way suggested that the Board accept a challenge t~ come back next week with the expectation of resolving this discussion, ha~ing a week to think about it. He said the other area he wanted to get to is t~e overall analysis of the villages. Mrs. Cooke said she appreciated having same time to think over what was said today. The next work session is scheduled for March 1, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 4. Approval of Minutes: May 14, 1986; January 6 (N), January 13, February 17 (A), February 17 (N), March 16, No~ember 2 (N) and November 16 (A), 1988. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for January 6, 1988 (N), Pages 11 End; and February 17, 1988 (A), Pages 10 - End and found them to be in order. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for February 17, 1988 (A), Pages 1 and November 16, 1988 (A), and found them to be in order. 10; Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for February 17, 1988 (N), Pages 11 found them to be in order with minor typographical corrections. 22 an~ February 22, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) 29 (Page 5) Mr. Way had read the minutes for March 16, 1988, Pages 11 them to be in order with minor typographical corrections. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for January 13, 1988, Pages 19 29; March 16, 1988, Pages 1 - 20; and November 2, 1988 (N), and found them to be in order with a minor typographical error. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. 22 and found Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor said that seven acres of property has been offered to the County for the location of the Keene Transfer Station. An option for twelve months has been drawn up for $500 to hold the land while the transfer station is being designed and state approvals are obtained. He asked the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute such an agreement. The price of the land is the assessed value of $16,000. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom andl seconded by Mrs. Cooke to author- ize the Chairman to execute an agreement exercising a twelve month option on seven acres of land for the Keene Transfer S~'ation at a price of $500. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessCs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn to February 27, 1989, 8:00 A.M. At 4:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mr.'Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn to executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. At 5:15 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn to February 27, 1989, at 8:00 A.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None.