Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 26 81 PC MinutesMay 26, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, May 26, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Allen Kindrick, and Mr. James R. Skove. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Miss Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., and Mr. Richard Cogan. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. Windrift, Section III, Final Plat - REQUEST DEFERRAL UNTIL JUNE 16, 1981. Mr. Gloeckner moved to accept the request for deferral of this plat until June 16, 1981. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unaminously. Frank L. Hereford Site Plan - REQUESTS DEFERRAL UNTIL JUNE 16, 1981. Oyer: Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the request for deferral of this site plan until June 16, 1981. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-1, with Mr. Gloeckner abstaining. Jordon -Walkup Request for Relief - REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL. Mr. Gloeckner moved to accept the request for indefinite deferral of this plat. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Taylor Oil Company Site Plan - REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL. Mr. Gloeckner moved to accept the request for withdrawal of this site plan. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. William Downer Final Plat - REQUESTS DEFERRAL UNTIL JUNE 16, 1981. ' Mr. Skove moved to accept the request for deferral of this plat until June 16, 1981. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ednam For - Coty Property Final Plat - located south of U.S. Route 250 West, on the west side of Ednam Drive, a proposal to divide one 3.673 acre parcel leaving 3.232 acres in residue. Samuel Miller District. (Tax Map 591)(1), parcel 20A). *400 Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments at this time. Mr. Doug Zerkel, representing the applicant, stated that they wanted to divide the seven acre parcel into two parcels, each in excess of three -acres. He noted that the architects and design engineers have indicated that there could be as many as four building sites on this property. He stated that the health department and county engineerhave no problem with this proposal and also they have indicated that the four building sites would be acceptable. He also pointed out to the Commission that the County Engineer had stated that there should not be a problem obtaining the 30,000 square foot building site. Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any public comment concerning this final plat. Dr. Charles Borchardt stated that he is proposing to buy this property from the Coty Estate and plans to build his home here. He noted the location of the building sites and stated that if in the future the twenty-five (25) percent slope requirement was amended they would like the privilege to divide this parcel. He also noted that the average lot size in Ednam Forest is one acre and that homes have been built on steeper lots that the one proposed. Mr. John Rogan, the developer of Ednam Forest, stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission may have. With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner noted that the lots are each in excess of three acres and that there should be no problem with the applicants proposal. Mr. Skove noted that part of the thirty thousand square foot building site i's in the setback area. Ms. Imhoff pointed out the setback line, noting that the septic system could be located in this area. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions: 1. This plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Assignment of development rights; b. County Attorney approval.of the maintenance agreement. Mr. Davis joined the meeting. DISCUSSInN. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if the Commission should speak to the modification of a 30,000 square foot building site required from the engineering department. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should make a determination thatthey find it consistent with the county engineer's design specifications. Mrs. Diehl asked if this should be added to the conditions of approval and,if so, could Mr. Payne give some appropriate language for this. Mr. Payne stated that this should be added to the conditions of approval and could be worded as follows: • The Commission finds that the lot design as proposed by the applicant is consistent with sound engineering and design practice and that the public interest and the intent of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is served to at least an equivalent degree by such design in accordance with the recommendation of the County Engineer. Mr. Gloeckner reiterated his motion for approval with the following conditions: I. This plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Assignment of development rights; b. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; c. The Commission finds that the lot design as proposed by the applicant is consistent with sound engineering and design practice and that the public interest and the intent of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is served to at least an equivalent degree by such design in accordance with the recommendation of the County Engineer. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1 with Mr. Davis abstaining. Intermediate Care Facility #2 Site Plan - located on the northwest side of Route 631 Fifth Street Extended), south of 1-64 and east of Route 780;.a proposal to locate a 3,130 square foot home for developmentally disabled children on .6 acres. Scottsville District. (Tax Map 76, parcel 54K). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Firs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time. Mr. Bednar, the architect for this project, stated that Mr. Cortez, the Fire Official, had indicated that a residential sprinkle with a eight hundred (800) gallon storage tank would be adequate. Mr. Bednar pointed out that this sprinkler would be in the attic and would be served by a well, so the condition recommened by Staff for a 2" water line is not necessary. Ms. Imhoff stated that condition #b (Note the 2" water line for the sprinkle system) could be deleted and change condition #e to read: "fire official approval of fire protection system." Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was public comment concerning this site plan. Kenneth Wade, an adjoing property owner, stated that he would like to know the exact location of this proposal in relationship to his property. He also noted that he did not receive any notification of this proposal. Ms. Imhoff reviewed the list of adjacent owners who were notified and explained the notification procedure to Mr. Wade. Nancy Weiss, stated that the facility is for an eight bed, single family home for retarded and handicapped children. She noted that the children will be supervised twenty-four hours a day and will attend public schools. She stated that in her opinion the use should not affect the density of the area and traffic should be at a minimum. Mrs. Diehl asked if the children would be educable or trainable. Ms. Weiss reiterated that the children were retarded and handicapped some more so than others. With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Skove noted that the relocation of Rt. 631 as adopted by the Comprehensive Plan would go through this property and asked how the Commission could handle this. Mr. Payne read the following section of the County Code to the Commission: • Section 5-3.1 No permit shall be issued for the construction of any building within any area identified with reasonable specificity in the comprehensive plan for acquisition for public use for the period of two years from the delineation of such area on the plan, or amendment thereof, whichever shall be shorter. The foregoing notwithstanding, the building official may issue such permit in order to prevent unnecessary hardship in the application of this section. The standards set forth in section 15.1-495(b) shall apply to the determination of the existence of such hardship hereunder, mutatis mutandis. Mr. Skove ascertained that this meant two years from the delineation of the road. Ms. Imhoff noted that this realignment adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1978 has not changed. Mr. Davis stated that it was,in his opinion, a hardship on the applicant not to be able to use this property since the relocation of Rt. 631 is indefinite. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne for clarification regarding the issuance of a building permit if the building official deems a hardship exists. Mr. Payne state that this section deals with building permits and doesn't directly deal with the approval of a site plan. He noted that this section is a prohibition on the building official issuing permits that encroach on the planned public facilities. He noted that the zoning administrator could issue a variance if he determines appropriate conditions exist. 3'IY N Mrs. Diehl asked if any deadline for the relocation of this road had ever been discussed. Ms. Imhoff stated that there is no reference in the 1978 or recent minutes as to when the realignment of Rt. 631 would occur. Mr. Kindrick noted that this had been discussed with Mr. Roosevelt of the highway department and no time frame was given. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he is in favor of addressing the site plan and letting the building official deal with any hardships which might occur because of conflict with the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this site plan (#2) is a revision of a previous plan. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that health regulations must be complied with. Mrs. Diehl noted that the Commission had included compliance with health regulations in their conditions for approval and asked if this should be added for approval of this site plan. Mr. Payne stated that this applied to special use permits, noting that this is use by right. Mr. Skove ascertained that this is zoned R-2, Residential. Mr. Gloeckner noted that the parking spaces for the handicapped should be twelve (12) feet wide instead of nine (9). Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Note the acreage of the property; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; c. Written health department approval; d. Fire Official approval of a fire protection system; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; f. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements; g. County Attorney approval of a septic easement. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 990 Ednam RPN Site Plan - located on the south side of U.S. Route 250 West, and east of Ednam Drive; a proposal to locate 18 condominium units, 6 attached units and 5 unattached units on 6.5+ acres with an existing manor house on 1.75+ acres. Samuel Miller District. (Tax Map 60, portion of parcel 28A). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Mr. Sandy Lambert, representing the applicant, stated that they are asking for approval for thirty (30) parking spaces for the first phase. He noted that this phase involves uses on the first floor as follows: • 2,085 square feet for club assembly; • dwelling unit. He noted that phase one of the manor house will be completed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for dwellings in Ednam. Future phases will include offices on the second and third floors. He pointed out an area behind the fifty (50) foot required setback which will be used as an overflow parking area. Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before the Commission, as there was no public comment. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the availability of sewer capacity. Mr. Lambert stated that they have been assured that sewer capacity will be available, noting that they will not have a temporary facility. Mr. Skove questioned the height of the building. Mr. Lambert stated that this was a structure located within the fifty (50) foot building setback noted on the previous plan. Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that sheet #6 was not addressed because the road plans had previously been approved. Mr. Payne stated that condition 2.d. of the recommended conditions of approval (Subdivision approval of the condominium regime) in his opinion was misleading because nothing was said concerning any other types of development which would also require subdivision approval. He stated that he felt that the applicant should be aware that not only condominiums but any other division of land have to be approved under the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Lambert stated that they were aware of this. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there will not be underground parking. Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Note any drainage easements and appurtenant structures; ��I b. Show on the site plan where the second phase of parking required for the manor house will be located; c. Note specifically when this parking will be provided; d. Note the finished grades for the unattached units; e. Redesign the sidewalk location in Area E; f. County Engineer approval of parking area pavement specifications and curbing (if necessary); g. County Attorney approval of homeowner's association agreements for the maintenance of the private roadways, parking areas, drainage and appurtenant structures, pathways and any other commonly -owned or common -use amenities; h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including booster stations and other appurtenances; i. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations; j. Fire Protection Engineer's certification and Fire Official approval of all buildings over 35' in height; k. Add note: "Landscaping to be maintained and replaced if any should die."; 1. Compliance with ZMA-80-19 and SP-80-62. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Staff approval of a landscaping plan for Areas F, G and E; c. County Engineer approval of pathway specifications and locations; d. Subdivision approval of the condominium regime. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Branchlands Retirement Village, Phase One, Site Plan - located off the east side of U.S. Route 29 North and west of the Chapel Hill and Greenbriar Heights Subdivisions; a proposal to locate 48 units on a 8.30 acre parcel, with a density of 5.78 units per acre, leaving 18.77 acres in residue. Charlottesville District. (Tax Map 61Z, parcel 3-1). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, presented plans to the Commission showing the design and elevation of the buildings for phase one. He also stated that floor plans are available for the Commission's review. Mr. Roudabush pointed out to the Commission that the existing roadways on the property have been utilized. Mr. Roudabush noted that parking will be provided on the lower level of each building He noted that there are thirteen- 0 3) units in each of the four (4) components of the buildings for a total of fifty-two (52) units in phase one. He also stated that outside parking will be provided for the maonor house. He noted that little grading for roads would be required as the existing roads would be brought up to standards. The plans for Greenbrier Drive have been submitted to the highway department and that these roads will be constructed to state standards. Mr. Roudabush pointed out that dual access to the property would be obtained by using the road located beside The Happy Clam. _�ez_ Mr. Roudabush noted that landscape plans would be submitted to the Staff, pointing out that a lake and flower gardens would be provided. He noted that recreational facilities for phase one consist of pathways, bike trails,1400 a pool, and facilities provided for in the manor house. Mr. Roudabush stated that they would respond to any questions the Commission may have. Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any public comment concerning this site plan. Pamela Johnson, an adjacent owner in Chapel Hill, stated that she would like the following concerns addressed: • what is the time table for the development of the remainder of the project; • area noted for pathways is currently a dirt road running parallel to Chapel Hills and questioned when this road would be closed. Mr. Roudabush stated that no grading can be done until the site plan has been approved. He noted that soil erosion and grading plans have been submitted but review of these plans would occur after the approval of the site plan. Dr. Langman stated that they had posted signs, installed chains across the entrance to this road, but this did not help stem the flow of illegal traffic (dirt bikes, etc). With regard to the phasing of this project, Dr. Langman stated that site approval has not been obtained. He noted that work has been done on the manor house, seeding planted along the lake and plans for the recreational areatave been submitted. Mrs. Johnson noted that if this road is not blocked,the flow of traffic would increase. Mr. Ed Bain, representing CFS Associates, stated that they are concerned about how the proposed road wil'I affect their retention pond and/or the emergency spill way on the edge of the retention pond. He noted that he has not seen the road plans and wished to make the Commission aware of their concern. With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman inquired if Section C of this plan corresponds to Phase One of the development. Dr. Langman stated that Section C borders the parking lot and is north of the manor house. He pointed out to Mr. Bowerman the location of the manor house, swimming pool etc. Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Langman if it was his intention to have some type of security arrangements for the private entrance off of Greenbrier Drive and questioned if these arrangements would help alleviate some of the traffic problems. Dr. Langman stated that they plan to have a gate manned by a policeman and hoped that this would help control traffic. He noted his concern with the illegal traffic and stated that they would continue to try to control this. Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff if road plans had been submitted for the area adjacent to Fashion Square. Ms. Imhoff noted that this is in Area A and road plans were not required as they are considering the upper part of Section C. She noted that these plans were 9��91 submitted to the County Engineer and are available in his office for the public to review. Mrs. Diehl questioned condition l.d. of the recommended conditions of approval (Note type and height of fence) she asked Ms. Imhoff what was meant by this condition. Ms. Imhoff stated that she wanted to know if this was a fence or retaining wall . Mr. Roudabush explained that this would be a fence behind the manor house not a retaining wall. Mrs. Diehl noted that the Staff is asking for clarification of the intentions concerning the reservation of uses for open space. Mr. Roudabush stated that they had asked for relief from the requirement to provide recreational facilities for young people as this is a retirement village. Ms. Imhoff noted that use for open space were a condition of the rezoning and that the special use permit reffered to the provision of pathways, pool, etc. Mr. Roudabush stated that the facilities would be open to all residences. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Staff is requiring the review of the extension of Greenbrier Drive as a condition of approval. Mr. Skove asked if the runoff control basin would be reviewed by highway department when they reviewed the road plans. Ms. Imhoff pointed oute that they are reviewing Section C, and the runoff control basin is located in Section A. Mrs. Diehl asked if the water plans and sewer plans had been reviewed by the service authority. Mr. Roudabush stated that they reviewed the preliminary plans and final approval is conditioned on getting approval of the site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Imhoff if there if there are any specific points that will have to be addressed by the applicant regarding condition l.n.(Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63). Ms. Imhoff replied that this was added as a catch all, noting that the conditions are included in the recommended conditions of approval for this site plan. Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Note utility and drainage easements; b. Note the acreage of Phase One; c. Staff approval of a landscape plan and add a note: "Landscaping to be main- tained and replaced if any should die."; d. Note type and height of fence; e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer approval of road plans (build to ultimate design standard) for Greenbrier extended; f. County Engineer approval of bikeway specifications and location in Area B; g. Provide and record a public easement for the bike/pedestrian pathway; -384 h. County Engineer approval of walkway specifications; i. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; j. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, emergency fire vehicle Iwo access and sprinkler system (if necessary); _ k. Fire Protection Engineer's certification and Fire Official's approval of buildings over 35' in height; 1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; M. County Attorney approval of homeowner's association agreements for maintenance of the private roadways, parking areas, bikeways/pathways, commonly -owned or common -use amenities; n. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63. 2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Subdivision approval of condominium regime. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Slaughter Fruit and Vegetable Stand - Request for waiver of a requirement for a site plan. Located on the east side of U.S. Route 29 North, south of the Wood - brook Shopping Center; a proposal to locate a temporary fruit and vegetable stand on a 3.47 acre parcel. Charlottesville District. (Tax Map 45, parcel 104A). Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that this was before them tonight in the nature of a proto site plan. Mr. Tucker noted that the highway department has granted a temporary commercial entrance permit. Ms. Imhoff noted that this could not be reviewed by the Commission at this meeting as a site plan because the adjacent owners have not been notified. Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Skove questioned what is being built. Ms. Imhoff stated that this was an existing building, noting that Mr. Slaugher will have trucks from which he will sell fruits and vegetables. She explained that he needs a site plan for this because the fruit and vegetables are from other farms of which he is to be the distributor. Mr. Bowerman asked what the traffic impact would be on Rt. 29. Ms. Imhoff stated that the highway department felt there should be no problem with traffic. '1 Mrs. Diehl stated that she was concerned about the number of fruit stands in this area noting that she had read an article where Greene Gardens asked farmers to join in a farmers market to be held at Greene Gardens. Mr. Davis ascertained that all the requirements of the ordinance would be met by this site plan. Mr. Gloeckner noted his concern that there was no decel lane from Rt. 29. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that no written comments had been received from the highway department. Mr. Gloeckner questioned where the trucks would be parked. Ms. Imhoff stated that there will be only one truck which will be parked beside the existing house. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that Ms. Imhoff had visited the site. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant would have to obtain a business license. Mr. Tucker stated that this depends on the amount of income, noting that if he grosses $2,500.00 or more a business license would be required. Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission could restrict this plan to one individual seller. Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission would have to review the site plan if there is more participants than what he is proposing. Ms. Imhoff stated that if this proposal is required to go through the site plan process the highway department would not grant a commercial entrance permit, making it impossible for the applicant to have a fruit and vegetable stand at this location. Mr. Gloeckner noted his concern for the health, safety and welfare of the people on Rt. 29. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was no access to this property from Greene Gardens. Mr. Skove ascertained that if a site plan were submitted stating that this was a temporary facility, the highway department would issue a temporary entrance permit. Mr. Gloeckner stated that it is the responsibility of the landowner to provide proper access to the property. Mr. Bowerman stated that because of the potential impact that this use could generate he would like to see all the necessary information to make a decision and would like to see a site plan. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he thought a decel lane to the main access was necessary. LIM Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like to see the following concerns addressed: • a description of where the trucks will be located; • the number of trucks involved; • hours of operation; • parking facilities provided. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see in writing something from the highway department addressing the use of this site. ACTION: The Commission took no action of the request for a waiver of the requirement for a site plan. Spring Hill Final Plat - Amendment of a condition of approval. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself. Ms. Imhoff that this is a request to amend condition l.d which currently reads: l.d. Add Note: "Only one dwelling unit per lot." She noted that the applicant is requesting this be amended to read: l.d. Add Note: "Only one dwelling unit per lot except lot 16." She also noted that lot 16 was the existing manor house. Ms. Imhoff naoted that the applicant wished to make the Commission aware that the open space referred to is only a description of the land use and does not imply that this was common open space. Mr. Davis moved to amend condition l.d. of the March 31, 1981, Commission's conditions of approval for the Spring Hill Final Plat to read as follows: d. Add note: "Only one dwelling unit per lot excluding lot 16 which has two (2) existing dwelling units." Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Review of Bikeway/Sidewalk Plans: Ms. Imhoff asked for some input from the Commission concerning both the bikeway and sidewalk plans. Mr. Tucker noted that in the zoning ordinance there is a provision which states that sidewalks can be required in certain areas based on the overall density. He stated that the Staff would like to identify streets where sidewalks should be required only on one side and streets which would require sidewalks on both sides. He noted that when a site plan is submitted the Staff member could then refer to this 3�7 listing and make the proper requirement for sidewalk location. He asked for input from the Commission. Ms. Imhoff stated that the City requires sidewalks to be shown on both sides of the street on all site plans and subdivisions. She stated that the Commission may want to consider following the City's recommendation and require sidewalks on both sides of the street in the urban area. Mr. Gloeckner stated that in his opinion, sidewalks should be required on both sides of the streets in the urban area. He noted, however, that if the road were a loop road then sidewalks would be needed only on one side of the road. Mr. Tucker stated that the highway department would not accept sidewalks unless they have curb and gutter and are built to Virginia Department of Highways & Trans- portation standards. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see sidewalks on one side of the street. He noted that designating which side of the street sidewalks would be requied on would present a problem. Mr. Gloeckner stated that sidewalks should be required in the entire urban area based on the areas of the highest density. Mr. Bowerman asked if all sidewalks accepted by the highway department must be constructed of concrete. Mr. Tucker stated that the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation requires concrete sidewalks. He noted that they do not like a grass strip between the curb and sidewalk because of maintenance problems. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see the sidewalks delineated so the Commission could justify their decisions. Mr. Skove stated he felt sidewalks in the urban area should not be required according to density. Mr. Tucker stated that as he understood it the Commission is stating: • the current policy concerning sidewalks is acceptable; • a policy concerning thru streets is needed; • sidewalks based on higher density should be spelled out. Mr. Tucker noted that the Staff is trying to provide a policy where by the pathway system would eventually interconnect. Mr. Gloeckner stated that temporary sidewalks should be addressed in this plan. Mrs. Diehl stated that she was in favor of pedestrian pathways noting that the problem of maintenance would still have to be addressed. Mr. Skove asked if there was a board policy that the'County would build sidewalks in the areas of schools. Mr. Tucker stated that such.a policy would be expensive and would not last. He also stated that the Board has not given an indication as to wheter or not they would support any such plans. They have stated that they will not support County construction of any bikeways. 19 CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE SIDEWALK PLAN: WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION. 9 R I VP PI AN Ms. Imhoff noted that the bikeway survey in the Charlottesville area shows that on street improvements rather that a bikeway path are recommended. She noted that the bike survey asked for responses in the following categories: • utility service (people who ride bikes to work or school, etc); • recreational uses; • planned bikeways (Georgetown Road, Hydraulic Road, and McIntire Road were recommended for planned bikeways). Ms. Imhoff asked the Commission if a bikeway plan was necessary and what they would like such a plan to be comprised of. Mrs. Eihel stated that unless the Board of Supervisors makes a change in policy, money for the improvements to the bikewasy would not be allocated. Ms. Imhoff asked the Commission if the Staff should do some work on the bike plan and submit it for adoption into the.Comprehensive Plan or for further review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated that some type of awarness program would be beneficial. Mr. Bowerman stated that one way to promote safety would be to h-ve signs posted alerting motorists that bikers use the road. CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNING THE BIKE PLAN: Further study of the bike plan. The Commission would like to see some policy guidelines. Procedure for Review of Comprehensive Plan Update: (COPY ATTACHED) Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff has tried to prepare a comprehensive outline of the scope of work that could be cone to update the comprehensive plan. He indicated that the Staff has attempted to note all the major changes that should be done. Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff has started work on the land use survey and related data. Mr. Tucker noted that some of the planned proposals and/or suggested amendments are lengthly and asked the Commission for feed back as to what direction the Staff should take. Mr. Tucker stated that public input indicates to the Staff the policies of the current comprehensive plan that are no longer viable. Mr. Tucker stated that the current comprehensive plan could be improved in the following ways. • Staff feels that a 8"11 x 11 format would allow amendments to be inserted easily; s Staff feels that they would like to revert back to the mapping technique done in the 1971 comprehensive plan. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt that the indexing to the comprehensive plan should be improved. Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the Staff would review the present plan for deficiencies before any action was required of the Commission. Mr. Tucker noted that one of the problems the Staff has with the present comprehensive plan is the hill side standards are not practical. Mr. Skove asked if the public meetings were of any help to the Staff in making their preparations. Mr. Tucker stated that he did not feel that public meetings should be held in individual schools. He noted that a public meeting could be held in the County Office Building giving the public an opportunity to attend. Mr. Gloeckner stated that several meetings could be held, each meeting on a different section of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Skove stated that he did not feel that any major revisions were necessary to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Tucker noted that the general pattern and plans that were established in 1971 are still being carried forward. He noted that due to the population figures, some changes were made in the magnitude of planned development reducing the capacity of different villages. �>tr✓ Mr. Tucker stated that Staff would like to introduce color maps to the comprehensive plan. OR Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission should guard against changing the concept from the general plan to a concise plan. Mr. Tucker stated that Staff did not feel a citizens advisory committee was needed because Staff feels that the update to the comprehensive plan should be handled by the Commission rather than an advisory group. Mrs. Diehl commented the Staff on the work that has been accomplished to date. Mr. Tucker stated that when Staff has some ideas and feels that citizen input is necessary they will contact the Commission and discuss the best way to coordinate this. Mrs. Diehl asked if the Board will review the update of the plan. Mr. Tucker stated that input would be made by the Commission but the Board would have to hold public hearings. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.m. 3�0 Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr., Se ret 011 En PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Scope of Work State law requires localities to review and amend if necessary their comprehensive plan every five years. Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan, revised and adopted in 1978, should be. reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine whether it is necessary to amend,and if so, how much of the Plan. In order to expedite the review of the Comprehensive Plan , the Planning Staff has carefully reviewed the Plan and prepared a general outline of the work necessary to update it. Recommendations for revising the Plan also are aimed at making the Plan more readable as well as more consistent with County policies and regulations. The scope of work for this revision is divided into sir, phases. The phases are: 1. Initial Review of Scope of Work by the Planning Commission; 2. Review of Goals and Objectives by the Community; s. Update of Data Projections and Related Information presented in Plan; 4. Revision of Land Use and Structural Condition Survey; 5. Improvement to Graphics and Related Areas in Plan; 6. Reorganization of Plan including new Format. PHASE 1 .INITIAL REVIEV OF SCOPE OF WOPUK BY PLANNING COMu1ISSI0N The Planning Commission should review this proposed scope of work for the revision and the recommendations made herein. The Planning Staff proposed this scope of work from an extensive list of recommendations that have been cited by both the Planning Staff and Planning Commission as well as other individuals. A genera! scope of work should evolve at this stage to guide- the Planning Staff during the revision process. Since this activity .is a revision of our existing Comprehensive Plan, the Staff does not believe a separate citizens advisory committee will be necessary. If. the Commission feels a citizens committee is necessary, work on organizing such a group should proceed shortly. PHASE 2 REVIEW OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES BY COM1-1UNITY An integral part of the revision of the Comprehensive Plan is the involvement of the community in the process. A series of nine citizen meetings were held across the County in 1976 to solicit,ci.tizen input in the revision process. The Planning Staff believes a similar approach would be beneficial during this revision process. Seven meetings, with each of the Commissioners serving as moderator for one session, could be held across the County to solicit input on the Plan's goals and objectives and related issues. Information obtained frog 39% Page 2 164bw such meetings would be a valuable contribution in the planning process. It would also provide additional guidance to evaluate this scope of work. Specific items in this area which we feel need attention include: • review and revise, if necessary, existing goals and objectives; • add objectives for community facilities and utilities; • strengthen energy objectives based on findings of energy study underway; • add objectives on agricultural food production; • include objectives from recently adopted Parks Plan; • evaluate potential of adding social goals and objectives. PHASE 3 UPDATE OF DATA, PROJECTIONS AND RELATED INFORMATION PRESENTED IN PLAN All of the information presented in the plan is at least five years old. During this revision process, the Staff feels considerable attention should be provided towards updating all, or as much as possible, the data, projections and related information presented in the Plan. Current information presented in the Plan is basic to the effective operation of the County's planning efforts. Also, individuals and various businesses and agencies constantly request up-to-date information on the County from the Department. err This revision parallels a. most timely event as the release of the 1980 Census should begin in the summer/fall of 1981. The 1980 Census will provide us with current as well as varied information in numerous subject areas. Information will also be provided in very small geographic areas (blocks) which should help us in our planning efforts. Attention will also be focused on updating and revising various projections and trends that we may find to be out of line since the original plan. Information which we feel needs updating includes: COMPREHENSIVE FLAN PROPOSALS: • change conservation areas to reflect environmentally sensitive areas; • add new flood hazard areas; • include natural habitat areas; • review hillside development standards by engineers and architects for applicability; • update South Rivanna Watershed description; • include latest progress report on Buck Mountain Reservoir; • classify best agricultural soils according to latest Soil Conservation Service study; • review agricultural, commercial and industrial land use standards -in view of new ordinance; • include section on institutional (public) land use; • revise priority factors for potential industrial land; • delete potential -industrial land map; • review residential development concept in view of latest residential development activity; • revise residential standards.. including residential densities, scales ,VZ Page 3 M em (population capacity), planned unit developments and planned residential developments; • include some narrative on density bonuses; • amend growth area's narrative on population holding capacity; • work with housing coordinator to amend housing section including new housing assistance plan, role of housing office, etc. • revise statistics on housing problems (use of information from Census and new land use /housing condition survey); • include some graphics/tables possibly on new housing data (use of census districts or some other geographic boundaries); • revise cost data on housing; • review housing strategies based on County's efforts; • revise visual quality elements to include more thorough coverage of historic landmarks and scenic rivers and highways; • delete vistas from map on visual quality elements; • revise population capacity of development plan; • revise impact of growth projections; • revise growth distribution according to development trends; o revise growth characteristics according to development trends; • add information from land use amendments in lieu of pages 15-18 (growth areas will be reviewed for changes); • revise entire rural areas to reflect latest data as well as zoning ordinance; • work