1996-04-17000028
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 17, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., in the Auditorium of the
County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arriving at 7:05 p.m.), Mr.
Walter F. Perkins and Mrs Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Chief of
Community Development, David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:06 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were no other matters presented.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the consent agenda
and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution to take Blackburn Bluff and Blackburn Way in
Dunlora Subdivision, Phase iA, into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineering Department, and by the recorded
vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase lA, Blackburn
(SUB 12.354) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
April 8, 1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the require-
ments established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add
the roads in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase lA, Blackburn, as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 8, 1996, to the second-
ary System of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for
cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
(Page 2)
000029
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Blackburn Bluff from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of
Dunlora Drive (State Route 1177) to Station 23+84.43, rear
of cul-de-sac, 1374.43 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded
12/1/89, Deed Book 1078, pages 566-575, in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats
recorded 7/5/91 in Deed Book 1164, pages 2-11, and 4/5/96 in
Deed Book 1528, page 559, for a length of 0.26 mile.
2)
Blackburn Way from Station 10+10, right edge of pavement of
Blackburn Bluff to Station 15+47.75, right edge of pavement
of Blackburn Bluff, 537.75 lineal feet as shown on plat
recorded 12/1/89 in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-575, in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with
additional plat recorded 7/5/91 in Deed Book 1164, pages 2-
11, for a length of 0.10 mile.
Total length - 0.36 mile.
Item 5.2. Authorize Staff to Coordinate Road Name Change Requests.
It was noted in the staff's report that the staff has recently completed
the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project by
processing 27 road name change requests in accordance with the Board's road
name change policy. Staff has received two additional requests and has a
staff- recommended road name change to complement a requested change recently
completed.
Radford Lane/Yellow Brick Road: A petition was submitted in accordance
with the Board's policy requesting a change from Radford Lane to Yellow Brick
Road. This petition contained six of eight landowner signatures so it was
subsequently approved. After the change was made, a second petition was
submitted containing seven of eight landowner signatures in favor of reversion
back to Radford Lane. The remaining landowner who did not sign the petition
was contacted by staff and is now in favor of the change back to Radford Lane
as well. Road signs have been fabricated. There is no cost involved for new
signs.
Monticello Road/Monticello Loop: A request was made by Mr. Daniel P.
Jordan of Monticello to change the name of the road serving the Monticello
grounds from Monticello Road to Monticello Loop in an effort to reduce
confusion with other similarly named roads in the County/City. Monticello
will be responsible for the cost of the new sign.
Hydraulic Road/Earlysville Road: A petition was submitted and approved
in accordance with the Board's policy to change the name of Hydraulic Road (a
portion of Hydraulic Road from its intersection with State Route 743 at the
Reservoir to Free Union Road [State Route 601]) to Woodlands Road. To
complement this change, staff recommends changing the name of Hydraulic Road
(a portion from its intersection with State Route 631 at the Rock Store to its
intersection with Woodlands Road [State Route 676 at the Reservoir]) to
Earlysville Road. This change will eliminate confusion by not having the name
of the road switched from Hydraulic Road to Earlysville Road when traveling on
State Route 743. The logical beginning/ending point for Earlysville Road is
at the controlled intersection near the Rock Store. One new sign will need to
be fabricated by the County at a cost of approximately $60.00.
By the recorded vote set out above, staff was granted the authority to
coordinate the above referenced changes to road names.
Item 5.3. Adopt Resolution Authorizing County Executive to submit
Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG), Community Organizing
Planning Grant, Application.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development administers the federally-funded Community
Development Block Grant Program (VCDBG) . These funds are available to
nonentitlement localities on a competitive basis to implement a wide variety
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3) '
000030
of housing and community development activities. There are two kinds of
grants: Community Improvement Grants (CIG) and Planning Grants. A CIG
application was submitted by the County on March 29, 1996, for housing
rehabilitation in the Esmont community. Planning Grants do not require public
hearings, only an authorizing resolution. During the 1994, 1995 and the 1996
CDBG public hearings, the Whitewood community was identified as a potential
neighborhood for a future CIG, possibly for a community center.
The design of the 1996 VCDBG program introduces a new category of
planning grants, the Community Organizing Planning Grant. This grant is
intended for neighborhoods that have not already selected a future Community
Improvement Grant project, but who may need to undergo a process of organizing
and visioning in order to select, develop and prioritize an appropriate
improvement agenda for the future. These types of grants must involve
community groups o__r nonprofit groups in the organizing of neighborhood
residents and in the development of community assessment of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats, goals and objectives, and a strategy
for future social and physical improvements. The result of such efforts must
be capacity-building among future beneficiaries who will create a vision of
their future, using CDBG and other resources. The maximum grant amount is
$10,000.
The Whitewood Village apartment complex contains 96 units of Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Assistance. The 15-year subsidy contract
expires in the year 2002. Depending upon the wishes of the owner of the
property and the funding availability of future Section 8 funds, the County
may lose these rental units which currently serve low- and moderate-income
residents. There is no requirement for the owner to continue with rental
assistance if it is available. A Community Organizing Planning Grant would
create the opportunity for the current residents to plan for their future in
cooperation with the current owners.
By the recorded vote set out above, staff was authorized to submit a
Community Organizing Planning Grant for the Whitewood Village neighborhood in
the amount of $7000 to be subcontracted to the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency (MACAA); and to adopt the following resolution authorizing the
County Executive to submit this application to the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has long recognized that citizen
leadership and involvement is a perquisite for empowered
and self-sufficient neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the County believes that empowered and self-sufficient
neighborhoods should be developed and encouraged in all
possible ways; and
WHEREAS, the County's new Neighborhood Team initiative has begun
to bring together the various County departments and
community agencies that work most frequently to create an
organized, coordinated, on-going process to address
neighborhood problems and concerns; and
WHEREAS, the neighborhood of Whitewood Village prOvides 96 units
of decent, safe and affordable housing through the Sec-
tion 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Assistance Program,
services 96 low- and moderate-income households and 288
'LMI individuals; and
WHEREAS, the Whitewood Village Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance
Payments Contract expires in the year 2002 and such
expiration could result in the displacement of 96 LMI
households; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency is a member
of the County's Neighborhood Team, is experienced in
neighborhood organizing, and is partially funded by the
County; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has agreed to
administer a Community Organizing Planning Grant on
behalf of Albemarle County;
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
00003 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive of Albemarle County, Virginia, is hereby autho-
rized to sign and submit a Virginia Community Development
Block Grant, Community Organizing Planning Grant Applica-
tion for Whitewood Village in the amount of $7,000.
Item 5.4. Proclamation proclaiming April 21 through April 27, 1996, as
Crime Victims' Rights Week.
Ms. Susan M. Painter, Director of the Albemarle County Victim/Witness
Assistance Program, requested that the Board proclaim April 21 to April 27,
1996, as ~Crime Victims' Rights Week in Albemarle County". She said such a
proclamation would emphasize commitment to this important cause and recognize
the efforts of those who serve victims of crime in this community and the
Commonwealth.
By the recorded vote set out above, April 21 through April 27, 1996, was
proclaimed as Crime Victims' Rights Week in Albemarle County. Mrs. Humphris
read the proclamation aloud and thanked Ms. Painter for bringing this matter
to the Board's attention.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on proposed revisions to the "Devel-
opment Environmental Chapter" of the Comprehensive Plan which includes the
County Land Use Plan. Major recommendations include: (1) expanding desig-
nated growth areas of Hollymead, Piney Mountain & Neighborhoods 4 & 5 along
Route 20 S & Rt 631; (2) deletion of Earlysville & North Garden Villages as
designated growth areas; and (3) encouraging higher gross densities of
residential & nonresidential development & more infill development within
designated growth areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and
April 8, 1996.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the County's
Comprehensive Plan review efforts began in the Spring of 1994 with completion
of the County/City/University-sponsored visioning process which established a
community-wide vision for the general area. Also, a random-sampling telephone
survey was completed of County residents concerning planning-related issues.
