HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 16 82 PC MinutesMarch 16, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning conrdssion conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
march 16, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Roan #5/6, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen
Kindrick, Mr. Carl Williams, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr.
Richard Cogan. Also present at this meeting was Mrs. Ellen Nash, Ex-officio,
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Keith ,'LlZabe, Principal Planner
and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Director of Planning.
After establishing that a quorum was present Mrs. Diehl called the hearing to
order.
Albemarle County Comprehensive plan 1982-2002 - Review of REVISED GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES. COPY OF PRELIMINARY REPORT ATTACHED.
Mrs. Diehl noted that this is a public hearing on the review of the comprehensive
plan which the Commission is required by law to review every five (5) years. She
noted that the goals and objectives is the first portion of the comprehensive plan
being presented to the public.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commission encourages written cc mients both fran
individuals and organizations which will be included in the review record. She
,%we pointed out that the purpose of this meeting is to gather information which will
be reviewed by the Staff and the Commission at later work sessions.
Mrs. Diehl noted that Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner, has prepared a preliminary
report on the goals and objectives and asked him if he would like to comment.
mr. Mabe noted that although the goals and objectives remain basically the same
as the 1977 comprehensive plan there are some added changes and emphasis which
he will point out. He noted that the Planning Ccevmission has organized the goals
and objectives into three subject matters: natural resources, human resources and
development. He pointed out the changes in each subject matter as follows:
NATURAL RESOURCES: This section contains the same basic goals and objectives
identified in the 1977 (xrehensive plan. He noted the emphasis on identifying
and preserving mineral deposit concc:ntrati n,water supply watersheds and unique
vegetation areas.
HUMAN RESOURCES: Mr. Mabe pointed out that this section includes sane of the
major changes in the goals and objectives which are as follows:
1) The inclusion of adequate housing for all inane groups in Albemarle County.
Also, to rehabilitate thirty percent (300) of the existing substandard housing
stock in the County during the planning periord (1982-2002).
2) To provide social service type needs to residents through a combination of
public and private programs. This objective calls for support of programs
'err which identify the needs of the community, programs which are not a duplication,
and programs which support the active use of volunteers.
DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Mabe noted that this section deals with energy efficiency,
balanced ccnnunity, and to encourage the proposed percent (700) distribution
of new residential development to locate in the urban area and designated
conumitites, which is basically the same as the 1977 ccinprehensive plan.
He outlined the following objectives:
1) Appropriate use of interchanges and industrial uses;
2) Encouragement of a balanced transportation system which is consistant with
the land use plans for the county;
3) Coordinating utilities with the land use plan;
4) Community facilities consistant with the land use plan which considers
the needs of the low income families and transportation disadvantage.
Mr. Mabe stated that this basically covers the changes in goals and objectives
for the ccmprehensive plan and stated that he would respond to any questions or
concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl opened the meeting to the public for zt requesting Uiat each
speaker give their name and the organization they are representing.
Elizabeth Samuels, representing the League of Warren Voters, stated that although
they agree with the goals and objectives as outlined, they would like to make
one recommendation for a change concerning goal #3, (GOAL #3: continue to
review development controls for the possibility of modifying or removing
regulations which unnecessarily increase housing costs without a corresponding
increase in public protection) which causes concern for the following reasons:
1) Great care would need to be taken to ensure that any modifications in
regulations do not lead to even greater costs, such as those that might
be incurred when new, untried or inadequately tested materials or procedures
are used. The problems caused by the use of urea -formaldehyde insulation
are a case in point.
2) If retained the goal should be more balanced, calling as well for review of
regulations to determine if there are any areas in which they are inadequate
to provide protection of the public health and safety.
She noted that it is the belief of the League of Women Voters that there are no
existing regulations which are unnecessary but there may well be inadequacies.
Peggy VanYahrees, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, noted that there
has not been adequate time for their board to meet to review the goals and objectives,
and asked if there was a suggested time frame in which the comments should be
submitted.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff would like to have all written comments within
the next four weeks which will enable them to review and incorporate ideas before
the next work session.
Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, stated that they do not
at this time have any detailed remarks but noted that they do endorse the logo
direction in which this proposal is going. He noted that they would like
/I�
the opportunity to respond at a later date with some specific suggesgions.
Mrs. Diehl reiterated that the record will be kept open and that written
comments are encouraged.
Ray Barry, Real Estate Brooker, stated that he felt the levy in the Scottsville
area should be built as this would make an interesting community development once
the area is protected. He also noted that he felt the satelite communities such
as Crozet and Hollymead should continue to grow as this gives a rural aspect to
the county.
Mr. Davis pointed out for the benefit of the public that the goals and objectives
are listed in order of priority.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was no ccmTent from the public at the present
time concerning social needs and development. She also stated that the public
hearing will remain open until a later date and comments will be received.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mrs. Diehl noted that she felt it is informative to receive copies of the Board
of Supervisors meeting before the meeting. She noted that the agenda is received
by the Planning Department either on Thursday or Friday and asked if the Cm—nissioners
would like these agendas mailed.
Pair. Cogan and Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mrs. Diehl that the agendas are informative
and stated that they would like to have these mailed to them before the meeting.
CONCENSUS: To mail a copy of the Board of Supervisors meeting to each Commissioner
before the meeting.
Firs. Diehl noted that April 1, 1982 at 4:30 p.m. has been suggested for a work
session on the CAT Study.
Mr. Tucker noted that Ken Lantz from the Richmond Department of Highways & Transpor-
tation will attend this meeting to discuss various alternatives which might occur
if for example there is a change in the Western By-pass, impacts on Rt. 250, etc.
CONCENSUS: To hold a work session on the CAT Study, April 1, 1982 from 4:30 - 6:00
p.m..
Mrs. Diehl noted that March 30, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. and April 15, 1982 at 4:30 p.m.
have been suggested for work sessions on the CIP Program.
Mr. Tucker noted that two work sessions are need as the first work session will be
to receive comments from the agencies who are submitting requests for capital
improvements and the second will be to finalize the program and hopefully make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the next work session should be opened for public comment.
Mr. Tucker stated that he prefers ccsrarients to be submitted to the Planning Department,
noting that the public will be given the opportunity to speak at a later date.
CONCENSUS: To hold a work session on the CIP Program on March 30, 1982 at 7:30
p.m. and also on April 15, 1982 at 4:30 p.m..
Mr. Cogan stated his concern with the lack of enforcement of rules for the
parks in the county. He noted the trouble that has occured at -Chris Green
Park and Beaver Dam Lake Park. He stated that he would like to know what
regulations and/or restrictions are imposed to protect the parks.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Board of Supervisors has passed an intent to charge
a fee to anyone using the park.
Mr. Kindrick also stated his concern with the lack of any type of enforcement
in the parks.
Mrs. Diehl asked if a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing concern
on the part of the Commission regarding enforcement of rules and regulations
for parks in the county would be the appropriate action for the Commission to
take at this time.
Mr. Tucker stated that this is one course of action and suggested that the
Commission request Pat Mullaney, from the Parks & Recreation Department,
to explain what they are doing and what alternatives are available.
Mrs. Nasn stateu uiac ule concerns should 'ue L)roaght to t:ie attention of
Pat ilillaney and to the Board of Supervisors.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m..
)at4tj
=rt W. Tucker, Jr. - S cret
��q