Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 25 77 PC Minutes12— 9z. May 25, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and work session on Tuesday, May 25, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, on the proposed Revised County Comprehensive Plan. Those members in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Leslie Jones; Col. William R. Washington; Dr. James W. Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Peter Easter. Other officials present were Mr. Bruce Drenning, project planner from the firm of Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr, Director of Planning; and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. The minutes of May 16, remained deferred until Mr. Jones could make his comments. -- not Mr. Carr opened the meeting stating that this meeting isA a public hearing and that public input will not be accepted. He thanked Mr. Drenning for his presence at the meeting. Dr. Moore stated that the Commission had recommended that the strip of land on Route 29 South between the railroad track and the highway be reviewed by the firm of KDA, and asked if this had been done. Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff did a study on it and gave KDA a copy, but no recommendations have been made. Fie said that one rezoning had been applied for, which initiated the study. He said that the application was denied, based on the complications. Mr. Gloeckner noted that the land is labeled Agricultural -Conservation. lie said he would like to see it as such, even though it is essentially another Route 29N as far as business is concerned; with the restrictions of the railroad tracks, the stream that flows through here, and the rocks in this area, it should be conservated, keeping Route 29 South as clean as possible. Mr. Laster stated that Mr. Jackson came in on his last application and complained of the billboards still remaining on Route 29. 1ir. Easter said that they are still there and asked why they hadn't been removed. Mr. Tucker said that they took a few down, but most remain; he does not know why. Mr. Carr said that the strip is of concern to him. He said that if the Commis- sion doesn't adopt some plan of management there, it will be very difficult to restrict it for Commercial use, unless there is a definite plan of use, the use will go to convenience -commercial - and that is what the contract purchasers have been asking for. Mr. Drenning said that he would look at the study again to decide if the recommendations should be different, based on the additional details. 71e said that he suspects their recommendations won't change; if problems result in that the Highway Department wishes to purchase or condemtn land in this area, the State will be responsible to the property owner, not the County. ,2y3 Mr. Jones entered the meeting. Mr. Laster asked if there is some claim the landowner would have against the 144) State. Mr. Tucker said that this has been discussed with Mr. Payne, who stated that any time the landowner comes to the Commission with a major improvement, it will have to be approved by the Commission, as far as any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is concerned. At that time, the Commission can try to insure that this doesn't happen again. Dr. Moore noted that the plan doesn't speak extensively on transportation; he feels this to be one of the major problems. He said that there are no plans for major roadways and asked Mr. Drenning if the roads had been studied to any great extent. Mr. Drenning stated that his firm did not go into a detailed transportation study, using origin/destination surveys and setting up traffic zones. He said that his firm did discuss with the Staff, the Highway Department and Mr. Huja from the City of Charlottesville, about the Albemarle -Charlottesville transportation restudy, and based on that, 1CJA agrees with the County's conclusion - that Route 29 North is a major problem. He stated that the major proposal to ill.eviate the traffic load off the existing alignment of Route 29, is proposing a major limited access highway beginning at Hydraulic Road and the by-pass and extending all the way to Hollymead. Mr. Tucker stated that the alternative noted was recommended by Dr. Iachetta, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at the public hearing. TvIr. Easter asked Mr. Drenning what his reaction is to this suggestion. Mr. Drenning said that he had recommended in the plan a limited access, providing one main intersection for the development of Hollymead, so that a choice can be made for people living in the Hollymead or airport area, to either come down old Route 29 or use the alternate limited access road. Mr. Drenning noted that their main objective with this road was not to create another road with access so that commercial development would be created and to get as close as possible to the point the people want to go, essentially, the intersection of Route 29 North and the by-pass. T,,ir. Drenning stated further that they were not trying to come up with a Charlottes- ville by-pass. He said they used some existing alignments briefly, in their proposals of existing roads. He said his Staff feels it is relatively impractical in most instances to take an existing alignment and make it limited access; it is too expensive and politically opposed of people who build along the road. Mr. Drenning stated that Dr. Iachetta mentioned in his presentation that it was just as short to do this; he said that he does not agree. Mr. raster stated that one of the comments at that meeting that confused him, has the City taken the McIntire Road extension out of their Master Plan? Mr. Carr said that the extension of McIntire Road into Rio Road is in the City's Master Plan. Col. Washington asked if this was last on their list of priorities. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Huja had indicated as such, but he stated that he feels it will be moved up on their list of priorities. Mrs. Graves asked if the fact that Dr. Iachetta's alternative causes disrup- tion where most of the development will be, make any difference. Mr. Drenning said that yes, it is possible, but his Staff cannot determine which alternative would be more expensive, with the level of detail today. Dr. Moore suggested that the same road come out of the back of Hollymead instead of going along Proffit Road. Mr. Drenning said that it is possible, but his main concern is that it cannot be brought fairly close to the 29 by-pass intersection, as people won't use it as an alternative, rather they will stay on the old Route 29. Mr. Tucker stated that Dr. Iachetta is concerned about splitting Branchlands and having a limited access highway that would, in effect split the community of Branchlands. Mrs. Graves asked if it would be possible to make Route 29 a limited access highway. Mr. Drenning said that this possibility has been studied by the Staff and the Planning Commission that this is not feasible. Mrs. Graves noted that the CATS study may recommend Route 29 to be a limited access highway if made six lanes. Mr. Tucker stated that was Mr. Roosevelt's recommendation at the meeting, that whatever proposals for transportation are recommended to relieve Route 29, that the Board or the Commission not adopt any of the recommendations at this time, until the restudy is completed. Col. Washington asked what alternative is available now. Mr. Tucker said that a transportation section should be provided now. Mr. Drenning suggested as a possible solution that the transportation restudy is in progress, as the County realizes; now is the time to decide the best alternatives, as far as new roads that are needed and adopt them accordingly to their Comprehensive Plan. He recommended that the Planning Commission adopt some alignments and possirlP alternative alignments now. Col. Washington suggested a link next to the Piedmont Tractor development. Mr. Raster asked why that would be needed now that the by-pass is constructed. Col. Washington stated that he is proposing a fork about three miles up the road, so that traffic heading to the western part of the University's campus or to Lynchburg, can go straight there and not have to come down to the intersection of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Master said that what the Plan is proposing would tie in right to the by-pass; he stated that he assumes that would be a good intersection. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he doesn't believe the City wants it there. 296 Mr. Drenning said that their Staff looked at this other side of Charlottesville and could not find an alignment for that kind of road. He stated that the other align- ment will have to come through Branchlands, which is not yet developed. 140) Mr. Easter asked Col. Washington if he felt that the intersection is good into the by-pass, now that the by-pass is four lanes to the west. Col. Washington said he feels that to be satisfactory. Mr. Laster stated that if the proposals in the Plan can get from Hollymead to the by-pass with a limited access and a good intersection when it gets to the by-pass, he doesn't see a problem. Mr. Gloeckner said that his only objection to this alignment is that it doesn't give any barrier to prevent urban sprawl, rather it; goes right through the middle of the urban area. He said that if it were to go to either the west or east, the by-pass would serve as a natural barrier for zoning uses. i4r. Easter siad that if that were done, he doesn't believe it would solve the traffic problem on Route 29 coming to the City. vir. Gloeckner said that the traffic coming to the City will use Route 29 or for other directions, the by-pass. Dr. Moore said, that in terms of recommendations, he had hoped that anything north of the river, making Route 29 North limited access; it; has to be cheaper to build streets for businesses than it would be to build a four lane federal highway, carrying heavy trucks and high speed traffic. Col. Washington said that he thought the service road concept was unanimous as being practical north of the river. Mr. Jones said that it seems like this road is being built where more businesses and residences are going to develop, increasing the flow of traffic to the City, eventually defeating the purpose of that road. Mr. Drenning said that Charlottesville is a major tourist attraction; during the past fifteen years there has been alot of development, both community and residential and some industrial, that has occurred in the Route 29 North corridor. IIe stated that now as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, reaffirming the idea of Hollymead, already zoned as a Planned Community accommodating some 10,000 people, the County wants employment in that area. He said that everything is being done to reinforce Route 29 as a constant flow of equal traffic. He said that an additional capacity of access must be provided through that corridor. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Drenning if he had discussed the possibility of using the railroad as a means of transit into Charlottesville. Mr. Drenning said that it would not be economically feasible. Mr. Laster stated that the Southern Railway still uses the tracks. Mrs. Graves suggested shuttle cars. ilr. Drenning said that it could be an idea, but his study can't-, determine its practically. He said that there would have to be a considerable amount of people using it, and it would have to be extremely convenient. IIe stated that it would also be very uneconomical and it would involve a large operating subsidy; now most of the transit operations throughout the country are having financial difficulty. 