Staff then held a work session with the Board and Planning Commission and
established a schedule for the review which focused on first completing an
Economic Development Policy and then updating the Land Use Plan component of
the Comprehensive Plan. No major changes to the Rural Areas Development
Policy would be undertaken during this review of the Plan, and the Rural Areas
implementation section issues and strategies would be undertaken as a second
phase. (The Commission will begin review of the Rural Areas section within
the next several weeks.) Staff and the Commission focused on development of
the Economic Development Policy and review of the Growth Areas portion of the
Land Use Plan, and the Transportation, Community Facilities and Utilities
sections of the Comprehensive Plan. What is before the Board tonight is the
Commission's recommended draft of those sections of the Plan.
Mr. Benish then summarized the most significant recommendations and
changes to those portions of the Plan. First, the Commission wishes to
encourage greater utilization of developable land within the growth areas.
This is to be accomplished by achieving higher gross densities in both
residential and nonresidential development. Infill development within the
designated growth areas is to be promoted. The Commission expressed concern
that with the typical twenty-year time frame for the Land Use Plan, it is too
short for adequate public facilities, utilities and transportation planning
and to provide a long-range vision for the county, but it is too long for
development planning and may encourage premature and sprawl development.
Therefore, the Commission recommended that consideration be given to structur-
ing the Land Use Plan with two time frames. One would be a short-term
development plan such as the existing Land Use Plan which addresses the five-
to ten-year pressing issues. Second would be a new long-term horizon plan
which would cover from twenty to fifty years identifying areas of possible
longer-term growth in order to allow more accurate facilities, utilities and
transportation planning. The Commission recommends that development of a
~horizon" plan be an item on the Action Agenda at the adoption of this
Comprehensive Plan. That is not before the Board tonight, but is a high
priority recommendation. Those two focuses were of significant interest and
are the primary focuses of change recommended by the Commission.
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Me~ting)
(page 5)
OOO0;12
Mr. Benish said the Commission recommends that all growth areas be
served by public water and sewer facilities so based on that recommendation
and other considerations, the Commission recommends that the villages of North
Garden and Earlysville be deleted as designated growth areas (a loss of about
1200 acres). The Commission also recommends an expansion of the designated
growth areas in order to provide sufficient inventory of land to accommodate
anticipated growth over the time frame of the Plan (the proposed expansion
area located south of the City of Charlottesville equals about 1800 acres).
The Commission recommends general revisions to Development Standards relating
to residential and nonresidential uses and transportation systems, with the
focus of those changes being to encourage a more human scale, pedestrian-
oriented, and urban-style type of development within the designated growth
areas.
Mr. Benish said two changes are recommended to Land Use Classifications
of the Map. There are two new residential land use designations. There is a
Neighborhood Density with a development range of three to six dwelling units
per acre gross, and an Urban Density with a recommended density of six to
thirty-four units per acre. Those two designations replace three categories
in the Plan that covered generally the same range of densities. The lower end
of residential development in the growth areas has been recommended to be a
higher level than previously recommended at one dwelling unit per acre. The
minimum residential development density will now be three dwelling units per
acre. That is a reflection of the Commission's intent to encourage a greater
level of development in the growth areas. A new classification called
~Transitional Area" has been created. This designation is used in areas
between residential and nonresidential areas, particularly industrial and
regional service areas to provide a more gradual transition of uses. It is
also used in areas where a mixture of uses, or the need for flexibility in
uses is desired. The uses anticipated are office type uses, higher density
residential, or urban density, and some limited neighborhood convenience
service scale commercial uses.
Mr. Benish then went to the Map to explain some of the changes recom-
mended by the Commission. The areas not recommended for expansion include:
1) the area east of Route 29, north of the South Fork Rivanna River, west of
the North Fork Rivanna River and Route 600 and south of the existing Piney
Mountain, and 2) east of the existing Hollymead growth area, south of the
North Fork Rivanna River and north of Proffit Road. The area recommended lies
south of Neighborhoods 4 & 5, west of Route 20 South, east of Route 631 (Old
Lynchburg Road), and also north of the intersection of Routes 631/706, the
area west and up to the Red Hill development. The Commission did consider the
area east of Route 20 but did not recommend that area. He then highlighted
the following recommended changes: 1) the area west of Berkmar Drive is
recommended for transitional use; 2) the undeveloped portion of the Sperry
property is recommended for regional service use; 3) a new community service
designation is recommended on the east side of Avon Street, south of the
Lakeside Apartments site; and 4) the area between Fifth Street Extended and 1-
64 is recommended for regional service uses.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. First to speak
was Mr. Charles Mitchell of 580 Forrest Road. His property adjoins the
eastern right-of-way of Route 20 South at the entrance of Marshall Manors
Subdivision. This is about five and one-half miles from downtown Charlottes-
ville. It is a neighborhood of above-average homes. Each home is on a lot of
at least one acre. The subdivision is well-kept and it fits in well with the
rural character around it. Now, directly across Route 20 to the west is
property proposed to be included in the growth area. For this expansion there
is an area designated for Urban Development. He was told by Planning staff
that this area could be located anywhere within the growth area. This means
that in the future there could be development directly across Route 20 with a
density ranging from six dwelling units to 34 dwelling units per acre. He
would like to express opposition to expansion.of the growth area on Route 20
South. Not only does he object to this expansion, but so do the owners of
each residence in Marshall Manors.
Mr. Mitchell said he delivered letters to each Board member along with a
petition that was officially submitted to the Planning Commission during their
public hearing on November 21. That petition contains signatures of owners of
every home in Marshall Manors unanimously objecting to this expansion for fear
their property values will decrease, the increase in traffic on a roadway that
is already overcrowded, the noise that comes with a higher density area, and
the increase in crime that follows a population concentration. Most of all,
O000B3
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
they object to having a change like this thrust upon them without having their
point of view considered.
Mr. Mitchell said he has studied the Comprehensive Plan update, and
found that it is filled with projections based on statistical data, computer
analyses, etc. He does not put a lot of credence in the way statistics are
used. He does not believe the growth area should be expanded down Route 20
South, but he does believe the existing growth area should be more fully
utilized. In closing, he would like to say that he is a registered architect
and a registered engineer. He conducted a practice for a period of forty
years and believes he has a thorough knowledge of planning. It is his opinion
that the plan for expanding down Route 20 South is not a good plan. He
believes some people will be detrimentally affected by the change in designa-
tion in this area along with those who might profit from the change. He asked
that the Board consider this before taking a vote.
Mrs. Elizabeth Mitchell said she is co-owner of property on the corner
of Route 20 South and Forrest Road. Citizens are becoming dissatisfied with
government at all levels. Last year, a government agency stripped away many
old and stately trees that screened their property from the increasingly busy
Route 20. All this was done for installation of a temporary lane which was
used for exactly one week. Was this wise planning of the natural environment?
Now a growth area is proposed which will further decrease her property value.
