Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 19 86 PC MinutesAugust 19, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 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; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Stark. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the August 5, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. SP-86-54 Robert Wilson - Request for a special use permit to allow for the installation of a temporary classroom trailer. Property, described as Tax Map 80, parcel 110 is located on the south side of Rt. 731 just south of intersection with Rt. 22. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Wilson addressed the Commission. In response to Ms. Diehl's question he explained that three students live in the "yellow house" on the opposite side of the road and therefore must cross the highway. However, he stated he did not feel a school crossing sign was necessary. He stated that neither the number of staff nor the number of students was being increased, but rather the quality of education is being upgraded. He explained the school had received a gift of computers and the trailer being requested will house the computers. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Wilson stated the trailer would be leased. In response to Mr. Mark Wilson's question as to what would be required when a permanent structure is built, Mr. Bowerman stated, "I believe that staff has said that any time there is any additional expansion which requires a special permit, they would like to have the entire school brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. One of the requirements would be a commercial entrance which would be required by the Highway Department. They are suggesting that could be a problem, but it could be resolved by access through the volunteer fire company." Mr. Wilson asked, "So the site which we have prepared now, which is already blocked and been approved would not require a special use permit, as I understand it, to finish the construction that was started. Is that correct?" Mr. Horne responded, "No, that is not correct. The Zoning Administrator 1613 August 19, 1986 Page 2 has stated that it would require a special use permit before he would issue a structural building permit." Mr. Bowerman added, "This is a permit for a temporary use." The elder Mr. Wilson called the Commission's attention to the fact that a commercial entrance would funnel into a one -lane bridge. Mr. Michel moved that SP-86-54 for Robert Wilson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire on May 1, 1988; 2. The mobile classroom shall be removed from the site within fourteen (14) days of expiration of this special use permit; 3. Building official approval including installation of restroom facilities if required by the Building Officials Codes Administrators Uniform Statewide Building Code. 4. Fire Official approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 20, 1986. Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District - The Planning Commission is considering a request for the establishment of the Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District, pursuant to Section 15.1-1511 B.5 of the Code of Virginia. The proposed district consists of 4,622.68 acres located on the east and west sides of Rt. 22 near Keswick, and is further described as Tax Map 63, parcels 24, 39, 43; Tax Map 64, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 13, 13A; Tax Map 79, parcels 46, 46A; Tax Map 80, parcels 1, 2A, 3A1, 3A2, 3G, 31, 4, 5, 61D, 88, 164, 169, 169A, 174, 176, 182, 182A, 183, 193A, 190, 192, 194; Tax Map 81, parcel 1. Rivanna Magisterial District. The establishment of such district has been unanimously recommended by the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee. and Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District: The Planning Commission is considering a request for the establishment of the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, pursuant to Section 15.1-1511 B.5 of the Code of Virginia. The proposed district consists of 1,586,62 acres, ocated on the east and west sides of Rt. 231 between Cismont and Cash Corner. Part of the district extends east to Cobham on Rt. 22. The district is further described as Tax Map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93, 94, 100, 121, 121A; Tax Map 66, Parcels 2, 3C, 32, 32D. Rivanna Magisterial District. The establishment of such district has been unanimously recommended by the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She stated that one property owner had withdrawn, thus Tax Map 80, parcels 5 and 3A2 were removed. 1400 1%'Al August 19, 1986 Page 3 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that the Keswick and Kinloch Agricultural Forestal Districts be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with parcels 3A2 and 5, Tax Map 80, having been deleted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Note: The meeting was running ahead of agenda time at this point. Ms. Ellen Craddock, who had come to comment on the Comprehensive Plan, asked if she could be heard at this time. Mr. Bowerman invited Ms. Craddock to address the Commission. Ms. Craddock's comments included the following: --Reference to page 15 of staff's report: State scenic stream designation is currently being sought for the Moorman and Mechum rivers. Also, scenic road designation is being sought for Rt. 20 north. --Reference to page 17 of staff's report: Ms. Craddock stated she hoped the Commission and staff would use the report developed by the Piedmont Environmental Council and the University of Virginia (1978) in their study of historic resources. She stated also that the Piedmont Environmental Council has applied for a grant from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission to undertake a preservation plan for the northeast quadrant of Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg took this opportunity to pass to the Commission copies of a study done by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. There was a brief discussion about sidewalk policy., Mr. Horne stated that basically the Board feels the County should be rather conservative in regards to sidewalk requirements and will not require them where it will clearly be very difficult for a homeowners association to maintain them. Mr. Payne