29(, - `- Mr. Tucker said that the University has applied for a grant from the Urban Mass Transit Administration to do a study on alternative transportation needs for rural areas. He stated that there is a good chance that the grant will be obtained and that a study in Albemarle County can be made using the railway from Crozet to Charlottes- ville. Mr. Jones suggested that Route 20 North could have application if it were upgraded. Mr. Drenning said that they had included this possibility in their study and decided it to be infeasible as Route 20 North is too far out, having a tendency of opening areas that would otherwise not be developed. Mr. Carr said that he felt one of the reasons that development is scarce to the east of the city is due to the bottleneck at Free Bridge. Mr. Drenning stated that one of their recommendations is the enlargement of the bridge and that section of Route 250 improved. Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Drenning that in calling this a limited access, was it broken down to where the accesses would actually be. Pair. Drenning siad that the accesses would be where there are existing roads now. He stated that his study did identify some intersection locations in the transportation plan; there would have to be some kind of intersection at Rio Road; and at the by-pass, a partial interchange; and some sort of interchange at Meadowbrook; and an interchange at Route 29, creating three intersections before Hollymead. Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Drenning if this will create the urban sprawl to go to Hollymead and start widening along the proposed corridor. Mr. Drenning said that he hopes to keep the west side limited to major commercial, to some extend and more to industrial and employment type uses; the rest in this area to rural designations. He stated further that the eastern side should contain the developments within the natural boundary of the river. Mr. Gloeckner asked if that kind of development should be encouraged to the south of town, keeping it from going north. Mr. Drenning said that he does not feel that it should; relatively speaking, over the next twenty years, the County is not expected to have a tremendous amount of population increase and for that reason, it is felt that if further opportunities are opened, there is not enough public monies or Service Authority money to put in the utilities, highways and schools to serve an area where the population is spread rather thinly. He said that he is very optimistic about the industrial outlook of the northern portion of the state. Nir. Jones stated that he feels development should be taken away from the north; the County will not benefit as Greene and Madison Counties are using and commuting through this portion. Mr. Jones added that more benefits could be derived if located geographically so that more people from Albemarle County can benefit more than other counties. Mr. Drenning said that philosophically he agrees about the geographic distribu- tion in that the area immediately north of Charlottesville may not be the greatest area for the County to grow. As a practical matter, he stated that he cannot agree, because of the tremendous investment and the committments the County has made - that there is no real choice. M .29 7 He added that he believes there is enough going for the area, that it won't present insurmountable problems that will throw the County in a mess. He said that he feels it is too late to not let that area develop and decide to take it to Scotts- ville. �r. Jones said that Scottsville has been neglected for a long time. He added that the same criteria that was used on Page 26 at the bottom for industrial land use holds true for commercial and residential use also. ,,Ir. Carr said that the southern area in the County, referring to Scottsville, does not want the urban problem, rather that industry is desired to keep development at a reasonable level. Mr. Drenning, addressing the issue of Scottsville, stated that he recommends the area around Scottsville to develop in terms of a village scale. He recommended that Scottsville be the first one, of all the villages, to have a detailed plan worked out for it. He added that for most of the villages, no industrial development is in vision, out for the case of Scottsville and probably the Ivy area, industrial development should take place. Mr. Drenning stated further that with the amount of field research that was done to identify industrial sights, using mostly secondary maps, he could not identify what he felt to be a prime sight, given the facilities and the situation in Scottsville today. iie added that a detailed studyAone by the County Staff of that village area, could identify better the sights that will attract industries. Mr. Jones agreed, stating that is his point - given the facilities that are present now, the industries are not attracted. Col. 'Jashington said that Mr. Drenning had recommended improved access from Crozet to 164 and asked Mr. Drenning if an actual. alignment study was made or if this was just general concept. Mr. Drenning said that he had recommended using existing align- ments and widening those roads. Col. Jashington suggested considering a direct route from Mortons to approximately the vicinity of the by-pass as a reasonable alternative, un�14 Route 250. 