Who will the growth area benefit? The past chairman of the Planning Commis-
sion is quoted in the local paper as saying ~Except for the business community
and developers, I find absolutely no support for it." A December 8, 1995,
article in the Daily Progress related how developers would be attracted to
property once it is included in a growth area, and how their property would
automatically increase in value. Who stands to gain financially from this
area being added to the growth area? The same article says there are people
who own property in the name of blind trusts whose identities are kept
private. Additionally there is property owned by an individual elected to a
position of public trust who will have an opportunity to vote on the growth
area. She asked why this is not considered a conflict of interest. Mrs.
Mitchell said she is opposed to the proposed expansion of the growth area on
Route 20 South. She asked if the Board will sacrifice the freedom and rights
of private landowners for the benefit of a few. Will the character of the
neighborhood be destroyed, the pretty views, and the rural setting? Mrs.
Mitchell said to be careful with beautiful Albemarle County, and asked if it
will be sacrificed to poor planning and supervision.
Mr. Warren Vandell said he lives in Country Green Apartments. He
approves that the North Garden area is being removed as a growth area. He
thinks it is good that the Earlysville Forest area is being taken out of the
growth area because of the lack of water. He is disturbed that Belair. and
Ednam Forest are getting upgrades, and that Dunlora Road is being taken into
the Secondary Road System, and that Earlysville is being abandoned as far as
water service is concerned. He agrees that there should be no 1-64/Avon
Street Interchange. He hopes an acceleration lane will be constructed for
traffic going east from 1-64 onto Route 20 South, particularly for the cars
going into Piedmont Virginia Community College. Instead of putting an
intersection at the corner of Rio Road/Route 29 North, the Board should look
into the future and have that interchange in the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow
Creek Parkway/Route 29 Western Bypass area. He believes that eliminating
growth areas is probably a good idea but making new growth areas is probably
not a good idea at this time. He understands the Plan has a long lifetime.
To encourage new growth now when there are so many problems that are growth-
related does not make a whole lot of sense. Having growth occur on Routes 631
and 706, which~are curvy, country roads, does not make a lot of sense to him.
Mr. Vandell wondered what this growth will do to the county. He
believes that when the population is between 70,000 and 100,000, the Board can
pass the meals tax on a unanimous vote, although he hopes that does not
happen. He hopes the Board is not delaying the reversion of the City of
Charlottesville to try and have that meals tax passed. The amount of money
received from a meals tax would not pay for the kind of problems that would be
caused by this type of growth.
Mr. Tom Olivier was present to speak on behalf of Citizen for Albemarle.
He said they propose that the Board: (1) simply accept as an incomplete
report the proposed revisions to the Land Use Plan for the Developed Environ-
ment. The document is incomplete because it does not address the relation of
developed areas to open spaces; (2) return the proposed developed areas land
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
0000 4
use plan to the Planning Commission for further consideration during the
coming review of the rural areas. Citizens for Albemarle asks that the
Planning Commission be instructed to submit a revised developed areas land use
plan at the same time that a rural areas land use plan is forwarded; (3) form
a citizen advisory committee to examine how growth areas should be redesigned
so as to be more attractive, walkable, affordable and dense; and (4) set as a
high priority the completion of already endorsed studies needed for long-term
planning. These include the Biological Critical Resources Inventory called
for in the Open Space Plan and the Urban Neighborhood studies. Should the
Board feel compelled to make a final judgment this evening about the land use
plan for developed areas, Citizens for Albemarle urges the Board to reject any
conversion of land into growth areas at this time. (Note: A copy of ~Citi-
zens for Albemarle Position Paper" read by Mr. Olivier is on file in the
Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board.)
Mrs. Humphris noted for the public that the Board will not be voting on
this issue tonight. There will need to be time to receive and discuss the
input from the public.
Mr. Bob Watson, Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, said growth area
expansion and infill development is complex when trying to provide the correct
balance in order to achieve the County's goals. In addition, public sentiment
ranges from the no-growth advocates to those who favor moderate expansion. He
then read into the records the "Position Paper of the Blue Ridge Home Build-
ers" (a copy of that statement is on file in the Clerk's Office with the
permanent records of the Board). Mr. Watson ended by saying the Board had a
~tough call" to make. He asked that each Board member err on the side of
logic and reason and not succumb to one-dimensional arguments. He asked that
the Board do what it feels to be the correct thing, even in the face of some
public pressure to preserve the status quo. For the most part, he said the
public is not present tonight. He asked the Board to protect their interests
also.
Mr. Reuben Clark was present on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental
Council (PEC). For the past 24 years, the PEC has worked to preserve farm and
forest land in the nine counties which make up their regional. They have long
supported Albemarle's growth management policy and its goal of channeling
growth into designated areas while conserving the countryside. Today, they
are concerned that the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations are not
working satisfactorily to achieve this goal. They believe the growth areas
accommodate too much low-density development to advance the Plan's objectives
of preserving farmland, providing affordable housing, and lowering the costs
of public services.
Mr. Clark said their concern now seems to be widely shared in the
community. Recently good suggestions from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders, the
County's planning staff and Planning Commission have been heard about the
necessity to increase density in the growth areas and to encourage infill in
those areas which remain undeveloped. In addition, if the rural areas are to
be protected, the question of the impact of expanding the growth areas into
relatively unprotected rural areas requires further study. Also, the current
zoning and subdivision regulations are failing to meet Comprehensive Plan
promises to protect farm and forest land by discouraging excessive residential
development. While PEC has reluctantly supported the expansion of growth
areas by an amount to make up for the loss of Earlysville and North Garden, it
urges the Board not to expand these areas any further until the County has
been able to consider and adopt measures that will increase densities in the
growth areas and offer'further protection to the rural areas. Since the
existing growth areas provide for growth for many years into the future, there
is no need now to rush to judgment. PEC cannot support such further expansion
in the growth areas until measures of the kind noted tonight have been
considered and are in place. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 7:55 p.m.)
Ms. Mary Taylor said her father is Col. John Taylor and they live on
Route 20 South, and have 187 acres. Col Taylor could not be present tonight.
She also speaks for Muriel Hubonas who owns 200 acres next to them, but who is
living in Florida temporarily. There are two schools just down the road, and
they know there will be growth because of those two schools, but wonder what
king of growth it will be. Having their properties put into the designated
growth areas in the Land Use Plan means the Board has recognized that due to
present circumstances, growth is coming in that direction and they want to
control it in ways that are beneficial to the area. Having the beautiful new
high school, and the Cale Elementary School will act as a magnet in drawing
0000 5
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
growth to the area. There is already a shopping center planned on Avon Street
Extended. These are the kinds of things that put pressure on an area for
growth. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 7:57 p.m.) To her,
having the land put into the growth areas means the growth will be controlled
allowing the area to develop as a community. Too often there has been random
development not in a controlled growth area. She thinks the Comprehensive
Plan should keep this from happening to them. Her family has been in the
community since 1960. Their roots are here. They work constantly to keep the
pasture green and fertile for the horses. They maintain the buildings and do
not overgraze their lands. She asked that the Board not leave them unpro-
tected.
Mr. John Purcell said he lives in Louisa, Virginia. He is the neighbor
of Mr. Mitchell but has not met him. He owns two parcels of land across Route
20 from Mr. Mitchell, comprising 150 acres. He is not new to Albemarle County
although he does not live in the County. His grandfather purchased the first
piece of land 46 years ago from Dr. Will Walters, and purchased the second
piece in 1964. He remembers as a little boy his grandfather showing him the
property, and there were no houses in the area. Mr. Purcell said he is
present tonight to say that he has no plans to develop the land. He is in the
timber business. He does believe the Plan presented to the Board is a viable
plan and he asks that the Board support the expansion of the growth area on
Route 20 South.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, asked if any additional land is
needed in the growth areas. He mentioned some statistics by the Planning
staff as to the amount of land currently designated for development in the
growth areas. He believes there is already enough land available to meet any
needs for the next twenty years, even with the loss of Earlysville and North
Garden. There is no cause for alarm and no need to enlarge the growth areas.
To say otherwise is just an excuse for growth. There is no proof that not
adding additional land will change the current percentage of housing starts in
the growth areas.
Mr. Loach said a survey conducted by the County showed that 65 percent
of those surveyed wanted no increase in the size of the growth area. The
survey also found that the majority of County residents want a slower rate of
growth. The people present here tonight to express their opposition to the
expansion make it clear that while the citizens have delegated authority to
the Board to make the decisions, they have not forgotten their responsibility
to make it clear in what directions those decisions should be made.
Mr. Loach asked if the additional land added to the growth areas will
benefit the current citizens of Albemarle County. Have there been any
compelling reasons given for adding the land to the growth area? He said a
Planning staff member stated that in order to keep land prices low and offer
some choices in the market, more land should be added to the growth area than
is expected to be used over the next five years. Mr. Loach said that means
the County would be directly manipulating the supply and demand of available
land for development. While the reasons may be well-intended, the Board must
remember that if the supply is increased to lower prices for new residents
coming to Albemarle, then it is also lowering the potential resale for current
landowners. If the Board moves ahead with adding acreage, it must be honest
with the citizens and let them knows that because the Board lacks the power to
impose impact fees on developers, the citizens of the County will have to fund
the cost for new infrastructure. He reminded the Board that their first
responsibility is to meet the needs of current residents. To date, current
residents have shown no compelling interest to add land in the growth areas.
Mr. Loach said the important point for real estate is location.
Albemarle already enjoys a great location so the important things for
Albemarle are planning, design and education. He feels a Growth Area Advisory
Committee should be formed to give the residents of growth areas more influ-
ence in the future. If no planning is done for that future, it is a question
of whether Albemarle will be known for sustainability or surrender. Whether
its future will be one of better design or bigger bulldozers. Whether time,
energy and money will be put into the present growth areas so that choosing to
live in a growth area is looked upon as a choice and not a sentence. Whether
Albemarle will learn from many of the overdeveloped areas of the country or be
doomed to repeat their mistakes.
Mrs. Elizabeth Murray said she has lived in lived in Albemarle County
for 32 years. She has worked as Coordinator for the Ivy Creek Natural Area,
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
0000,36
but speaks tonight as a private citizen. She has a statement to read later
from the President of the Ivy Creek Foundation Board. Her position is that
whenever the expansion of growth areas is considered, the expansion of public
natural areas must be considered as part of that process. She believes this
should be considered now whether or not the growth areas are expanded.
Consideration for recreation, active or passive, usually comes only after the
result of pressure. Pressure for active recreation will always be louder.
Passive recreation plays a large part in the quality of life in Albemarle.
Actions at the Ivy Creek Natural Area were taken in a hurry under the threat
of high density development. Development has now occurred all around the
natural area. The people in that increased population come to the Ivy Creek
Natural Area which is now in danger of overuse. She asked the County for a
proactive commitment for a piece of already-owned County land, 568 acres in
the northern part of the County known as the Preddy Creek Tract. She has
looked at this land with foresters and Ivy Creek friends, and believes it
would make an excellent public, natural area. The State Forester of Virginia
wrote eleven years ago, urging the County to preserve this land. She has
talked with the County's Director of Parks & Recreation who believes this land
would make a good natural area, but he is under pressure for more active
recreational areas, particularly from the soccer community. She knows there
is some level land in this 568 acres which could accommodate one soccer field.
She talked with the County's Game Warden and he is in full support of such a
designation for this property. She asked that the Board write into this
revision of the Comprehensive Plan as part of consideration of growth areas,
that the Preddy Creek Tract remain perpetually in County ownership, and that
except for a small ballfield area, it be designated for low- impact recre-
ation, hiking trails and access for passive enjoyment and the study of natural
history. With the Ivy Creek experience as a guide, she believes it is
important to have a commitment in writing now in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Murray said she had a statement from the Ivy Creek Foundation Board
of Directors to read. ~The Board of Directors fully supports County ownership
in perpetuity of the 568-acre Predd¥ Creek Tract. The value of this property
as a forested watershed and its potential for passive recreation represents an
important community asset well worthy of preservation." At the end, he says
~we cite the Ivy Creek Natural Area as a model of hands-on, citizen/government
cooperation and an example of the benefits gained for the community by the
establishment of such areas. For over 16 years, the Ivy Creek Foundation has
had a close and productive relationship with the County in managing Ivy Creek.
To the extent possible as a volunteer organization, the Foundation would be
willing to work with County staff in expanding the recreation potential of the
Preddy Creek Tract." (A copy of Mrs. Murray's full statement is on file in
the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board.)
Next to speak was Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Chair of the Albemarle Housing
Committee. She said the Land Use Plan is one of several tools the County
needs in order to deal with its affordable housing problems. The Committee
suggested when the 1992 update was adopted, that the Growth Area be increased.
It still supports that today, but with two caveats. 1) It must result in a
net increase in residential acreage, and 2) There must be a significant
increase in densities in the growth areas, and those densities must be
enforced. Why has the bonus density provision, which has been a part of the
ordinance since the mid-1980s, never been used? What is the missing catalyst?
The concern of the Housing Committee is to reduce cost and the selling price
and rent of new housing. The supply of affordable units dwindles each year.
Ms. Lilleleht said it is clear that the Housing Committee cannot
dissuade the Board from removing the villages of Earlysville and North Garden
from the Growth Area. The Committee understands this is being done, at least
in part, because it is not financially feasible to provide sewer and water to
these areas, and the Board is leery of private systems. There are many low-
income people already living in rural Albemarle who, for financial or other
reasons, need the support systems available to them in their home areas.
Because of their needs, the Committee urges the Board not to close its mind to
alternative water and wastewater systems. Sometimes a rule is made and over
the years it is enforced long after the need for it is past
Ms. Lilleleht said the Land Use Plan contains some fine amenities that
many find appealing. But, the Committee does ask the Board to consider
postponing funding amenities to be used by a few citizens until all County
citizens have access to basic, affordable housing. Each time the Board takes
a vote, each member should ask himself "How will this vote affect our ability
to produce affordable housing? ... Are an ever-increasing number of our
0000 ?
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
children going to find themselves locked out of their own communities?"
copy of Ms. Lilleleht's full statement is on file in the Clerk's Office with
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Lindsay Robertson said he drove four and one-half hours to get to
this meeting. He read into the record a letter which had been hand-delivered
to Mrs. Humphris earlier. He said and he and his wife have a house on Old
Lynchburg Road. They are opposed to the proposed redesignation of the land
west and east of Route 631 as a growth area. This land is of exceptional
historical value (see letter for historical references). Albemarle County has
numerous country roads, but none are in such close proximity to the City as is
Route 631. None provides direct access to a County park like Walnut Creek.
Mr. Robertson said he and his wife feel redesignation as a growth area
would attract developers and encourage the widening of Route 631, increasing
traffic and eliminating the psychic benefits Route 631 presently provides the
residents of the County. In his case, the loss would be more immediate. Road
widening and increased traffic would deprive their home, built at the turn of
the century, of all its present privacy and much of its economic value.
