HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 29 86 PC MinutesJuly 29, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 29, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms.Norma Diehl;
Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala,
Senior Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the July 15, 1986 meeting
were approved as submitted.
Rio Woods Site Plan Extension Request - Proposal to locate 72 rental units at
a density of 11 dwellings per acre. Tax Map 61, parcels 124B and 124C;
located off the north side of Rt. 631 about 0.5 mile southeast of the
intersection with Rt. 29, and adjacent to the Putt -Putt Golf property.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
It was determined the applicant was requesting deferral until August 5.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Rio Woods Site Plan Extension
request be deferred until August 5. The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
rehensive Plan - Discussion of Priorities for Review by Subcommittees -
Mr. Cilimberg introduced the topic and explained that some of the issues
proposed for review by the Transportation and Public Services Committee
(Area -wide Roadway System; Utilities; Public/Private Community Facilities
and Services; Mass Transit/Air/Rail; Pedestrians/Bike Circulation; and
Other Facilities and Services) would depend on the policy decisions of the
Land Use Committee. Therefore, the Land Use Committee would need to
address the Growth Areas and Rural Areas issues before the Transportation
and Public Services Committee could effectively address these topics.
Ms. Scala presented the following proposed list of issues for review by the
Land Use Committee, including a series of questions appropriate to each
issue:
1. Growth Areas: Concept
Ia. Rural Residential Policy: Concept
2. Growth Areas: Implementation
3. Agricultural/Forestal Industries
4. Environmental Resources: Surface Drinking Water
5. Environmental Resources: Natural Scenic Resources
6. Environmental Resources: Groundwater
7. Environmental Resources: Soil Erosion/Critical Slopes
8. Historic Resources
9. Environmental Resources: Forested Areas
July 22, 1986
Page 2
10. Growth Areas:
11. Growth Areas:
12. Environmental
13. Energy
14. Environmental
Boundaries
Objectives
Resources: Other Surface Water
Resources: Mineral Resources
Ms. Scala stressed that the first three issues (Growth Areas -Concept;
Rural Residential Policy -Concept; and Growth Areas -Implementation) were
the most critical because all other issues to be discussed by both
Subcommittees are dependent on the decisions made on these three issues.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following proposed list of issues for review
by the Transportation and Public Services Committee, including a series
of questions appropriate to each issue:
1. Area -wide Roadway System
2. Utilities
3. Public/Private Community Facilities and Services
4. Low/moderate Income and Disadvantaged Housing
5. Social Service Programs
6. Employment/Economic Base
7. Mass Transit/Air/Rail
8. Pedestrians/Bike Circulation
9. Fiscal Resources of the County
10. Other Facilities and Services
11. Economic Development Policy
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out two primary themes which occur throughout all these
items: (1) What will be necessary to support the land use policies; and
(2) What will the cost and funding alternatives of these various infrastructure
items be?
Significant decisions and comments made included the following:
--After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that
full Commission work sessions would be held on the major land
use issues before subcommittee work begins. It was decided
that these work sessions could begin in September with no
limit as to how many such sessions might be required. Public
comment will be allowed at the end of these sessions (limited
to a total of 15 minutes).
--Commission asked staff to develop a brief list of strengths and
weaknesses of the existing Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if
the new information resulting from this review would be
incorporable into the present plan, or is a totally new document
envisioned. Mr. Horne felt there should be more specificity in
the plan and a more detailed discussion of neighborhoods and growth
areas. He also stated that the Plan and Area B studies (involving
the City and University) should complement each other.
--Mr. Cogan felt that after this revision the Plan will be "more than
a guide" and this will result in a number of alterations to the
various ordinances. He also felt that the issue of Fiscal Resources was
very important since this is a common denominator for all other
items on the list. He felt it would be desirable to keep track,
as the review proceeds, of how proposed changes will effect the
County's fiscal resources (i.e. will they cost the County more money,
will they enable the County to save money, will they be self-supporting, etc.).
AP
July 22, 1986
Page 3
Options for Public Participation in Comprehensive Plan Review - Mr.
Cilimberg presented a list of options, including the advantages and
disadvantages of each option. These options were as follows:
1. One or more citizen member(s) on each working Planning Commission
committee.
2. Build in scheduled written comment periods and public forums which
are formally advertised.
3. Each Committee solicits specific input from pertinent interest
groups/community organizations using questionnaires or surveys.
4. Survey of general population.
5. Series of public meetings at several sites in the County.
6. Utilize press coverage to initiate citizen input.
7. One or more formally advertised public hearings by Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors. (This is required by State Code.)
Ms. Davenport then presented a history of citizen participation in past
Comprehensive Plan processes.
Mr. Cilimberg then presented staff's recommendations for public participation
as follows:
1. Committees request written input from organizations, agencies and
individuals through targeted questionnaires covering specific
committee subjects. (A master list would need to be developed.)
2. Advertised public forum at which public input on Plan material is
sought.
3. Local public meetings at various sites in County for the purpose
of receiving input on Land Use, Transportation and Public Facility
recommendations from committees.
4. Committee documents would be made available for public review,
following the completion of committee work.
5. Following completion of the draft Comprehensive Plan, the Commission
will evaluate the need for additional advertised public forums to
review the Plan. In lieu of such forums, the Commission could
hold the public hearing required by State Code at that time.
6. Should the Commission see the need for input from the general
population, a random survey would be most appropriate, either
by telephone sample or personal interview taken at voting
precincts in the November election.
7. Use of media coverage to build citizen interest.
Significant decisions and comments made included the following:
--There was concern (particularly by Commissioners Diehl and Wilkerson)
about the suggestion of targeting specific individuals or groups,
other than government agencies.
--There was concern as to how "labor-intensive" for staff this
process was going to be.
--It was decided a questionnaire would be developed by staff and would
be made available to any citizen or group which requested it.
--The Commission stressed that public participation would be welcome
at all Commission work sessions.
1/z
July 22, 1986
Page 4
--Mr. Bowerman felt many people would prefer to make their comments
in public before the Commission so that they can be sure they are
heard and their concerns will not get lost in the shuffle.
--Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission represents all elements
of the County.
--Mr. Blake Hurt, a citizen present at the meeting, expressed his
support for the questionnaire. He also suggested that public comment
be invited at the beginning of work sessions, rather than at the end.
However, it was determined all the other citizens present were in
favor of public comment taking place at the end of the sessions.
Mr. Hurt also suggested that an agenda be published and made available
to the public prior to each work session.
--Technical information and reports to be used by the Commission in this
review will be made available to public by some means. Staff is to
develop mechanism for handling this.
Mr. Bowerman summarized the schedule for the review process as follows:
1. Full Commission work sessions to decide land use issues with
public input invited at end of each session,
2. A draft of major land use issues will be developed as a result of
those work sessions and will be presented at an advertised public forum.
3. Subcommittee work will then begin, with same Commission policy to
be followed at these meetings. Each committee will develop a
draft of its issues which will first be presented to the full
Commission and then scheduled for public forum.
4. Final work sessions with the full Commission will then be held
to draft the entire plan. These will be open to the public.
5. After final draft is completed, a public forum will be held.
6. Final work will then be completed on the Plan and a Public Hearing
will be held.
It was determined the need for the "circuit ride" (public meetings held in
various locations) will be determined at a later time.
No formal motions were made, nor formal actions taken, at this work session.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
DS
";!4� , , R/4
J n Horne, Secretary
At -7