Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-08NSeptember 8, 1977 (Night Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 8, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 7, 1977. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David~and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Zachetta (~rrived at 7:40 P.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1o Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 25, 1977 and September 1, 1977.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented a brief summary on the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bruce Drenning, Jr., Vice President of Planning for Kamstra Dickerson and Associates Incorporated (Consultants hired to revise the Comprehensi Plan) then briefed the public on the land use part of the plan. (For general comments, refer to the meeting of May 16, 1977, in Minute Book 15, pages 167 and 168.) At this time, the public hearing was opened. memorandum into the record: Mayor Nancy O'Brien read the following TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council August 22, 1977 Proposed Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Transportation a. We support the proposal for McIntire Road Extension and suggest that it should be a controlled access and scenic street. b. We agree with the need and importance of improvements to Route 29 North. We agree with the need to limit access to 29 North to minimize traffic hazards. We deem it exceedingly important for the City and the County to work together on details of this area in the near future. c. We support the County's interest in joint transit operation with the City of Charlottesville and the University, at least in the urban area. d. We recommend as has already been recommended by the County Planning Commission, elimination of the Meadowbrook connector. The City Council has voted to delete this section from the City's thoroughfare plan. We feel it will result in a serious adverse impact to the City's northern neighborhood and will have significant adverse environmental impact. e. We agree with the need for Michie Drive extension, but we would strongly recommend this to be a residential collector type of street and not a limited access highway. Limited access highway will bring unnecessary traffic to already congested Hydraulic Road and will have a detrimental effect on neighborhoods to the south and east. This issue has been discussed and agreed upon by the Joint City-County Mutual Boundary Committee. f. We recommend improvement of Avon Street South to give an outlet for east- west traffic to 1-64 for industrial and commercial traffic without going through the City's residenti'al area. g. We also suggest that there is a need for improvement of the extremely inadequate bridge on Park-Rio Road at the northeastern City-County boundary. h. We suggest that the County should consider improvements to Fifth Street extended south of 1-64 which could provide better access to and through the City without going through the residential areas, i.e. residents from Old Lynchburg Road area. i. We feel it is necessary and desirable to make improvements to Rio Road west of 29 North to accommodate existing and future traffic needs. j. We recommend that street standards for the City and County should be coordinated and harminous, and would look forward to an opportunity to resolve this concern as it influences connecting City streets and traffic on them. k. We support the County's recommendation for improvement to the bridge and street at the City-County boundary on 250 east. 1. We suggest the County consider inclusion of Bicycle Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. II. Land Use and Environment a. We support the proposed concept of a green belt around the urban area which we feel in the long run will be an essential and desirable element of this community. It would also be a means to define and control Urban sprawl. b. We support the proposed conservation area and low density housing between the City's eastern boundary and Stonehenge Subdivision. c. We also support the proposed concept of transfer of development rights as it applies to agricultural land. d. We agree with the proposed construction guide for construction on steep areas in scenic areas which is an essential step to avoid detrimental environmental impacts. e. We also find that population projections presented in the plan are quite realistic and compatible with the present trends and other studies conducted by the City, State and Region. f. We find that' the urban area plan is too general at this time and we would like to see it further defined and will be happy to work with the County Planning Commission. SeHtember 8, 1977 (Night Meeting) g. We also find that very little discussion is provided for the need for housing for low income families in the County. We feel that it is essential that the County plan reflect a significant emphasis on fair share housing to meet the needs of the low income county residents and to maintain a balance between the City and the County. h. We recommend that the County consider the concepts of scenic highways with control on signs and development on major arteries, especially the new roads being proposed, e.g. McIntire Road Extended, etc. i. We also recommend a specific effort for joint planning of entrances to the City as they fall on the City-County boundary. Control and attractive development of these areas is in the interest of the City as well as the County. j. We support protection of watersheds. k. We urge careful development in the County to minimize any significant adverse impact on Meadow Creek, Moores Creek, Rivanna River and other creeks. Conclusion We commend the County for their serious, innovative, and realistic efforts in the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County and look forward to the opportunity of working with you to solve mutual problems." Mr. Mathias, Chairman of the Barracks-Rugby-Preston Association, spoke next opposing anymajar development along Michie Drive which would dump traffic into their neighborhoods. He felt the design~of~the roads were only sufficient to handle neighborhood traffic. He note serious traffic problems with an increase of traffic seeking destinations in the downtown area, 29 North and the University, Mr. Don Holden, resident of Montvue, spoke next and suggested the urban circle be split into two circles or arranged in such a manner so the proposed density of population would be graded downward from the inner diameter to the outer one. He felt there should be normal growth of established communities as you go out from the City. Speaking next was Mr. Thomas