Mr. Robertson said they know the County will continue to grow, but
believe the public interest would be better served by placing the burden on
developers to prove the case for expansion, rather than inviting such expan-
sion by creating new growth areas. Retaining the present plan will not
deprive the public of its power to direct growth through the review of
rezoning applications. Under current law, if this land is redesignated for
growth, the County would effectively relinquish its right to reject any
rezoning application in the area consistent with that redesignation. It is
difficult to see just what benefit the public would receive in exchange. Mr.
Robertson said that since a point was made of newcomers opposing the redesig-
nation of the growth area, he would like to state for the record that his
family has lived in Albemarle since 1791. (A copy of Mr. Robertson's letter
is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors.)
Mr. Norman Beil representing the Student Environmental Action at the
University of Virginia was next to speak. He and some members of this group
attended the Planning Commission's hearing in November and it was clear to
them that the residents oppose the expansion of designated growth areas in
both the northern and southern portions of the County. For this reason, they
are puzzled by the proposal forwarded by the Planning Commission since it
recommends a large expansion of the growth areas in the south and a net
decrease in the growth areas to the north. Clearly, this was done because
many people are upset by the amount and kind of development occurring along
Route 29 North. Will a large expansion in the south improve the situation in
the north? The only strong argument they have heard for any growth area
expansion now is the need to replace land lost through deletion of the North
Garden and Earlysville growth areas. They have heard no strong argument for
the southern expansion. In fact, there are many factors arguing against it.
A substantial portion of the land in the southern expansion area was labeled
significant farmland in the County's Open Space Plan and therefore should be
protected. Much of the southern expansion area lies along Route 20, a State
designated scenic byway, and much along Route 631, Old Lynchburg Road, a
designated rural bikeway in the Bicycle Plan which this Board approved five
years ago. The Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority has stated
that the southern expansion area includes the land most remote from existing
utilities of all the areas studied. Developers have stated that many landown-
ers to the south are resistant to selling their property, and that much of the
land is undevelopable. The southern expansion area includes a 578-acre tract
of land which according to an article in The Observer last July, the County
Planning Staff did not plan to recommend because it is not as close to
utilities and roads and it is more rolling than some of the land the staff did
recommend. The article also stated that most of the parcels in the southern
expansion area are too small for much development. Finally, most of the new
jobs created in the County will be along Route 29 North and encouraging people
who work there to live south of Charlottesville will result in long commutes
and no relief of traffic congestion.
Mr. Beil said that since the southern growth area expansion is not a
good idea~ and since County residents are not going to accept a large expan-
sion to the north, it is necessary to find an alternative. There is one. In
recent years, planners across the country have begun to plan communities that
are compact, promote walking, cycling, and public transit and include afford-
000088
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
able housing in the mix. This type of development goes under the names, neo-
traditional and new urbanism. Some people prefer to avoid the labels and
simply call it good planning. An example of this trend is the Kentlands
Community in Montgomery County, Maryland. When completed next year, Kentlands
will have about 1500 residences and 5000 people in an area of 400 acres. This
is an average of 3.7 dwelling units per acre, more than double that of some
developments being built in Albemarle County. Prices in Kentlands range from
the low one hundred thousands to over $300,000. This is in the expensive D.C.
area. Recently, Kentlands residents participated in the design of their own
downtown which will be within walking distance of all the residents. An
article in the Engineering News Record, a leading magazine of the construction
industry, reported a survey of active home buyers in which two-thirds said
they would like to live in a neo-traditional neighborhood. The survey showed
that the only market resistance was to small lots and minimal setbacks from
the street. Since the concept is fairly new, it is likely further design
changes and significant price advantages would offset these objections.
Mr. Beil said some argue that the real problem facing Albemarle County
is not suburban sprawl, but rural sprawl. Rural sprawl is a problem that must
be dealt with, but there are legitimate ways to deal with it that do not
encourage suburban sprawl. In sum, the members of Student Environmental
Action would like the Board to be extremely cautious about adding any new land
to the growth areas. They ask that the plan passed by the Planning Commission
be rejected in favor of one that protects both the northern and southern parts
of the County. They ask that the Board strongly encourage compact, people-
friendly development in the existing growth areas. Finally, they ask the
Board to keep in mind the vision Thomas Jefferson had when he designed the
University of Virginia to look out into the hills of southern Albemarle which
were to remain a symbol of the illuminable freedom of the human mind.
Mr. Peter Hallock said most of the things he wished to speak about have
already been mentioned tonight. He did, however, look up the census and it
seems that Albemarle County is doubling every 30 years. A lot of people may
be coming in the future. He thinks the County should be working on the rural
areas, on affordable housing and infill before considering what areas to put
in the growth areas.
Mr. John Snyder said he lives on Pritchett Lane. With The Towers
development, Forest Ridge, other areas, and the trailer park by the Airport,
there is a lot of growth already occurring in the north. He does not know
what they will do on Route 29 when all is completed. Between Proffit Road and
the traffic light at Lowe's, there have been five new traffic lights added on
Route 29 in the last five years. After development of The Towers property,
Route 29 will be just like another parking lot. Based on what he has heard
from the public here tonight, most are opposed to this expansion of the growth
areas. The majority of the citizens of the County don't want an expansion of
the growth areas, they really do not want an expansion at all. He knows there
will be a time when there has to be an expansion, but he does not think it is
needed in the near future. He feels there is adequate housing planned for the
immediate future. He feels it is the Board's job to keep Albemarle County, as
much as possible, as it currently is.
Ms. Stephanie Snell said she is one of the beneficial owners of the
Route 20 Land Trust which owns Parcels 18 and 19A on Tax Map 91. She asked
that these parcels be added back as a growth area to the Comprehensive Plan.
The property is a mile long and almost one-half mile deep. It is comprised of
400 acres and over 200 acres are from the foot of the mountain to Route 20.
They would like to develop this land as a mixed-unit development averaging six
to eight units per acre and they are willing to promise that a minimum of four
units per acre would be developed. Affordable housing comes about through
high-density development. This would guarantee no less than 800 to 1500 new
units of affordable housing for residents of Albemarle County. The land is
easily developed. From the foot of the mountain to the road there are no
critical slopes, and they would agree to limit the number of entrances to this
mile of frontage to three or four. She believes that adding these parcels to
the growth area is a natural choice. Across the road the land is already
designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is less than three miles
from downtown Charlottesville. Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service
Authority has stated that this piece of land is one of the most accessible and
convenient to serve with public utilities. They are willing to bring the
water and sewer to this property at no cost to the County.
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
0000.39
Ms. Snell said inaccessibility to public transportation continues to be
cited as a major problem in this area. This property is less than one mile
from public transportation and a four-lane public highway is less than one
mile away. They are willing to donate thirty feet to help widen Route 20.
Development of the area would allow affordable housing to be within 1000 feet
of Cale Elementary School and very close to the new high school. Because of
the close proximity to existing infrastructure and the new schools, the
property warrants high density development and should be added as a growth
area. This parcel meets all of the criteria the County is looking for and all
the criteria of the Planning Commission. She is not sure why the area was
dropped from the original plan. She attended all of the public hearings, and
there was no opposition. It was occasionally referred to as a strip develop-
ment, which has a negative connotation. This is not a strip development. The
property is 2200 feet deep. The parcel between Route 20 and Avon Street,
which is already in the growth area, is not as deep as this parcel. Adding
these parcels is a natural extension. To jump over this piece of property
would be creating infill, which time and time again has been mentioned as
something to be avoided. The property they own is an investment. By not
adding it as a growth area, they would be forced to follow the trend of low-
density, land-consuming development in an area very close to existing infra-
structure. Adding this parcel would be positive to the County by improving
accessibility to public transportation. It would provide high density
development, and it would allow development with access to water and sewer at
no cost to the County. Ms. Snell asked that Parcels 18 and 19A of Tax Map 91
be included as a growth area to the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Sid Brown said she moved to this area eight years ago because of its
beauty. At least once a week she bicycles on County roads. Over the years
she has gotten her friends involved in cycling. It is clean. It is pleasant.