1v1r. Carr said that Crozet will grow west to 164, if that road is built; residential and commercial development will be pulled back. Col. Washington suggested that it could even be a two-lane limited access, leading right into the industrial area. I�r. Tucker said that the vertical alignment should be improved at the intersection of Route 240 and Route 810. Mr. Carr said that it might be better to go west rather than east to get relief of that traffic problem. Mr. Drenning said that his Staff is trying to emphasize the existing center, trying to provide improved access to it in Crozet. He said that he cannot provide a solution and was not aware that it was such a problem and so critical to Morton's shift change. Col. Washington said that the main street in Crozet is completely inadequate, suggesting main street as a traffic mover and building a traffic mover parallel to it. .1?�6 Mrs. Graves asked if any service roads were proposed along Route 250. Mr. Drenning said that there are not. Mr. Gloeckner, addressing Mr. Drenning, asked from the idea of keeping the clusters, does he see in the future that services such as sewer and water lines should be provided, allowing the clusters to develop with packaged plans, for instance, instead of having to get all services to Charlottesville to the present treatment plant. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Gloeckner was referring to the smaller villages other than Hollymead. Mr. Gloeckner said yes. Mr. Tucker stated that of the three major clusters, there will not be an interceptor for sewer that will go to Keswick; it will be difficult to contain the sewer with a village type atmosphere in Ivy; and there will be some sewer in Scottsville, as it is inadequate now. Mr. Tucker said that now is the time for the staff to request that the Highway Department do a transportation plan for Crozet, as it is not included in the restudy area. Col. Washington stated that Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department has accepted the principal of improving access to 64 from Crozet, but that he hadn't discussed the alignment. Mr. Easter suggested an interchange on Route 635 to avoid the Brownsville area. Mr. Drenning said that his staff had originally planned to use Black Cat Road as an access to 64, but after discussing this proposal with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Keeler, and it was decided that if an interchange was provided, the area between 64 and Route 250 would be opened to alot of pressure that will not be experienced if the interchange is kept to the west. Mr. Carr asked the Commission to look at Page 36, Proposed Development of Rural Areas. He stated that he had been presented with several questions pertaining to the new zoning ordinance. He said that the language, Agricultural Areas divided into two categories, should be translated into a zoning map and zoning ordinance. Mr. Drenning stated that he felt this could be done, through clusters; previously cleared areas remaining available for agricultural functions, or to permit more dense development to occur in wooded areas than cleared agricultural areas. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Drenning if he had envisioned the County to have one unit per ten acres and one unit per five acre density, and that areas of the County be zoned accordingly. Mr. Drenning stated that he didn't feel we would zone whole blanket areas as five or ten acres, rather an overall density, an average density for that zoning district. Within that zoning district, the areas that are wooded would be permitted higher densities than those areas that are open and used for agricultural purposes. With that, a transfer or development credit system would have to be provided. Mrs. Graves asked if that would work just as well with small farms. Mr. Drenning stated that it would be for any farm that is within one of those agricultural district areas. He stated further that there would have to be some sort of exception regarding a situation where someone has 20 acres, all open. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Drenning if he is referring to the present A-1 area. Mr. Drenning said that he is speaking to the areas outlined on the rural area plan on page 38. Further, the County would be using those as somewhat of a guideline to designate areas where those kinds of regulations would be suitable. 2y1 Mr. Carr stated that he has never been convinced that just because a slope has 15% or 25%, that every slope should be banned from development. He stated that in relating to what builders are able to do with the land, it is not in keeping with the preservation of more valuable land for other uses. Mr. Drenning stated that he agrees, and that it is reflected in the hillside standards chart where there is a graduated scale; page 39. Mr. Drenning stated further that there is a gliding scale of density; not that there is any slope that cannot be built upon, rather the steeper the slope, the less density the development should be because of disturbing the soils and removal of trees, etc. Mr. Drenning instructed the Commission to look at the Table #29 on Page 26. He stated that most of the balance of the County land is under two -acre zoning; for practical purposes, up to 25% should be sufficient - above that, the average density should be less. Mr. Drenning added that grading, runoff increase and tree removal are spoken to as well as density. Mrs. Graves asked what would be the case if the developer asked to build a house or other development on stilts. Mr. Drenning stated that the density could change; if the developer wants to build something that is normally prohibited, spend the money doing it and not cause a big impact on the environment, that there is no reason to deny it, in his opinion. Mr. Drenning added for the Commission's information that a text entitled, Environmental Performance Standards was used for the charts indicated in the proposed plan. Mrs. Graves asked how the zoning is proposed to change in reference to the Urban Area. Mr. Drenning stated that it doesn't have to happen as a wholesale zoning change, although it could. He said the more normal course of action would be for a county to adopt a plan and use public comment and discussion for a guide. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Drenning the reason for the downzoning. Mr. Drenning stated that he is hopeful that over a period of time, two things will happen: 1) the land that has been strip - zoned will become more valuable for residential or some other uses and rezoning will be requested, or 2) some techniques will develop to downzone, but that he cannot recommend that it be continued in the plan. Col. Washington asked what consideration has been given to annexation. Mr. Drenning stated that his firm was instructed by the Steering Committee to go ahead with the plan, not giving considerable consideration to annexation. He stated that the Committee's feeling is that the issue is not as strong as it has been in recent years. Mr. Easter stated that the flood plains appear to be exaggerated. Mr. Carr stated that they are. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Drenning if the existing recreational and conservational areas in the urban area are recognized. Mr. Drenning stated that where there are existing natural features, they are recognized, particularly the ones used to divide neighborhoods. Mr. Tucker stated that the plan recommends that from now on, rather than allowing that property line to go to the center of the stream, to allow some sort of buffer or easement along that stream to be used as an open space area, eventually all would connect, that could be used for walking paths, etc. Mr. Easter stated that theoratically, the idea sounds good, but as a practical matter, who will pay for it and who will maintain it? Mr. Tucker stated that the easement could conceivably be dedicated to the County; the Parks Department could maintain it if they chose to do so. Mr. Drenning stated that where there is permanently reserved open space for park areas, the value of the houses in that area increases usually steadily to the extent that even the maintenance is a relatively expensive proposition. He stated that he would venture to say that if it were possible to achieve this, the increase in property values and the taxes from that would be more than enough to offset the kind of maintenance that would come hand in hand with this proposal. Mr. Easter stated that his impression was that the easement would be 100' or so. Mr. Drenning stated that his recommendations were closer to 500' required. Mr. Carr added that the density credit would also be given. Mrs. Graves stated that the subdivision ordinance will always prevail over the density credit. Mr. Drenning stated that would be a problem, we can isolate the development to the flood plain. Mr. Keeler stated that zoning should not be given in the first place, if it is not appropriate for that development. He stated that will only be found in the urban area of the County. Mr. Keeler stated that some of the RPN's that have been submitted have been essentially, cluster subdivisions and have protected the open space. Mr. Barksdale stated that most of the RPN's being submitted are jumping the density. Mr. Drenning stated that if you have a two -acre zone and are allowing a two -acre cluster, a cluster development will not happen because there is no density credit. Mr. Carr stated that in this case, if the development is not adequate, it should be denied. Mr. Tucker stated that if the density is too high for the particular RPN being submitted, the developer should be required to either lower the density or the plan denied. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be the Commission's guide in requiring that particular density. ------------ Dr. Moore entered the meeting. He expressed his opinion that it. is advisable to go to the limited access roads wherever possible, to keep the traffic moving. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the purpose would be defeated in establishing a toll road. Mr. Drenning stated yes. Mr. Gloeckner asked how the limited access road would be paid for. Mr. Drenning stated that he could not speak to that issue. He stated that the Transportation Restudy will speak to this. He said that it would be cheaper to make a new alignment on an existing limited access. Mrs. Graves asked, as a locality, can we request where limited access should be. Mr. Drenning stated that from his experience, this cannot be done. He stated that he had prepared a plan for James City County concerning thoroughfare; that plan has been adopted, however nothing has been accomplished as far as the Highway Department is concerned. Mr. Gloeckner stated that Route 29 has a desparate traffic problem, with no cooperation whatsoever from the Highway Department. Mr. Tucker stated that there is control of the destiny of the money provided for these improvements, if the County had control. Mr. Carr stated that nothing will change that - the Highway Department indicates that there is no money for these improvements. Mr. Drenning stated that a general corrider for the limited access has been designated, to supplement Route 29; the County should proceed in trying to purchase some of that right-of-way. He stated that a rough estimate for the purchase of this right-of-way would be between 2 1/2 to 3 million dollars; over a period of years, considering the different capital expenditure requests, it is definitely