Batchelor. He was speaking on behalf of Mr. Dan Robinson, owner of property northwest of Montvue Subdivision. He said Mr. Robinson requests the low density for this area be ratained as it presently is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, instaad of the proposed medium density. Mr. Batchelor then discussed the gradation of zoning and did not feel landowners will sell their property since they are protected by the land use tax. Mr. Batchelor felt alternative routes for transportation should be considered other thaH through the metropolitan areas. He suggested going from Free Bridge by following the flood plain all the way to Route 29 North through the polo grounds at the Rivanna River. He felt this way no one's property would be involved. Mr. Max Evans spoke next about the immediate area around the City and specifically about neighborhood five. He noted a study conducted several years ago on the land south of 1-64 and east of 29 South. The study proposed the land was good for urban development. The reasons were: 1) Direct access to the south 29 interchange with Route 64. 2) Trunk sewer will be very close to the land. 3) Land is elevated so there is a positive drainage from several hundred acres of land. Mr. Evans said neighborhood five calls for high density in an area already partially developed as high density. The plan presently calls for the entire area south of 1-64 and east of 29 South to be low density urban development. He felt the area should be high density since the area has direct access, water and sewer. ~ Mr. Allan Howard, representative of Crozet Citizens Association, spoke next. He said the Association has several concerns which are: 1) Expansion of the commercial district at the expense of established high quality residential development. 2) At the same time, ignoring existing commercial development that is located along Route 250 particularly between Brownsville and Yancey Mills which has excellent access to Route 250 and 1-64. 3) The industrial zone expansion dislocates almost the entire black community in Crozet. 4) Proposed high density development located in zones of presently low density type residences. 5) The development of additional low cost housing and trai~ler parks without discussing any buffering for the existing developments. 6) Route 240 is a hazard and the plan says little about the transportation network. Mr. Howard said the Association does not want to eliminate growth in Crozet but felt there should ba standards for development within the Crozet area. He reiterated that the Association recommends . the plan for Crozet be tentative until these concerns are resolved with some citizen input. Speaking next was Mr. Lou Eaton, resident of Crozet who ~xpressed his concern about development along Lickinghole Creek. The topography in the area is very low and he was concerned about flooding where the Creek crosses Jarman's Gap Road. He requested the area be given careful consideration before adoption of the Plan. Mr. Eaton then requested the commercial area shown on the southeast quadrant of Route 240 and Tabor Street be removed and replaced with low density residential. Mrs. Martha Selden spoke next supporting the concerns of the Crozet Citizens Associatio~ Mr. Roy Patterson requested that the industrial area on the northern part of Route 240 between the two plants, Acme~,and Morton's, and the village be replaced with residential zoning as shown in the ourrent plan. He emphasized that the proposed industrial zoning would des~troy the primary black neighborhood. Speaking next was Mr. Dick Brittain. He expressed his concern about traffic on Route 29 North particularly with all of the crossroads and traffic lights. He suggested prospective merchants put up overpasses when they build a shopping canter. Mr. Julian Noble, resident of Carrsbrook, expressed his concern about the development of Hollymead and suggested consideration be given to improving Route 20 to divert traffic from Route 29 North. He then noted that the land on Route 29 North up to the South Fork Rivanna River is zoned B-1 and he felt all this commercial zoning will Produce strip development. He then discussed the fast food places in the commercial zone and suggested something be included in the plan about the emission of exhaust fumes from vehicles at these e~stablishments since many are adjacent to residential areas. Sept,ember 8, 1977 (Night Meeting ~.Adjourned from September 7, 1977) 34 C "August 15, 1977 Whereas, The Town of Scottsville under the present Master Plan of Albemarle County is classified as a community, and Whereas, The new proposed Master Plan would downgrade Scottsville to a Village concept which might impair future growth and other advantages that a full service Community might enjoy, Therefore, The Scottsville Town Council at its regular meeting on August 15, 1977, adopted this resolution to petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to permit Scottsville to remain as a Community in the revised Master Plan." Mr. Wendell Wood spoke in support of Mayor Thacker's request that Scottsville remain a i~ ~ommum±ty instead of the proposed village concept. He emphasized that~t~H~itizens of Scottsville would like to see industrial growth in the area and some employment opportunities offered. Speaking next was Mr. Robert Abbott, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. He reiterated Mayor Thacker's request and felt, as a professional planner, that Scottsville is a full service community. Mr. Gilbert Sommers spoke next. He felt Scottsville should remain the beautiful rural area that it is without bringing in industry. Ms. Eleanor May, resident of North Garden, submitted a petition signed by 139 residents in the area requesting that the village of North Garden retain its name instead of changing it names to Crossroads. Reverend Greene, pastor of the Zion Baptist Church, spoke next and reemphasized the request of the residents of North Garden. ~- At 8:50 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:00 P.M. Speaking next was Mr. Gregory Johnson, President of the Four Seasons Townhouse Asso'ciation. He said the majority of residents in Berkeley and Four Seasons are opposed to extending Commonwealth Drive north to intersect with Rio Road. He said CommonweaIth Drive cani~o~,~handle anymore traffic and improvement to the road would destroy the character of the neighborhood. The residents are also opposed to Michie Drive extension as a parallel major highway to Route 29. The residents prefer McIntire Road be extended to intersect with Rio Road at the Technical Center or even extend it to ~he Hollymead area. The residents favor four-laning Hydraulic Road