They ride on Old Lynchburg Road doing what is called "the Lynchburg Loop."
She asked that the Board not take away the innocent pleasure of the rural
bikeways of Albemarle County by developing the southern area of the County
foolishly. If the County must encourage growth, compact, dense development is
something to be proud of. It fosters walking, cycling, public transportation,
neighborhoods and friendships. Compact development will make the County
beautiful, safe and encourage clean transportation. She asked that the right
kind of growth be encouraged in already stipulated areas. Ms. Brown said
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville approved a bike plan in 1991.
In that plan, the Lynchburg Loop is designated a rural bikeway. It won't be a
rural bikeway with thousands of cars going by on it. Roads like Route 29
North are referred to by cyclists as death roads. She asked that the southern
County roads not be turned in to death roads.
Ms. Cindy Parry said she and her husband own a home on Pritchett Lane.
She thought the Comprehensive Plan was designed to check suburban sprawl and
concentrate development around Charlottesville, allowing Charlottesville to
become a vital urban core surrounded by a rural area that remained predomi-
nantly green and open. She is concerned that suburban sprawl is occurring and
that the vital urban core will be neither vital, nor a core. Residents of the
County are necessary to help maintain the vitality of the downtown. She is
concerned that the further from downtown growth area designations are placed,
the more difficult it will become for business owners downtown to keep in
business. This may not be a problem today, but what will happen in ten years
as the population is shifted further away from that core? Ms. Parry said she
is in favor of infill development. As a shopper and purchaser of a new home
in Albemarle County, they found no shortage of home supply. She was not
surprised to find that there have been over 1400 homes in the marketplace
during recent years. Yesterday afternoon her husband saw another bad accident
at the corner of Route 29 and Airport Road. She has seen an accident on 29
North, was a victim of a minor fender-bender, and saw someone run off the road
at this same intersection in the last several months. If the population
continues to increase in this area, how many more accidents will happen?
Ms. Parry then read a letter (in part) that had appeared in The Daily
Progress on January 4, 1996~ written from a visitor to the area~ This person
said they visit Albemarle County about once every five years, and think it is
a very special place. She was concerned with the negative changes that she
saw, namely: more people, more traffic, more buildings, destruction of
beautiful views. The area seemed less personable and some of the peaceful
feeling was lost. This person asked that the citizens be careful with the
County because it is but a generation away from being trashed as so many other
areas in the country have been. The letter it signed by Mary Jean Raha, North
Grafton, Maine.
OO0040
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Parry then presented to the Board a petition containing signatures
of those opposing the plan to designate the area north of Proffit Road as a
new growth area. She said this petition is in addition to the petitions
presented to the Planning Commission at its public hearing in November.
At this time (8:45 p.m.), Mrs. Humphris called for a recess. The Board
reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
MS. Anne Price said she does not want growth, and she does not want it
in her neighborhood. She doesn't believe anyone present wants growth, other
than developers. She lives on Pritchett Lane and they have a race and
economically- diverse neighborhood. All co-exist nicely, get along well,
don't have any problems. She assumes that the mobile home park is economi-
cally affordable housing. If the area develops, will the mobile home park
stay there, or will it become another Forest Lakes? Forest Lakes and Forest
Lakes South have brought a lot of people into the area. They are all much
higher economically than her neighborhood, and she does not see that that
helps Albemarle. The schools are full. Her children may not get to go to the
school closest to her house. She asked the Board to leave their modest
neighborhood alone, and let them be a model of diversity for the rest of
Albemarle County.
Ms. Jana Briedis-Ruiz said she lives on Pritchett Lane in a small
community of modest homes and farms just off of Route 29 North. The neighbor-
hood is included in the proposed growth area and she asks that they be
excluded. She does not want the zoning to change to high density in her
neighborhood. They are still somewhat rural and that is what she likes about
it. She commutes eleven miles each day to work and is surprised at how the
new lanes of Route 29 have filled up as they opened. The improvements on 29
meet the current need, but they won't if the area continues to grow. Her
eleven-mile commute takes 45 minutes and that does not include the 15 minutes
it takes to find parking near the Hospital. She can add five more minutes to
her commute since the Forest Lakes South light will be turned on soon and that
is what happened when the Wal-Mart light was turned on. If the County needs
growth, she asked that it not be in the north.
Mr. Wendell Wood said a lot of the comments tonight did not deal with
the issue before the Board. The County is going to grow. The issue before
the Board is good planning. Adding growth areas to the Plan will not create
growth. His business is real estate development and he discussed a piece of
property that staff has recommended be include in the plan, and one which he
wishes to develop. The parcel is across from General Electric in the Piney
Mountain Village. Staff recommended that the parcel be included for high
density development. He started assembling the land in 1973 as parcels came
on the market, so for the past 23 years 19 parcels have been assembled. If
the parcels had not been assembled and kept in tact, those parcels would have
division rights today of 122 large lot houses. These parcels were assembled
following the rules the County laid out. The Albemarle County Service
Authority added water to the area, sewer is in the area, the gas line is in
the highway and Route 29 is a four-lane road. It is a logical growth area.
He can identify that at least $20.0 million of taxpayer dollars have been
spent in this infrastructure. Instead of being a bad guy, he thinks he has
preserved the area. One hundred acres of land has been assembled, and there
is no development on it.
Mr. Wood said people tonight have talked about high density, and it is
finally coming around. Years ago people.wanted to do large lot subdivisions,
but people have seen the danger created by that. He requested that this
property be put back in the plan as County staff recommended. It meets the
requirements for a growth area. The land is beautiful. It has lakes on it.
It has three miles of river frontage, 6000 feet of highway frontage. The
County has the opportunity to include in the Master Plan one of the largest
tracts of land in the County and to assure that there is good development of
that parcel. He is willing to proffer that the land will not be developed at
less than four units per acre. He believes it could be an even higher
density. That would give a broad spectrum of housing including affordable
housing. The land across the street in Briarwood is affordable hosing. The
University Research park is across the street. General Electric is across the
street. Hopefully, NGIC, which the Board recently approved, will be on the
property. This could truly be a community, with all the aspects of housing
and the infrastructure of commercial which goes along with it. The Albemarle
County Service Authority has said this area is already served with utilities
and an agreement is already in effect. Mr. Wood said he attended every public
00004:1.
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
meeting held on the growth areas and there was no opposition to this piece of
property being added to the Master Plan. There was opposition about property
south of this in the Proffit Road area.
Mr. Wood said this property is an investment for him and he has been
willing to hold it for 23 years. If the Board now says that this area will
not be in the growth area, he will have to analyze his investment. He might
have to look for an alternative which would be a large lot subdivision. With
120 lots three years from now, he could be totally out of that development.
He asked where the Board would find 1000 acres of land to replace land where
money has already been invested in the needed infrastructure. He asked the
Board to do good planning and reevaluate this area. He thinks this is a piece
of property which, if not designated, will be lost. Just putting the property
in a growth area does not mean that houses will be built immediately. Things
don't happen that fast. For the density that would be proffered, this would
be a 30-year project under the best of circumstances.
Ms. Lisa Harman said she is the President of the Earlysville'Area
Residents' League (EARL). Their group has 109 paid members and about 200 on
the mailing list. One of their major goals at the inception of the League was
to encourage citizens to be proactive by keeping them informed of the process
and results of decision-making at the County level. She said 126 citizens
from Earlysville attended the public information and comment session held in
their area. This was a larger attendance than at any other such meeting held.