possible that Albemarle County can afford to do this. Mr. Drenning added, from past experience he feels that Albemarle County will be as conservative as the State Highway Department. Mrs. Graves stated that she could support this, as long as it would be for the overall benefit of the County. Mr. Easter asked if the County were to purchase this right-of-way, would the State Highway Department reimburse them for it. Mr. Drenning stated that it would be doubtful; the Highway Department will try to get away with as much as they can, using the fact that there are no funds. Mr. Carr stated that leadership is needed for the improvement of the Route 29 corrider, every citizen in this County uses this route. --------------- Col. Washington expressed his feeling that he has always had problems with the A-1 zone, a zone with wide range for small farms to small residences. He stated that he felt the zone should automatically change -when it is originally zoned A-1 and a residence is erected, it should automatically change to rural -residential. Mr. Drenning stated that he felt this could be done. He stated that in the .rural area plans, there are three distinct kinds of areas, which could be reflected in the zoning districts. Also, in most areas of the County due to the large size of the property owner- ships, districts and rezonings can be created. Col. Washington asked if the term agricultural includes forestry or is forestry a separate issue. Mr. Drenning stated that there is concern in this area, as there is so much wooded land as opposed to the open and used agricultural land; much of that wooded land is on fairly unbuildable lots, coinciding with the steep slopes. He stated that heavy development will not be expected in this area. Col. Washington stated that he felt it would'be in the best interest of the County to tie the forestry aspect with the natural boundaries, the beauty of the County. Mr. Drenning stated that when the zoning ordinance is addressed, this issue will be a topic of discussion; there will be restric- tions of the forestry area along the ridge lines. is Mr. Drenning stated that the plan's first priority on the open cleared land and where there is pressure for development in rural areas to have it occur in the wooded areas. He stated that the wooded areas are expected to be timbered as recommended by the Virginia Division of Forestry. Col. Washington stated that the County's natural resources must be preserved. Mr. Drenning stated that is exactly what the plan projects; the Virginia Division of Forestry is responsible for the planting .of trees, etc. Mr. Drenning asked what action the County is expected to take after this plan is adopted, in respect to timbering operations. He stated that the only action that his firm has identified that the County should take would be to restrict timbering in some fashion on the ridges and hilltops. Col. Washington stated that the development should be restricted, not the timbering. Mr. Keeler stated that Col. Washington's point is that there is no recognition of the active use of the forested areas as a resource, in the plan. Mr. Tucker stated that in his opinion, the plan does recognize silviculture. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Drenning if there .is a difference proposed in the intensity of commercial uses and industrial uses. Mr. Drenning stated that this issue has not been directly addressed in the plan; when the zoning ordinance is revised, it can be addressed at that time. --------------------- Buck Mountain Creek Watershed: Mr. Drenning stated that there is enough water thing could be done about the South Rivanna Reservoir; could be included in the plan, if the Commission feels available for the County, if some - the Buck Mountain Creek Watershed it to be necessary. Irn 30Z He stated that he cannot look that far ahead for the plans of this watershed, especially when it is clear that the South Rivanna Reservoir has an abundant supply of water for the County. Mr. Tucker stated that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has hired a consultant to do a study on the potential future water supplies; the Buck Mountain Creek Watershed has been determined as the best source of future water. Mr. Easter stated that in conversation with Mr. Baily, County Engineer, it was indicated that there is not enough of a water source in the natural forest; Mr. Bailey stated that the next alternative for water would be the James River at Scottsville. Mr. Tucker stated that the James River is another alternative. Mr. Easter stated that if the Buck Mountain Watershed is to be considered a future source of water, it should certainly be included in the plan. Mr. Carr stated that this document should be revised and recommend an action from the Board of Supervisors. He said that at least one more public hearing should be held in order to receive more public input; a work session should be scheduled. Mr. Drenning stated that he didn't feel another public hearing would be necessary. He said that the Planning Commission as a group should decide if these are the changes that are needed and to recommend these changes to the Board of Supervisors. He stated at that time, a public hearing should then be held. Mr. Easter stated that he felt it would be a mistake, as a political matter, not to hold another public hearing before presenting these changes to the Board. With that comment, Mr. Easter moved that a public hearing be held before these changes go to the Board of Supervisors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since there was no further discussion, the Commission adjourned their meeting at 10:20 p.m. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary M