Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-04-12April 12, 1972 An adjourned meeting was held at'~7:30 ~P.M.' on this date in the Albemarle County Court HouSe, said meeting being adjourned from April 4, 1972. Notice of suoh date and place of meeting was pUb~lished in the Daily Progress on March 30 and April 6, 1972. The purpose of this meeting being to hold a public hearing on the f ol 1 owing: SP-156. North Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to establish a Planned Community on land situated east of Route 29 North in the immediate area known as "Hollymead." The subject property is situated generally between Routes 649, ~29 North, and 643. Propertycontains 252 acres and is described as County Tax Map 46, Parcels 29, 27, 26B and 26E. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. (Mr. Stuart F. Carwile was present, but did not sit with the Board or participate in discussion or action on Hollymead.) Officers Present: County Executive and County Attorney. The Chairman explained the purpose of the meeting amd asked Mr. Humphrey, County Planner, for an up-dated staff report on this petition. Mr. Humphrey stated that he had tarried to the Heal-th De~rtment regarding the possibility of septic tanks in Phase I as an interim measure until such time as public s'ewer is available. The Health Department had no objections to this as long as percolation not tests, which have/been performed, prove satisfactory. Concerning the roads in Holl~ead, Mr. Humphrey read the foll'~ing letter from Mr. Max Evans: "March 20, 1972 Mr. Robert Warner, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Highways River Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Bob: Thank you kindly for the opportunity to discuss with you and John Humphries the present and future plans for HOLLYMEAD. It is good that we gould clarify the basic requirements for the road to HOLLYMEAD School. According to my notes the following agreements were reached: The present road will allow 85 dwelling units ko be constructed in this phase of the HOLLYMEAD community. e Additional pavement on the present geometry can bring the VPD count to as high as 5,500. The cut shoulders must be improved to 8' in width and the fill shoulders to 10' in width at the time additional pavement is placed. This section of HOLLYMEAD is generally self-contained with cul-de-sacs and the total development density of approximately 800 dwelling units will yield a VPD within the 5,500 limit of Category IV. The exact credits for the present road'and future pavement depths will be specified by the Virginia Department of Highways. At no time will ~,he number of dwelling units exceed the VPD capacity of the roadway. Yours truly, (Signed) Max Evans" At this time, the Chairman introduced those persons present who would make presentations for the petitioner. Speaking on behalf of the petitioner was Mr. Max Evans, Mr. Frank Burke and Dr. Charles W. Hurt. ~fte~-~a lengthy presentation, Dr. Hurt read the fOllowing letter inter.the record: "April 12, 1972 Dr. Charles W. Hurt Route 29, North Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Hollymead Planned Community Concept, Albemarle County. Dear Dr. Hurt: Thank you for your invitation to review your plans and accompanying documents with regard to the above referenced project. It is obvious to me from this review that you have utilized the best professional services in devising a planned community for the Rivanna Cluster in full accord with the Comprehensive Plan developed for and adopted by Albemarle County. I found your designs well supported by documented economic, physical and human resource data equated to the present demand for housing and convenience services in Albemarle County. In my opinion, your proposals are oompleted in accord with the "Controlled Growth Policies" outlined in the recently adopted plan. In fact, the approach you are using is the best way to provide a "balanced" community and at the same time preserve a large portion of the County~ valuable open space. Personally, I have advocated this method of clustering develot~uent in all the public hearings during the earlier stages of plan development. I have carefully reviewed the staff and planning commission reports and am satisfied that their conditions and recommendations are reasonable, and I understand from you that you intend to abide by those recommendations when the decision on each is imminent in the process of your actual development program. I ~further understand that-your utilities plan is being developed in close conjunction with those of the county and the city and that your cost analysis shows that none of your services are being provided at the cost to anyone outside your own planned community. The plans for the Powell's Creek system have been approved and funded, now awaiting a decision by the County and the City on a joint contract approach. The water main from Charlottesville north to Piney Mountina, located in the center of Route 29 is accessible to your property at several points and'should present no'~cOnnection or supply problem. All other planned public facilities have been recognized and incorporated in your proposals. Finally, let me restate a position I have adhered to since the beginning of the planning process in Albemarle County. Growth will occur in Albemarle County. The only questions remaining are: where, in what form, and at what time. These questions can only be answered by the dictates of the general state statutes requiring that planned growth be considered in light of reasonable, orderly, economic, control of the density and distribution of population, and that the general health, safety and welfare of the population be promoted and improved. The public sector responsibility has been carried out thmough its plans for this area to date. None of these plans can work however, unless the private development sector initiates the request to begin. No one should lose sight of this simple economic fact, so necessary in the complete planning cycle. The timing is certainly correct in light of current events, the location is in accord with t~e public sector plan, and the form is by far the better choice over conventional development. I see no reason, whi~ agreeing with both the staff and the county planning commission, why your proposal should not be acceptable to Albemarle County. Sincerely~ (Signed) Rosser H. Payne, Jr., A.I.P." Upon completion of statements made by the foregoing persons the Chairman called upon the public for comment. A brief summary of general comments follows: Mr. Robert Dolan expressed the opinion that growth is taking place everywhere and since the unemployment rate is so low and with the addition of Interstates 64 and 81 he believes there is no way to stop this growth. He stated that the County will develop with no plan and he thinks a planned community like Hollymead is needed. Mr. Michael Demetsky expressed conce~n about additional vehicular traffic on 29 North. Mr. Bob Merkel expressed concern ~that in 30 years approximately 50% of the land in Albemarle would be in use. He also expressed the opinion that more industry m~ld be discouraged, thereby reducing the number of people in the County. Mr. RiChard Seldon said he is disturbed that a fiscal impact analysis has not been performed. He does not believe that a project of this kind can pay-for itself. Mrs. Robert Seldon 'expressed concern that there is no low-income housing planned in 'Hollymead and felt that approval should not be rushed without environmental and social impact studies being made. Mrs. Gabrielle Hall, a real estate agent, spoke in f~avor of the petitioner. Mr. Henry Maclin, a financial planner, spoke in favor. Mr. F. A. Iachetta said he is not opposed to the plan but said he is not assured that the Board knows how to make the cluster concept legal. Mr. Clay Camp spoke in favor of the planned community concept. Mr. Bill Litton from Commonwealth Mortgage Company in Richmond said that Commonwealth Mortgage believes this is a good plan and they are surprised at the controversy. Mr. William-Colony spoke in favor of this type of development, but felt that it is growth serving. He asked that action be delayed until such time as the Board and the people are satisifed that there are no better alternatives. Mr. Jo~_Cannon felt there is no reason to delay, approval on basis for need for additional studies. Mr. Robert Lee, a builder, urged that some areas be set aside for low-income housing. Mrs. Nancy O'Brien from the League of Women Voters, asked that 'an agreement be reached for the funding, of Sewer lines. She also felt that no proper soil survey had been done and that the roads have not been jointly planned. She also expressed concern about low-income housing. Mr. L. A. Berlin felt there should be low cost housing even if same had to be subsidized by the Federal and state governments. Mr. Bob Ward, from Lake Monticello, felt that a planned community is the best way to handle growth. He felt that the plan as presented isa good plan and that it meets the master plan requirements and that it~should be approved. Mrs. Rosenblum felt that the issue is not growth but the fact' that new ordinances have not been adopted to go along with the planned community concept. Mr. Roy Patterson endorsed Mrs. ~.RQsenblums, comments. Mrs. Hall also expresSed concern over ~the lack of low-income housing, but felt that approval should not be held up over this one point. At the conclusion of the public hearing, motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood that this matter ~e deferred until April 20, 1972, as soon after 10:00 A.M. as possible to hear a report from the Highway. Department concerning the roads in Hollymea~ The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. · ............. At this point, Mr. Carwile made a motion that this meeting be adjourned until 5~00 P.M. on Wednesday, April 19, 1972, in the Board Room of the County Office Building. recorded vote. AYES: Messr s. NAYS: None. Motion was seconded by Mr.' Thacker and passed by the following Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker,' Wheeler and Wood. Chairman