HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 21 87 PC MinutesM
April 21, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 21, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner;
Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney
(entered the meeting late).
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 7, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
SP-87-15 Camp Holiday Trails - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a
special use permit in accordance with Section 30.3.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow fill activity to occur within the floodway fringe of Moore's
Creek. The property is located at the end of state maintenance on Rte.
702 near the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Tax Map 75, Parcels 47C and 47C1.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion
is that the review of this proposal is primarily technical since Moore's
Creek is not c anoeable (in this location) or otherwise of general public
interest. Staff recommends approval of SP-87-15" subject to conditions.
Mr. Cogan asked if activity was to take place only in the floodplain, or
if there would also be work done on the creekbed or banks. Mr. Benish
responded that the creek would "essentially be piped." He explained
that "in this area, because it's right below the lake, there's going
to be holding capacity in the lake, so the flooding area in here is
not that extensive."
It was determined Virginia Power was responsible for maintenance.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Keller, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He offered no significant additional comment. He stated Dr. Paulsen,
Director of the camA was present to answer questions concerning the
operation of the camp.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the camp would continue to pasture horses. Dr.
Paulsen responded that horses would not be pastured at this field, but
at other adjacent fields.
147
April 21, 1987
Page 2
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Keller explained that the
only reason a portion of the stream is being piped is to provide a
"semi -adequate softball diamond."
It was determined the length of pipe would be 255 feet (two 42" pipes).
Mr. Benish confirmed that staff would review issues such as enrosion
control and drainage calculations at the time of the site plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-87-15 Camp Holiday Trails be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. County Engineer approval of construction activity in the floodplain
of Moore's Creek in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Administrative approval of site plan. Bleachers and backstop for
softball field shall be located away from power lines, if possible.
Location to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
3. Height of the backstop not to exceed 12 feet unless located outside
of utility easement.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on May 13, 1987.
Historic Districts Preservation - Presentation by University of Virginia
students.
Students commented on the following topics:
1. Role of Local Government: Regulatory;
2. Role of Local Government: Non -Regulatory;
3. Citizen Participation;
4. Conclusions and Recommendations.
Brief comments and suggestions were made by the Commission. A copy of this
report was distributed to each Commissioner for his/her review.
Six -Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan - Mr. Horne presented the staff
report, the purpose of which was to update the Commission on the current
status of implementation of the Six Year Plan (adopted May 21, 1986).
The report explained: "The priority list and six year plan will be adopted
for a two year period. Interim years will be used to review the plan,
make minor adjustments within the plan, and provide direction to the staff.
Only major changes in circumstances will cause the actual addition of projects
or readjustment of priorities in the interim year."
April 21, 1987
Page 3
M
The report focused on the following four items:
(1) Funding: Increased from $6,055,726 to $22,371,535 as a result
of recent General Assembly actions. Now anticipated that all 31 projects
will be funded within the six year period.
(2) Major Construction Projects: Non -bridge major road construction
projects--Meadowcreek Parkway (project 22); 5th Street Extended relocation
(project 24); and Rio Road widening from Route 29 to Route 650. Because
of continued delays to the Meadowcreek Parkway project, 5th Street and Rio
projects could quite possibly be constructed prior to Meadowcreek. It
is not necessary to amend priority list at this time to reflect this.
Virginia Department of Transportation intends to proceed with plans on
5th Street and Rio, with possible amendments to the priority list being
addressed next year.
(3) Gravel Road Projects: Funding increased dramatically. By 1989-90
the County will need additional projects in this category. Planning staff
has not evaluated the three projects for which right-of-way is now
available. Plan does not need to be amended at this time; however,
more emphasis will need to be placed on identification of projects in this
category during next year's full review of the plan.
(4) County -Wide Plant Mix Projects: Funding available for this use has
also increased. As a result, Board endorsed two projects for funding this year:
Route 810 from Route 789 to Route 614 and Route 635 from Route 250 to Route
637 (improvement will be the overlaying of existing paved surfaces with
bituminous concrete which falls under a general category for minor improvements --
Project 20). Certain improvements (i.e. new plant mix and shoulder
improvements) will be necessary with the opening of the new Southern Regional
Park. This type of project is also needed on Sunset Avenue south of the
City. Action on this list not requested at this time.
Staff requested that the Commission endorse the 2-year planning process
described in the report.
Mr. Blake Hurt, a local developer, addressed the Commission. He addressed
the following two questions to Mr. Roosevelt (representative of the Virginia
Department of Transportation): (1) Will improvements to Old Brook Road
be done to State standard "as was required of us?" He questioned whether
this was the case and asked that improvements include not just pavement
but also curb and gutter. He objected to improvements to
"that end" of Old Brook Road since it will increase traffic and he
also objected, as a developer, to being required to meet State standards
if the State itself is not going to construct to those same standards.
(2) He inquired as to the status of the Parkway from Rio Road to Hollymead.
He asked: "Is it, or is it not, going to be done and if not, will the
ultimate standards still apply.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that the section of Rt. 652 referred to by Mr. Hurt
would meet the same requirements as the developer and would have curb and
gutter. He added that since Mr. Hurt has indicated he will not get to
the "last section that is his responsibility for five years", the Highway
�� 9
April 21, 1987
Page 4
Department has included 22 feet of pavement on the 450-foot section
that is Mr. Hurt's responsibility under the PUD. He stated that
that particular section would not be built to the full curb and gutter ,�
section because the "County has made that section and curb and gutter `�� �`�
Mr. Hurt's responsibility." (Mr. Horne added that this was under specific
direction of the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Horne responded to Mr. Hurt's second question about Meadowcreek
Parkway north of Rio Road. He stated: "It is not currently in the
Six -Year Plan to build that section of the road. It is in the
Comprehensive Plan ...that we would all like to see that road built."
He stated he was uncertain as to whether there has ever been a determination
that the section north of Rio to Hollymead is eligible for Six -Year
Plan funding. Mr. Roosevelt stated that a determination has been made
and, "as the policy now stands, it is not eligible."
Mr. Hurt indicated there was some disagreement about the Old Brook
Road issue. It was determined this issue would be addressed at the
time Mr. Hurt submits his next phase of development.
Mr. Michel moved that the Commission endorse the two-year planning process
outlined in the second paragraph of the staff report dated April 21, 1987,
titled Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Horne confirmed he would pass this endorsement on to the Board of
Supervisors.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Recorded by Jannice Wills
Transcribed by Deloris Sessoms
S/
hn Horne, Sec etary
91
/50