with education department to revise school capacities as well as standards if necessary; revise park standards according to latest COR adopted standards; • include summary of parks and recreation plan (recommendations and criteria for funding perhaps); • review public safety recommendations for changes; • review transportation proposals to include changes recommended by CATS and those included in land use amendments; • add public transportation recommendations, if any; • amend bikeways plan narrative to include bikeway plan if completed; • update public water demands (both usage and population); • update information on Buck Mountain reservoir_; • add service authority project areas; • revise impoundment boundary and buffer zones for Buck Mountain (they are reversed here); • include information on groundwater report; e update sewage plans including new service area, advanced wastewater treatment plant and Crozet interceptor; • include information on septic tank standards from Health Department; • changes to landfills if any; • add information on airport master plan; • include section on energy study proposals; 3�3 Page 4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: • review and revise depending upon revision of goals and objectives; • revision of urban land use and general land use plans upon completion of land use survey; EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND: • revise soils section with latest SCC study; • include soil capability and limitations information; • include recent information on groundwater resources; • revise forest resources data; • revise land use data according to latest land use survey (1981); • include some kind of evaluation of land use history in County (development trends); • update if necessary any data on numbers, etc. of schools, parks, health, fire and rescue, railroads, etc. (Community facilities); • review water supply information for changes; • include information on South Rivanna and Buck Mountain Reservoirs; • review sewe7- information for charges; • include section on existing energy usage; PLAN VERSUS PERFORMANCE: • revise this section title to reflect implementation activities rather than just performance factors;. • prepare evaluation of factors for ten year period 1971-1981; • update community facilities and utilities; • add implementation activities such as new zoning ordinance; subdivision regulations, runoff control ordinance, capital improvement program, etc.; • remove subdivision activity map; ® review fiscal impacts for usefulness; • evaluate achievements toward attaining objectives; TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS: • update current population estimates; • use block data from Census to provide accurate geographic profiles of County; pinpoint problem areas(low income, minority, elderly) for use by service agencies; • evaluate population factors on projections; * update employment profile of County and labor market area; • provide new employment projections; • provide new population projections; • reduce number of population projections to State's and County's; • provide new land use demands (residential, commercial, industrial); provide new housing and construction information and projections; e update data for housing unit type, real estate tax valuations, revenues and expenditures; © review fiscal impacts of plan for usefulness; • review environmental in:pacLs for usefulness; 394 Page 5 M PHASE 4 REVISION OF LAND USE AND STRUCTURAL CONDITION SURVEY Essential to the revision of the Comprehensive Plan is an updated land use and structural condition survey. The last survey was completed in 1976. This "windshield" survey will provide us with basic data in land characteristics and the various activities that occupy land in the planning area. It will serve as the framework for formulating the long range land use plan for the County. The land use and structural conditions survey has been scheduled for the summer of 1981. The urban area survey will be completed first, followed by the communities and villages. The rural portion of the County will be surveyed last as this area may require only minor changes from the last survey. PHASE 5 IMPROVEMENT TO GRAPHICS AND RELATED AREAS IN PLAN As mentioned previously, some of the work involved in this revision is aimed at making the Comprehensive Plan more readable and more attractive. One of the ways we can accomplish this is to improve the graphics contained in the plan. Specific recommendations in this area include: utilizing a new base map throughout the plan; • including larger maps with more detail for the growth areas and other data; s -utilizing "fold outs" and "back sleeves" for certain maps at large scale; • utilizing two or three color schemes in maps to improve readability as well as consistency. Some of these graphic improvements originate from the 1971 Comprehensive Plan which received positive comments about its graphic approach. PHASE 6 REORGANIZATION OF PLAN_ INCLUDING NEW FORMAT Another activity which could be accomplished during the revision process is a reorganization of the Plan itself. Here again, the focus is on making the Plan more readable and more useful to the Department, the Commission and Board and the general public. Several ideas which we feel may help to improve the Plan include: d reorganizing the historical, geographical and related information and placing it at the front of the Plan; • placing all the population, economic, land use and other related data in one section which could be easily retrieved for use and sale; "46r1 • including a plan proposal section which is composed of three separate yet consistent divisions -land use, community facilities and utilities, Page 6 and transportation --for easy retrieval (each could be sold separately); utilizing a different cover and binding. KII : JW May 7, 1981 39(