Loading...
1979-12-05December 5, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, ~ on December 5, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesw Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Antl Iachetta (arrived at 7:40 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Vice Chairman, J. T. Henley, Jr. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-79~2. S. V. Associates & North Rivanna Fifth Land Tr (deferred from November 7, 1979.) Mr. Tucker requested this item be deferred to tl Board's meeting of January 16, 1980, because the Planning Commission has not acted amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to establish the community of Piney Mountain. was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, that ZMA-7~32 be deferred January 16, 1980. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following record AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-79~3~. Charles W. Hurt. (Deferred from October 17, 1 Mr. Tucker reported receipt of a letter from the applicant, Dr. Charles W. Hurt, a requesting a deferral of this zoning map application. Mr. Tucker recommended this deferred to the meeting of January 16, 1980. Motion was then offered by Mr. Linds seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer ZMA-79-34 to January 16, 1980. Roll was calle the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 4. Approval of Minutes: August 1 (afternoon) and August 8, Neither August 1 or August 8, 1979 had been completely reviewed by Board members, Henley suggested approval of these minutes be deferred to the next regular meeting Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor reported rece notices from Virginia Electric and Power Company regarding a hearing by the State ation Commission in January, to review the fuel adjustment clause and rate schedul same type notification was received from the Potomac Edison Company and the Appala Power Company for a rate increase effective January 1, 1980. Mr. Agnor reminded Board members of the Virginia Association~of Counties meet 1980 legislative requests to be held in Staunton, Virginia on Wednesday, December at 6:00 P.M. He asked Board members to notify him as soon as possible so they can registered in time to attend the meeting. December ~,1979 (Afternoon Meeting) ~AdJourned from December 5, 1979) ~djourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was )ecember 11, 1979, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, ~sville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from December 5, 1979. ~ent: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 1:48 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, lley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 1:43 P.M.) and C. Timothy Lindstrom ~ at 1:38 P.M.). ~nt: Mr. W. S. Roudabush. .cers present: 'r, County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Planner, Robert W. ~da Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:48 P.M. by the Chairman who that Mr. Roudabush is ill and will not be present today. da Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said the Board must olve questions concerning the ReServoir, the Pantops area and the Biscuit Run area. that the Board would be able to come to some resolution so the staff can finish the a vote be taken by the Board at a subsequent meeting for approval of all of the Lindstrom Said he had a proposal to make which would deal with two of these question~ with Mr. Roudabush by telephone this morning and went over these proposals in Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Roudabush found his proposals acceptable for, purposes of the sire Plan and also because he felt that there Would not be a formal vote taken r. Lindstrom said he met with Mr. Tucker to discuss the zoning proposed for e of Route 250 East (Neighborhood No. 3). There is sufficient depth on that side ad to develop the properties internally rather than have highway-oriented commercial hat fmund on Route 29 North. He asked the staff to draft a concept for a planned 1 district which would allow development only after the property owners of record, me of adoption of such a provision, had received approval from the Board of Super- the Planning Commission for a site plan or subdivision plat, based on the applicant transportation plan showing all internal roads~and all curb cuts on public roads. of such a review, the Board could control access and limit orientation of com~ evelopment in that area so it would have to occur on internally developed roads. Lindstrom's proposal, the area on the south side of Route 250 East - both that commercial and commercial office - would be designated as a planned commercial Details of such a district would have to be worked out at the time the proposed ~inance is adopted. Mr ~Lindstrom also suggested that the commercial area shown ~rest of the hill out toWard 1-64 where no development has occurred, be deleted as 1 because of the narrowness of the property and because of its potential impact on Subdivision, and that this property be considered for some type of residential Lindstrom said he understands that under present laws, each existing propert~ a right to one access to a.public road, and this proposal would put that one ~o ordinance form. ~ucker said Mr. Roudabush, Mr. Lindstrom and himself had discussed this idea ~. They realize that under existing subdivision regulations, no subdivision ~roved administratively unless the lots are greater