pointed out that with sidewalks being built to Highway Department standards, they would require very little maintenance. The meeting recessed from 8:00 to 8:20. City/County Urban Park - The Commission has been requested to provide input on park development plans by the consultant, Will Riley. Mr. Horne asked that the Commission help identify public concerns which the consultant should address, e.g. access to the site, impact of the site, internal development of the site. He stated staff has already identified some issues, such as: the way the site could be developed; Elk Drive, at its intersection with Rt. 250, is inadequate to handle any increased traffic flow; the possibility of locating the entrance farther up Elk Drive; the possibility of closing off a portion of Elk Drive. /%6- August 19, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Riley addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --Though it was originally hoped that the power line could be moved, the cost of such a move was found to be prohibitive ($200,000). --Two important components of this proposal are: (1) The importance of the river system as it moves through the area; and (2) The location of the softball fields and the mix of the activities. --The preliminary plan shows multi -purpose fields are around the outside of the park, on high ground; passive recreation with river -oriented activities are along the river; heaviest use is toward the middle of the site. Mr. Bowerman stated the obvious way to access the site is via Rt. 20 (other than Elk Drive). He asked if it might be possible to use the right-of-way for the power lines. He stated that any access at the Free Bridge area would create a very serious traffic problem. Mr.Michel also expressed concern about the impact on Free Bridge. Mr. Riley confirmed that the presence of the power lines would change the plan considerably. He also stated that a previously -proposed bridge connecting the new park with Pen Park had been deleted because of cost considerations. It was determined no federal funds would be available from the Highway Department for the road if it encroached on park land. Mr. Horne pointed out that it would be impossible to build the road in such a way as to keep it entirely out of park land, because of the terrain. Mr. Horne stated there was no good solution to the alignment of the road. It was the consensus of the Commission that there should be no access to Rt. 250. Regarding the alignment of the proposed connector road, the Commission had no recommendations. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan - Staff presented statistics and background information on issues under review for the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Cilimberg introduced the topic. Ms. Scala and Ms. Davenport assisted with the staff presentation. Significant concerns and comments were as follows: Bowerman: Regarding groundwater, Mr. Bowerman felt that a compilation of well locations and water quality which could be kept up to date would be a tremendous resource for planning purposes. He suggested the use of an intern for compiling this information to be followed up by some sort of County policy which would require well drillers to report this information. Regarding population, Mr. Bowerman asked staff to analyze the population increase over the last ten years, along with the increases in commercial zoning and single and multi- family housing units to see if there is a relationship between these three items (i.e. the ratio of commercially -zoned acreage to population). August 19, 1986, Page 5 Diehl: Ms. Diehl asked staff in the rural area that ordinance. o provide information on the number of lots were previously subdivided before the new Scala: When presenting the information on historic resources, Ms. Scala stated she felt historic resources should be more thoroughly discussed in the plan and the possibility of establishing a historic district should be studied. Comments made by members of the public included the following: Mr. Blake Hurt: Mr. Hurt suggested that local statistics may not be useful in compiling data because of the swing in interest rates. He suggested looking at some national studies. Ms. Trexa Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission and read the following statement: STATEMENT BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1986 AT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. The League of Women Voters compliments the Planning Commission and Staff for the Comprehensive Plan Overview -- Background Information. Although we have not had time to review it as thoroughly as we Intend to do, we do have some first impressions and questions. The overview contains a wealth of useful information: excellent descriptive material and all kinds of charts, maps, and lists. Our question is, what does all this information and data tell us about the character of different sections of the County? What do they really mean? All RA areas are not alike, as we well know. How can the material in this overview be used to describe the nature of a specific area? We believe that the use of overlays -- for soils, slopes, watersheds, poor ground water, mineral resources, flood plains, etc. -- would be of invaluable help for the Staff and Commission as well as for the public in their decision — making processes. The kinds of information provided in this overview are what is needed in order to understand the character of our rural areas, but we believe it must be presented in a more meaningful form. We recomoiend overlays. Thank you. Lois Rochester dent 111,17 August 19, 1986 Page 6 Ms. Babs Huckle expressed interest in whether or not Mr. Elrod (former County Engineer) had completed a map of the flood plain areas in the urban area. It was believed this map had not been completed. Mr. Blake Hurt also indicated he would be interested in knowing the average parcel size of non-residential land and how many builders own that property. He felt this could have significant impact on development. It was determined staff would complete their presentation of background information at a second work session to be held following the regular meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1986. No formal actions were taken at this work session. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. i Vlohn Horne, Secretary DS