Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 21 82 PC MinutesJanuary 21, 1982 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Thursday, January 21, 1982, from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 4, adjacent to the Planning Department, in the Albemarle County Office Building. This was the second work session on the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Allan Kindrick. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, and Mr. R. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner. Mrs. Diehl called the work session to order at 4:30 P.M. Mr. Tucker distributed annual real estate disclosure forms and a conflict -of - interest form, which he asked that each Commissioner complete and submit to the Deputy County Attorney's office. Mr. Mabe explained that the revision attempted to provide all data in the first section instead of having it scattered throughout the various chapters of the Plan. He also stated that a glossary and index would be prepared, as well as a cross- index system of reference. The Commissioners perused the Inventory and Analysis material, noting the amendments Mr. Mabe pointed out had been made in response to suggestions from the Commission on the population section. Mr. Mabe said that the Community Development section was still outstanding and would be completed at a later date. Mrs. Diehl noted that the Interstate Interchange Land Use entry in the Table of Contents should be moved left to be flush with Type II Villages, as an entry of equal status. Mrs. Diehl noted that the section on ground water was very interesting and that she was curious to know more about the petroleum spills mentioned in this section, on page 11. Mr. Mabe explained that there were eight soil associations. He stated that Gordon Yager of the Soil Conservation Service was currently working up a new list with descriptions of these associations. Mr. Mabe added that Mr. Yager did not like the current illustration/map in the Comprehensive Plan and hoped that a new one would be designed for the revision, along with a new map narrative. There was general discussion of the difficulty in illustrating accurately on a small map the various soil associations in the County, many of which overlap. Mr. Mabe explained that Mr. Yager also had a problem with the current definitions of soils, such as with "best," since such a rating depended on the use or crop intended in a given area. Mrs. Diehl asked whether such a small map could be of any use in any event. Mr. Mabe explained that the map illustrating soils could be larger, there being three scales from which to choose. Mrs. Diehl noted that she would like to see more references for additional information given in the Plan, such as that on page 6. She remarked that this would be a helpful and attractive feature in the Plan. I Mr. Mabe commented that he had been able to get some percentages of employees from other counties from a couple of local employers. He said that Acme in Crozet had determined that 25% of their employees are from some eight counties outside of Albemarle. Mr. Mabe said that the figure from State Farm was 35 - 40%. Mr. Mabe explained some of his methodology to Mr. Skove concerning population projections. Mr. Mabe said that he had gone back and reduced some of the multipliers to take into account out -of -County employees. Mr. Skove asked whether Mr. Mabe had reduced the multipliers from both basic and non -basic sectors. Mr. Mabe concurred that he had. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was some sort of a table for reference to better explain how the multipliers were reduced. Mr. Mabe explained that his practice had been to follow the procedure of the State and the reduction had been two or three tenths of a percent. Mr. Skove said that he suspected employment fell for females between 1970 and 1980, or at least stayed stable. He added that he still believed the figures given in the Plan tended to be high; he asked Mr. Mabe whether he would prefer to be high. Mr. Mabe replied that he would prefer to err on the high side. Mr. Skove asked what the State figure had been for 1980. Mr. Mabe replied 83,500; Mr. Tucker pointed out that the KDA projection had been 53,900 for the County alone and the census came up with 55,700. Mr. Skove reiterated his misgivings about inaccurate projections, since planning any development of services is so closely tied to the estimates. Mr. Tucker pointed out that underestimating could also cause underdevelopment and subsequent problems, such as undersized sewers. Mrs. Diehl added that high projections might encourage overdevelopment. She asked how many CIP projects that would be getting off the ground in the next five years would be geared to the twenty-year figure and whether the County would be at a point of no return. Mr. Tucker responded that the Plan was updated and reviewed at five year intervals and therefore able to change as figures changed, if and when necessary. Mr. Skove said that he believed high population figures encouraged intensive zoning. Mrs. Diehl concurred that the two were related. Mr. Tucker asked the Commission if it wished to await the State figures. Mr. Skove said that he would feel better. Mr. Mabe staged that it would probably not be until around the end of the year that those figures would be out. Mrs. Diehl said that she could not take a strong stand on either side because she did not feel familiar enough with the methodology. It was determined that a consensus existed for leaving the current projections at this time, going back at a later date to double check the figures. N Mr. Skove suggested adding a date to Table 8. Mr. Mabe agreed that the year 1980 should be added. Mr. Skove questioned the statement on page 34 that Albemarle County had the third highest per capita income of the localities in the area, in 1977. Mr. Mabe said that he would recheck the figure. Mr. Bowerman suggested that because of medical services in the area and the climate, retirement population would continue to grow and perhaps cause an increase in service -type industries. Mr. Mabe said that on page 31 the Plan speaks to a continued growth pattern in the services sector. Mr. Bowerman determined that Mr. Mabe reflected this increase in the population and employment projections. Continuing to the next section, EXISTING LAND USE, Mr. Mabe explained that on page 36 a new list of definitions on land use was provided. Mr. Tucker added that these categories did not follow the current Zoning Ordinance definitions. Mr. Skove asked whether figures for each category could be provided. Mr. Mabe responded that they could. Mr. Mabe remarked that a map would also be provided in the Comprehensive Plan illustrating local landmarks. Mr. Tucker stated that he thought the Commission would find the maps and illustrations for the revised Comprehensive Plan much superior to those in the last revision. Mr. Tucker suggested they would be much easier to read with good scales and more like those done by Rosser Payne. Moving on to TRANSPORTATION, Mr. Mabe explained that included in this section was information on the CATS process. Mr. Skove pointed out that delineation was incorrectly spelled on page 44. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he was surprised to see that in vehicle trips per day Barracks Road compared with I-64 West. Mrs. Diehl agreed and wondered whether it was normal to have so high a rate on a commuter route. Mr. Mabe proceeded to COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES. Mr. Skove suggested that the Reservoir should be included under PARKS AND RECREATION for fishing and boating. Mrs. Diehl suggested on page 51, under UTILITIES, changing a reference to tiny water plants to read algae. Turning to a general discussion of the revision, Mr. Mabe said that he hoped to have every illustration and map on a separate page, so that someone wishing to purchase a particular table, for example, could just purchase it separately. Mrs. Diehl remarked that she found the general layout/format to be very readable. 9 Mr. Mabe said that the next part being worked on was COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, housing. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the County had any actual housing philosophy, whether ' there had ever been an official statement from the Board issued. Mr. Tucker replied that the County had not really ever taken an official position on this matter. He added that the County was getting into a review of social programs because of cuts in Federal funds, requiring as a consequence local funding of certain programs. Mr. Tucker explained that a committee had been formed for the specific purpose of developing a review process of social programs and conducting that review. He said that this process was being developed in order to assist the Board in deciding which agencies or projects to fund. Mr. Tucker also said that the City had been handling this under a social development division. Mr. Mabe said that the housing chapter under COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT would be a new addition to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker referred to the memo he had addressed to the Commissioners, asking that they consider how they wished to hold public hearings on the Goals and Objectives section of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked specifically if the Commission wished to hold a public work session in order to solicit public input and if so, what the Commission wished to take to a public meeting. Mr. Tucker inquired as to whether there were changes desired in the last Goals and Objectives section of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that since the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT section would be new, it would be helpful to have feedback from a public work session. Mr. Bowerman suggested making copies available prior to a public work session and including such information in the public notice. Mrs. Diehl asked whether it would be desirable to reproduce the original page of Goals and Objectives and combine the old with any new proposals. Mr. Tucker asked the Commissioners if they wished to change any of the original Goals and Objectives. Mr. Bowerman asked what sort of input had been received previously, five years ago and whether there had been a good cross-section of the County included in the response. Mr. Tucker said that the 1976 Goals and Objectives had been used, but the public response was somewhat erratic. He explained that the original Comprehensive Plan had contained many problems, but that the last revision had been well received and he doubted that numerous work sessions were really necessary. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to include any points the Commissioners believed should be discussed, so the public would have an idea of what the Commission would be looking at and thereby might give additional input. She asked Mr. Tucker is it would pose a problem with the schedule or time table to approach it in this fashion. Mr. Bowerman wondered how a large public work session could be controlled, when all areas of the County had to be covered and people from one particular area might monopolize the time allotted. Mrs. Diehl suggested that a brief statement would be taken from anyone attending the public meeting and these comments would be discussed by the Commission when it convened its work session. /o Mr. Bowerman reiterated his concern that people concerned with one issue would want to spend the entire evening on this one issue. Mr. Tucker responded that he would not anticipate a great deal of response to a public meeting on the Comprehensive Plan, but that if there was a large turnout, time could be limited per individual. Mr. Skove suggested that having a written document, Goals and Objectives, would give the public something to focus on and react to. Mrs. Diehl mentioned that it would be helpful to have local newspaper coverage. Mr. Tucker stated that another work session would be scheduled for the Commission in order for them to work out a text incorporating the existing Goals and Objectives with any other points they wished included. He indicated that Staff would propose something for Commission review. Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Tucker also mentioned encouraging written public input or Was members of the public unable or unwilling to attend a public meeting. determined that such written responses could be solicited in the public notice of such a Goals and Objectives public meeting. Mr. Mabe announced to the Commission that the agencies and departments of the County had been sent their Capital Improvements Program project request forms. He said 5 for urning s and that that they had a sessionadline s nebtheary CIPlwould betscheduledein Marcheforothe Planning two or three workk s Commission. — The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr.• Sekretary R