than five acres each, so they aink that a develoPer would try to "get around" the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said his arn with~the proposal is putting this designation on the map 'at this time. ~For aned type uses, these uses are not recognized on the map'until the area is~actually that category. Mr. Fisher said the last time the Board discussed this~neighbOrhood ~as going to recommend that all of the commercial zoning east of the ridge be De~ember 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from December 5, 1979) Mr. Lindstrom said he was sensitive about speaking for Mr. Roudabush, but he Mr. Roudabush about bringing up.this matter today, and Mr. Roudabush has indicated felt he could go along with a motion to delete the watershed from the Urban Area b~ recognizes that this area is affected by special legislation that is different fror of the Urban Area. Dr. Iachetta said he had no problem with taking the watershed out of the Urbal but he is not convinced that this goes far enough in the County's efforts to prote~ Reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said he has never felt the Runoff Control Ordinance by it: sufficient. He agreed with the proposal to put the eastern section of Neighborhoo~ a better mode for control, but was not sure that this amount of commercial should ~ since it is far in excess of what is needed for the next 20 years. Mr. Lindstrom are some facts which mitigate against the high density zoning east of the ridge lil though the County Engineer finally determined that the area could be served by gra· sewer, it would cost so much to do so because of topography that it is not likely ever be developed in that manner. Dr. Iachetta said Neighborhood #3 has a much be~ potential for utility service than other areas, particularly those in the northern the County, because there are relatively short distances from the sites to the Riw Interceptor. Zn the Crozet area and the area north of Hollymead there would need extensive and costly extensions of utility lines. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the B should consider including the Biscuit Run area because of its proximity to the sew treatment plant. Mr. Dorrier said he felt the recommendation to include Biscuit Run is good an support Mr. Lindstrom's motion if the Board could designate that area for developm density suggested, with some commercial zoning in the center of the Biscuit Run ar some commercial along Avon Street Extd. (Route 742). Mr. Lindstrom said he had co adding Biscuit Run in his motion b~t~did~not for a couple of reasons. First, Bisc was created by the Planning Commission as a holding area for the population hhat w from other parts of the Urban Area. Second, there is a proposal to create a Piney community waiting for committee recommendations. Both of these proposals have bee as a way to absorb density that has been reduced in other areas of the County. Mr said he did not mention Biscuit Run at this time since it would be more appropriat consider it ~long wi~h the Piney Mountain area, and it does not replace the type o mixes that were planned for the watershed area. Dr. Iachetta said there is a difference between the Piney Mountain and the Bi areas. In the Biscuit Run area, there will be public utilities available when the water treatment plant is completed. For the Piney Mountain area, the Camelot Sewe ment Plant is not large enough at this time and is not a high quality plant. Also Camelot plant is enlarged, it will have to~ be at the expense of the developer, so totally different economic picture. Mr. Dorrier said if the Board does not.plan £ Biscuit.Run area, it will plan itself. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board return to discussion of Neighborhood #3. He makes sense to him to stop commercial development at the ridge line and delete, the of the commercial area. He said there is obviously strip development on this sect Route 250 East like that on Route 29 North. He was not satisifed with the placem~ residential densities, saying there should be some gradation of densities from lo~ Mr. Fisher said if the Board will go forward with changes in the subdivision ordi~ the site plan ordinance to put Mr. Lindstrom's proposal for a planned commercial d into effect, he can vote for that part of the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said his pro~ only with changing the commercial ar~a from the ridge line east, on the north sid~ 250. Mr. Fisher asked what density would be shown for that area. Dr. Iachetta as area could be cross-hatched to indicate a mixture of medium and low density resid~ development. Mr. Tucker said yes. Dr. Iachetta said this would be prefer~so December 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from December 5, 1979) ~enley said he did not think it solves any problems to delete the watershed area ~rban Area. He felt the Board may at some time in the future regret taking it out.~ ~isher said he does not believe this is an area where zoning densities should be This Comprehensive Plan amendment is for only the next 15 to 20 years, but the consider where the public water supply will come from for hundreds of years. can always be added back to the Urban Area by some future Board of Supervisors if a ~nd to deal with the pollution problem. ~enley said to take the watershed area out of the Urban Area to keep it from growing ?ficient reason. It could remain in the Urban Area and still obtain that goal. lindstrom felt there are a lot of reasons for deleting this area from the Urban Dons he has stated many times. Mr. Lindstrom said he is scared that considering he Virginia Court system works, the County would not prevail in terms of preserving Lity if this area is left in the Urban Area plans. He asked if there had been a his motion. )orrier asked if the Biscuit Run area can be dealt with as part of the motion. Mr. said he would be willing to do so if the Board had enough facts to deal with the ltain community proposal at the same time. If the Piney Mountain and Biscuit Run been proposed as alternatives for the population loss in the watershed area, he ~ard about including it in the motion at this time. Mr. Dorrier said he feels ~n should be a part of the Urban Area irregardless of the Piney Mountain situation. ~e Biscuit Run area will develop and he feels the planning for it should be done Henley said he does not think Biscuit Run and Piney Mountain are tied together in Id if the Biscuit Run area has merits, it should be considered on those merits Lindstrom said is he uneasy about dealing with these two applications which, ~taff's analysis, have been proposed as alternatives for the population decreases occurred in other areas as the deails of these amendments have been analyzed. speaking, it would seem to be better to take the two together. Biscuit Run is an suited to development whether it is included in this Comprehensive Plan amendment ~t amendment. Biscuit Run, plus Piney Mountain, makes a~g~i~mant increase in ~tion designations for the County that should have some more analysis. Mr. Dorrier ~it Run should not necessarily be tied to deleting the watershed area from the o. He felt there should be three separate motions to accomplish what has been ~oday. Mr. Henley said if Biscuit Run is a logical area for growth to occur, he nothing wrong with designating it as part of the Urban Area, although just desig- will not cause anything to happen in the area. ~is time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to delete the South Fork Rivanna River area from the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by ~ta. ienleY said he would support the motion because this is just a consensus vote. Mr. Lindstrom feels that run-off from Crozet can be handled with an impoundment on .e Creek, Mr. Henley said he would be greatly surprised if it ever comes about. ~indstrom said an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek is a way to deal with the problem ~t available in.the Urban Area. Mr. Henley said it ~s~a~t?~f~m~y to take care little problem. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. .e, ir. Roudabush. December 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from December 5, 1979) as an important factor for this designation. Mr. Lindstrom asked aboUt the densit~ Mr. Tucker said the staff chose to show the area for the lowest density at the pre~ Mr. Lindstrom said it is recommended in the~Comprehensive Plan that special care b~ that urbanization does not go down too far in this area because there is no natura[ Mr. Tucker said tributaries to Biscuit Run form the boundaries and should act as a for urban type'development. Mr. Dorrier said if the Board foregoes planning for Biscuit Run at this time, years when the Comprehensive Plan is amended, there may not be an opportunity. It territory, therefore the County can plan for development in an orderly manner. If fails to do this, the County may be faced With what a developer can do under exist~ Mr. Fisher said he has a concern that really has nothing to do with either Bi or Piney Mountain. These plans show sufficient densities in the Urban area to tak an additional 57,000 people. These plan amendments are predicated on a growth of the next 20 years. He said the County already has more than an ample inventory of designated for all categories and he could see no reason to expand these plans. M said the consultants had looked at what the optimum size of the urban area should the City of Chrlottesville. They came up with a figure of 100,000. The plan is t growth somewhere in that range since statistics prove that once that figure is exc until the area goes to over one-quarter of a million persons, all services are mor The idea is to maintain an overall population capacity that will be manageable and utilities are cost-efficient. If the higher densities are not shown at this time, though they provide for a population far in excess of this planning period, the la develop at lower densities, so the County could not provide that maximum capacity. Fisher said that seems a little arbitrary. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Dorrier had made a statement that concerns him, and it statement often heard. To say that the County will fall prey to any bizarre idea comes in with and all agricultural land is "up for grabs" is baloney. Under the ~ zoning ordinance that is true, and that is one of the problems. Mr. Lindstrom sa~ a public investment, and the Board has a~right to say certain areas need to be pre futUre growth, or for agricultural production, or because they cannot handle subd~ Mr. Lindstrom said it is only under a weak, wishy-washy, ineffectual zoning ordins as the one presently on the books, that it can be said that if no planning is done ~area now, the ability to do so in the future will be lost. That is one of the ret new zoning ordinance is needed. Dr. Iachetta said he cannot see jumping seven miles to the north of town (Pit and creating yet another pollution source. The Biscuit Run area is near the waste treatment plant, it lies well, and would be a decent place to live. It potential] enough economic viability at the densities proposed to warrant an extension of ut~ is not so big as to become a blight for the people who live in the area. It is a place to put densities a little higher than the rural density. Mr. Fisher said he could see no clear and present public need to create an ac the Urban Area in the Biscuit Run area when it can be done during some future rev~ the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Piney Mountain plan continues to cloud the i~ although the Board has not yet seen that proposal. Mr. Henley said he was agreea~ including the Biscuit Run area now, but also felt it could left to a later amendm~ Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dorrier said this plan for Biscuit Run is predicated on ~ utilities being available to the area. Although the interceptor has not been bui[ wastewater treatment plant is not completed, these utilities will become availabl~ felt the County should begin planning for the area now. Mr. Henley said the plan was not a good plan for utilities because the densities are not large enough to jl extension of the utility lines. December 11, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from December 5, 1979) ight say about this. He felt this might open the door to arguments by developers y should be allowed to develop at the highest density. Mr. Tucker said he could ad the argument if it related to a vacant tract, but did not see ~how this argument ply to an area that is essentially~already fully developed. Dr. Iachetta said these ~w Colthurst and Montvue at their existing land use pattern, and he felttto be ~t, this same thing could be shown for other developed areas, once an acreage criteri~ [ished. Mr. Fisher said he understands that the staff does not like the idea of Ls. Mr. Tucker said he feels it is unnecessary, but it can be done if the Board ~1 more comfortable doing so. Mr. Henley said he also does not feel it is necessary Ls in the Comprehensive Plan; the actual zoning map will be another question. (Mr. Left the meeting at 3:43 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said he would feel more comfortable if ?ehensive Plan recognized areas of 25 acres or greater that are already developed ~lished. He asked if any other Board members shared his concern. Mr. Lindstrom ~ould give a little more margin of security. Tucker asked if it was the ~ntent of the Board that the staff go back and recolor ~ehensive Plan maps according to the consensus reached today. Mr. Fisher said that .ntent. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any other unresolved issues. Mr. Fisher ~e is a proposal for an industrial site at the corner of 1-64 and the Route 250/29 ~hat is unresolved. ~Mr. Dorrier returned~to the meeting at 3:49 P.M.) Mr. Eckel property mentioned is on Old Route 29 SoUth just past the Chinese Dragon Restaurant. Jr asked about the terrain. Mr. Eckel said there are some steep slopes and a gully ~ down to the road. Mr. Tucker said, because this parcel is in a quadrant of the ~e, it is not a feasible site for residential use due to the noise factor. Mr. Lid he would like to look at the site before making a recommendation. Tucker said comments have been received from the Highway Department relative to 'ovements in the Villages. He presented the following letter from Mr. W. B. Coburn, ~stant Resident Engineer, dated November 30, 1979: ~nse to the request for Department input on roadway improvements in the Village Plan ed by KDA and roads requested for consideration by the Board of Supervisors, the i is our analysis broken down into areas. onnecting road running from Route 20 South of Interstate 64 to Route 742 continuing e 631 South, is shown in Alternate 4 of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation believe the need for this road will be thoroughly handled through the CATS Study. road continuing from Route 631 to Route 29 apparently does not have adequate need sented as part of the CATS Study. Since Route 29 and Route 631 are interconnected oute 64, it would appear that this connection would be sufficient and need not be at this time. new roads appear in the Ivy Village. One on the southside of Route 250 which would location of Route 786 to a point further to the east than the existing connection. adequate sight distance can be obtained, this would be a positive step in providing eparation from the C&O Railroad Underpass and could also serve as access to the park. The second road which is a realignment of Route $78 would be an improvement rea. Adequate sight distance exists at its proposed intersection with Route 250. d also shorten this section of existing 678 and eliminate the need for the improvemel isting Route 678. This road appears on a property which is currently requested for to RS-1. I have sketched a general alignment which would appear suitable for as well as provide reasonable access to the property through which it passes. I his access alignment would be the best, however the alignment shown in the proposed lan by KDA also appears acceptable. mmunity Plan. Concerning the roads in the Crozet area shown on the map, the Depart~ port the proposed improvements, realignments and new roads with the exception of ~nment of Route 2~0 near the intersection of Route-810 ~.t