One of their concerns about the growth area is the amount of land being added.
They understand that 1200 acres of growth area land is being lost by the
proposed removal of Earlysville and North Garden from growth area designation.
The proposed plan seeks to convert 1800 acres of rural areas to growth area.
In the County's survey of 1994, 65 percent of County residents favored growth
if it occurred at a slow and controlled pace. Similarly, a survey taken by
EARL in 1994 of just the Earlysville area showed that 60 percent of the
residents at large, and 75 percent of EARL members favored growth at a slow
and controlled pace. One reason given for adding large areas of land is
because speculators are less likely to drive prices up when there is so much
competition for development.
Ms. Harman said EARL understands the need for housing in the low and
moderate price range. They are concerned about whether development would be
limited to this amount of land for the next 20 years. Would additional land
be added as this land is developed? What sort of safeguards will there be to
avoid unchecked growth? Will this discourage infill development in the
County? Will this make it less likely that developers will use the bonus
density provisions currently in the ordinance for including low and moderately
priced homes in new development? Has the County considered the almost 50,000
lots already subdivided and open to development in the rural areas by right?
Will the County have incentives to encourage these property owners to keep
their land undeveloped? The current inventory of land in growth areas,
excluding the Earlysville and North Garden areas, is approximately 6000 acres.
Twice the amount of developable land needed to accommodate the projected
growth in the County for the next 20 years without utilizing infill strate-
gies. The current proposal could add about 1800 acres to the growth areas.
She asked how and when development will be assessed to be sure the Board's
objective of creating more afforable housing for low and moderate-income
families is being met.
Ms. Harman said another concern is infrastructure. Schools are a high
priority for Earlysville residents. They would like to see better cooperation
and communication between planners, supervisors and those county agencies
involved with the infrastructure. EARL would like to avoid having one group's
decision-making create a problem to be solved by another group. Working
together would allow for better decisions involving schools, transportation,
water, refuse disposal, and police and fire protection. The third area of
concern for EARL is the issue of water resources. There is some discrepancy
as to how and whether all this additional growth can be accommodated with
current water resources. If the County is to increase its dependence on water
resources, how can a better job be done to protect the water resources? Their
last concern is a question of the sequencing of areas for study within the
Comprehensive Plan review process. The rural areas have yet to be studied.
However, in the proposal tonight, as well as in several other land use
decisions just this month, hundreds of acres of rural lands are being con-
verted into development. If the Board must make a decision regarding growth
areas tonight, she asked that the Board note that for the next round of
review, rural areas should be studied first. It is more effective to set
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000042
aside areas for preservation than try to minimize the negative impact of
growth mistakenly allowed in these areas.
Ms. Harman said EARL has some positive comments. One, they support the
proposal to remove the growth area designation from Earlysville and North
Garden. It supports the County's new principle of channeling growth into
areas requiring little or no extension of existing water and sewer lines.
EARL supports the wording in the plan that speaks to preserving natural beauty
and rural landscape. Preservation of the community was rated as being the
first or second priority by 83 percent of the Earlysville community. The
language that describes preserving ~a sense of community" is also supported.
The preservation of a small town atmosphere was also rated to be a first or
second priority by 83 percent of the residents. EARL appreciates all the time
and effort that has been involved in preparing the proposed Comprehensive Plan
update. They ask that when the Plan is finalized, it be embraced by the
Commission and the Board with respect and full support. It should be changed
only with great reluctance and proven need or benefit to the majority of
County residents.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of
Women Voters, was next to speak. She said they recommend three ways to
implement the County's growth management policy of directing growth into
designated areas for development. 1) Provide more active support for growth
area development by implementing the policy recommended in the current
Comprehensive Plan to assist in financing utilities in certain areas in order
to achieve higher densities. Encourage greater utilization of land within
designated growth areas. Insist that developers meet density recommendations.
The League believes there is a market for development with higher densities,
combined with a varied mix of uses and design that can result in a sense of
community. The League supports the concept of infill for all the reasons
staff cited. The Plan suggests ~flexibility" in applying development require-
ments for evaluation of zoning and subdivision regulations, and this gives the
League concern. They do not believe development should be increased at the
cost of weakening protective regulations. 2) The League recommends that the
rural areas be protected and supported. According to the Comprehensive Plan,
resource protection is a basic underlying theme in the County's growth
management approach. Agricultural and forestal uses have been identified as
the most critical County resource. Before growth areas are expanded, informa-
tion as to what rural resources would be lost by the expansion of development
into the immediate rural area should be obtained. The League believes the
expansion of the growth area should be deferred at least until the rural area
review is completed. 3) The league does not recommend any special area at
this time, and is not totally convinced that there is a need to compensate for
the deletion of Earlysville and North Garden. Rather, the League believes the
necessary mechanisms to implement policies for increased density, infill and
up-front financing of a utilities structure should be developed immediately.
Until it is known how effective these changes will be in producing developable
lots in the existing growth areas, it is premature to take more land from the
rural areas for expansion that is not needed at this time. The League
believes development must be limited to tolerable levels to protect resources
and so that the ~carrying capacity" of the area is not exceeded in either
terms of fiscal or natural resources. (Note: A complete copy of Ms. Hobb's
statement is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the
Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Fred Gerke said he is from the Proffit Community Association (PCA).
He agrees with those who have spoken in favor of limiting growth area expan-
sion. The Association is a little uncomfortable telling the Board what to do
with other people's lands, homes and so forth outside of their area. The PCA
has always opposed the expansion of the growth area in their community, and
have at other times opposed the expansion in other nearby areas in northern
Albemarle County. He was tempted to use the same statement that was made
before this Board in October of 1989. Their position has not changed over the
years, and they see no reason to add areas contiguous to Proffit and east of
Pritchett Lane at this time° They think of themselves as a buffer between the
growth areas of Hollymead, Forest Lakes and the rural areas to the east.
Mr. Mathew Dalby said he lives in Earlysville Forest. This has been
informative for him by learning more about the Comprehensive Plan and why the
pond in Earlysville Forest has gone down so much. He commended the Board and
staff for the concept of growth areas. As a tool for capping sprawl, growth
areas, or whatever they are called in various areas, are the best and most
practical method. The best use of the concept of growth areas may be in
000043
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Portland, Oregon. Their growth management approach demonstrates that Port-
land's policy takes the regional view, and it has consistency. It was
established to preserve farmland and rural character and reinvigorate and
sustain urban life. Further, the equivalent of the growth area boundary has
remained remarkably consistent since 1973. Only two square miles have been
added in 23 years. The consistent, unchanging boundary gave the localities
leverage to promote redevelopment and higher density in the urban areas. In
Albemarle, he asked that a growth area boundary be established which will
promote sustainable urban densities, and rural land densities and can be
sustained over the long term. A forty-year plan seems practical to him. As
to housing costs, in Portland they have increased by 26 percent since 1991,
while in Denver which has no growth area boundary, housing costs have in-
creased by 44 percent in the same time period.
Mr. Dalby said his second issue relates to the separation of the Board's
work on the rural areas and the work on the Hrowth areas. He heard a member
of this Board speaking on the radio Monday, and aHrees that as a tool growth
areas could be used to maintain the rural areas. The two concepts are
intimately related and he encouraHed the Board to put off any final decision
on the growth areas until they can be adequately considered within the broader
context of rural preservation and the maintenance of rural character. He
believes a regional planning approach is best.
Mr. Charlie Trachta said the Board is faced with the question of adding
or not adding to the growth areas and where these areas would be added. Most
of the people speaking tonight oppose any addition. The few who favored an
increase in the growth areas also said that growth cannot be stopped. He is
not against growth, but is present tonight to ask the Board to not add any
more acreage. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin attended a meeting earlier this
month of the neighborhood associations in the County. He reminded them that
the feeling at that meeting was not to add land because there is sufficient
land to be developed. Infill should occur on land which has already been set
aside for development instead of openinH up new lands. Developers should
start living up to their responsibilities to build affordable housing as they
promised, along with the $150,000+ homes which are more profitable for them to
build. Albemarle will Hrow, but how will it grow? That is the issue toniHht.
There is more than enouHh acreaHe in the current growth areas to handle all
the Hrowth needed for the next 20 years. Who wants more acreage added to the
plan? The developers want land that is easier to develop added. Why don't
the developers wish to work with the existing communities? Mr. Trachta said
he is not anti-growth. He would just like for this Board to make a decision
to draw a line on addinH new land. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that
there is more than enouHh land for the next 20 years. Should the Board not
wait five more years before writing off that report and Hiving the County away
to developers?
Mr. Percy MontaHue said he is President of Montague Miller & Company,
and a principal in the Redfields Development Corporation. He wants to talk
about the southern Hrowth area in general and specifically about one parcel of
property. It is approximately 580 acres and is generally known as the Jessup
property. Of that 580 acres, 300 to 350 acres is the developable portion, the
remainder would provide siHnificant open space within its boundaries. In
terms of access, the parcel appears to be landlocked, but it adjoins the
Redfields Planned Residential Community. They have a common boundary. When
Redfields was desiHned, the roads and utilities were sized so, if at sometime
in the future they could reach an agreement with the adjoining property owner,
the water, sewer and road infrastructure could be extended into this property.
That agreement has now been reached.
Mr. Montague said access to this property is off of the four-lane,
divided section of Old Lynchburg Road. Access would be through the existing
Redfields community. It would not involve another entrance on Old Lynchburg
Road. It would not take traffic out to the more rural area of Old Lynchburg
Road. It is the third Heneration of the same family that owns that piece of
property, and they are now interested in developing the property. There is an
existing development company that has a track record in Albemarle County that
is in the area and that is prepared to develop the property. There are 275
acres at Redfields, and it was originally zoned to be about 556 homes. At
this point, they feel the ultimate density will be about 400 homes due to
topography° Taking that into account, and looking at the existinH growth area
density, and extending that into this new piece of property, one can see that
the growth area would not be significantly expanded. It would be a long-term
project. With the addition of this property, it would add about 20 years to
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
O0O044
the life of the development. It will not happen rapidly. For the whole
property to be properly developed, there needs to be a master plan developed
up front. That is why they are asking that it be included in the growth area
now.
Mrs. Humphris noted for the record that the Board had received several
letters. One from Miriam Bender and Alfred Dougherty is a very comprehensive
letter which ends with asking the Board "to adopt a growth management plan in
conjunction with other long-range plans and implement it seriously with a
commitment, clearly made and communicated to the public, that the plan will
govern all future land use decisions."
A letter was received from Dr. and Mrs. Charles W. Beegle registering
opposition to the inclusion of Route 20 South in the urban growth area.
Mr. Mark Perry said most of his concerns have already been addressed.
He would like to speak about the non-monetary costs of expanding north. He
lives on Pritchett Lane and it is in the designated Hollymead growth area.
People have already talked about the monetary costs of expanding the northern
growth area, but there are also non-monetary costs such as congestion,
increased difficulty of traffic and commuting to work. The non-monetary costs
of growth will primarily be borne by people in only a portion of the County.
The northern part of the County is bearing an unfair portion of the cost of
growth. If the County is going to continue to add growth areas, it is time
for another part of the County to say it will bear part of these monetary
costs. At the Planning Commission meeting in November, this issue was
discussed. Mr. Blue said, as he voted against the proposal to add Hollymead
and Piney Mountain to the growth areas, that he had received no calls from
residents of those areas; all the calls he received came from developers. His
statement is supported by some of the petitions that he and his wife col-
lected. Between Pritchett Lane, Terrybrook and Jefferson Village, over 100
homeowners signed the petitions indicating they were opposed to adding the
land north of Proffit Road to the growth areas. In reference to Mr. Wood's
comment earlier that when there were hearings held on these things, no one
showed up. It was Mr. Wood's interpretation that there was no opposition.
Mr. Perry said he believes a lot of the citizens did not know about the
hearings. When his wife went to the County Office Building and got the
notebook with all of the documents and he started reading in preparation for
the November meeting, he was surprised to find out that there had been a
meeting in August about the proposal to add the area north of Proffit Road to
the growth area, and he had never heard anything about it. When he started
circulating the petition, none of his neighbors knew about the meeting. He
asked the Board to consider that fact as an alternative explanation for
disappointing turnouts at some of the meetings held earlier.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed at 9:38 p.m. Mrs. Humphris said this has been a fine public hearing.
There are many excellent comments on all sides of this important issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board will hold a work session on this issue
on May 1. Mrs. Humphris said ~yes".
Mr. Martin said he concurs that this was an excellent public hearing.
More so because it seemed all sides were listening to each other and people
were trying to be constructive instead of getting emotional. There area lot
of things that need to be taken into consideration. The paperwork, the
comments from this meeting, and all the phone calls he has received, will have
to be considered by him. He has been thinking that "growth areas" should be
called something else because it seems that there is a concept that the Board
is trying to increase growth, and that concept continues to be passed along by
having "growth areas." Whether or not the Board increases the growth areas
more than they are right now, whether that increase is made on the north or
the south, the reason for having the growth areas is to protect the rural
areas and not for any increase in growth. Comments continue to be made that
by increasing growth areas, the Board is soliciting growth to come in. No
member of the Board has any such intentions.
Mrs. Humphris said this is an interesting concept. She suggested that
it be discussed at the work session.
Mr. Marshall said those speaking gave him a lot to think about. His
area is one of those being considered to be in the growth area. He would like
to say to that person who believes he will benefit from this, "there is not
April 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18) ........ :
000045
enough money in this town to buy my farm and it will not be developed in my
lifetime." He will look at this issue from the point of view of what is best
for the County, and he will vote accordingly.
Mrs. Thomas said it seems to her that the community has done a lot of
serious thinking and a lot of growing in its concepts in the last few years.
The idea of having as dense a development as possible in the growth areas in
order to save the rural areas was not a totally accepted idea just a few years
ago. She thinks all have come a long way, and the concepts are further
advanced than the tools are. That is of concern to her.
There were no further comments at this time.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: October 6, 1993 and March 22,
1995.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of October 6, 1993 (page 34 at Item 13i
to the end) and found them to be order.
Mr. Perkins had read October 6, 1993 (pages 18 at Item 7c to page 34 at
Item 13i) and found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall said he had read the remainder of his minutes of OCtober 6,
1993, and found them to be in order.
Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Mr.
Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not List on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mrs. Thomas asked that the build-out report from the Planning District
Commission staff be scheduled for the agenda. She said it is relevant to
everything the Board has been talking about. It will take more than ten
minutes, probably more like forty minutes. Mr. Tucker said it probably can be
put on the May 1, 1996, meeting. Mrs. Thomas said if it is possible, it would
be good to schedule it with the Planning District Commission members.
%lApproved by the
Board of Supervisors
Date ~ ~-~
Agenda Item No. 9. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned ~.m.~~~ ~
Chairman