and also Rio Road to Route 29 North. However, the residents oppose Route 29 North being six lanes. It is very difficult with four lanes to make a left turn into the Berkeley-Four Seasons area and two additional lanes would make it worse. Mr. William Woodworth, resident of White Hall, spoke next. He disagreed with extending McIntire Road through McIntire Park. He felt the park land should remain as it is. He suggested some consideration be given to a public bus service for Crozet and for Rout 29 North. He also suggested persuading the railroads to resume a commuter service. He commended the consultants and planners for the excellent job done~on protecting agricultural land in the County and recommended the Board follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Dale Atler spoke next on Housing. He felt the Board should consider amending ordina~ so two-acre lots would be wider and deeper than a drag strip. Mr. Lester Washington, resident of Route 240 in Crozet, spoke next. He requested the Board replace the industrial zone proposed on the northern part of Route 240 between A~me and Mortons and the village with residential as it exists since 85% to 90% of the community is black. Mr. Bill Gentry, resident of the Jack Jouett District, was next. He expressed his concern that the plan shows different densities which will affect many landowners and he was concerned that many are unaware of the changes. He also questioned the interceptor sewer line for Crozet and asked if the citizens of Crozet or the County could afford such. He felt the overall goals in the plan are good, but felt the Board should be certain that all the changes are clearly understood before the final adoption of the plan. Mr. Timothy Lindstrom spoke next in support of the Comprehensive Plan. He felt the plan laid a foundation to permit growth to occur in a manner to preserve the beauty and historic values of the County. Speaking next was Mr. William Woodworth who read the following statement: "TO: FROM: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Paul Stacy, President Citizens for Albemarle, Inc. 1977 Comprehensive Plan Revision Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. My name is Paul Stacy and I am the President of Citizens for Albemarle, Inc. On behalf of our organization, I would like to extend to you all a well-deserved congratulations for the exhaustive effort that has been expended on this revision. Yourselves, the Planning Commission and the Planning Department deserve high marks for your efforts. Sept~n~b~r 8, ~97~7 (N~ght. M.eetin~) our em In addition, you all are to be highly commended for lengths to which you have gone to seek and incorporate citizen input relative to this revision. It is my opinion that no one in Albemarle County can justifiably complain that this revision is the pipe dream of some out of town consulting firm because, demonstr- ably, this simply is not the case at all. The KDA representatives, Planning Commission and Supervisor members, Planning Dept. officials and Citizen Advisory Panel members - all have bent over backwards to insure that the revised plan reflects, to the extent possible, the desires of our county's residents. It is my feeling that this revision does exactly that. However, this document will be nothing but paper and ink if you do not breathe life into it by simply making it work. Ail the time, effort and money will have' been totally wasted if this document is relegated to the dust shelf. You have had our support in revising this document and you. will Rave our unstinting support in making it work. So please make it-work and all of our efforts will have been rewarded. Thank you. (Signed) Paul Stacy~ President Citizens for Albemarle, INC." Mr. Roy Patterson endorsed the remarks of Mr. Paul Stacy and urged the adoption of the plan. ~Mrs'. Elizabet~ Murray spoke next and even though she did not Oppose the revised 'Plan she felt the scope of the plan gives citizens a sense of security that there is enough energy land, etc., to go around. She did not feel this was true and urged fuller utilization of land as well. as cooperation with the CitY and more education in the plan on preservation. Mrs. Frances Granger reminded the Board that private land is being dealt with and asked if the greenbelt discussed was to be acquired by the County or zoned as such. Ms. Sally Thomas felt the transportation issue in the plan should be given a great deal of thought and the access should be considered in light of where it is needed. This would be helpful to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study group if the Board could determine what the citizens want in the 29 North area. Ms. Jo Stanley, resident of Crozet, requested that until the Crozet interceptor line is in place that no rezoning be made to a lower density than one house per two-acres. With no one further to speak, the public hearing was closed. At this time, Mr. Fisher commended the staff, consultants, Mrs. David and Mr. Roudabush, and all the citizens for their work on the plan. He felt the next step would be to focus on the concerns expressed by the public tonight. He then suggested a work session on urban areas, transportation, Crozet and Scottsville for September 21, 1977, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room. Agenda Item No. 3. Unemployment Insurance--NIML0 Legislation. Mr. Agnor summarized the history of the unemployment insurance ac~ and the pending law suit which is sponsored by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. Complying with the law ~ou~d mean the County would have to do one of two things: ~) Buy the insurance which is admirJstered through the Virginia Employment Commission, or 2) be self- insured. Because of the cost ~m~purchase the insurance, he recommended that Albemarle County become a ~laintiff in the suit. The Na~ona! Association of Counties and the National League of Cities will not join in the suit due to labor unions. The Attorney General's office will not pick up the suit because ~he General Assembly enacted the recent legislation and the Attorney General's office is in not a position to go to court in opposition to the General Assembly. At this time, Mrs. David offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby agree to become participants in the suit challenging the constitutionality of those provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976, Public Law Number 94-566, which force State and local governments to pay unemployment compensation benefits to their employees under a new uniform Federal scheme. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Mr. Dorrier. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M.