Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 29 1996 PC MinutesIm On 10-29-96 OCTOBER 29, 1996 The AlbeMarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 29, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; and Mr. David Tice. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. JuanDiego Wade, Transportation Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Loewenstein, Washington and Finley. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 15, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted. SUB-95-112 Garden Gate Farm Final Plat - Proposal to create a nine -lot rural preservation development of approximately 112 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 66, is located on the east side of Rt. 712 approximately 0.9 miles north of Route 633 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This area is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. [NOTE: Mr. Shepherd added the following condition to the six already listed in the staff report: "Staff approval of road name."] Ms. Huckle asked if the wells shown on the lots have already been drilled. The applicant answered this question and explained that the locations shown for the wells are potential sites which conform to setback requirements for the locations of the drainfields. Drainfield locations have already been approved by the Health Department. Wells have not actually been drilled. Ms. Huckle asked if a vegetative buffer is included in the 100-foot setback from the stream. Mr. Shepherd said an approved Water Quality Impact Assessment has been prepared for this site. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering, addressed this question later in the meeting. He explained that the Water Resources Protection Areas buffer along the stream and the lake includes a natural vegetative buffer. Public comment was invited. The applicant was represented by Mr. Earl Whitley. He offered no additional comment. 93 M 10-29-96 N Mr. Steve Clements, an adjacent property owner expressed opposition to the proposal. He felt approval of this project would invite more development which will lead, ultimately, to the permanent alteration of the agricultural character of the area. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Garden Gate Farm Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Adjust lot lines to better conform to the stream to the extent deemed desirable by the applicant and feasible by Albemarle Department of Engineering. 2. Build or bond the road. 3. Post an erosion control bond. 4. Staff and Recreational Facilities Authority approval of preservation easement. 5. Staff approval of documents that create the Homeowner's Association, Covenants and Restrictions. 6. Revise the plat as follows: a. On sheets 3 of 7 and 7 of 7, delete reference to abandonment of R/W for Green Hill Farm Land Trust. b. On sheet 4 of 7, delete note, "Existing D/W to be maintained by Whitley." c. Regarding development rights, revise note 4 to state, "Lots may not be further divided" and delete note 12. d. Both owners of this property must sign the plat. 7. Staff approval of road name. The motion passed, 3:1, with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. WORK SESSION Six Year Secondary Road Plan Mr. Benish explained the process which is followed in the development of the Six Year Plan priority list, and answered miscellaneous Commission questions about the status of some of the projects and about the funding process. Staff also reviewed potential new projects for the priority list. 1?� 10-29-96 3 Specific Commission questions and requests included the following: --Mr. Tice asked that the possibility of connecting the new Forest Springs Mobile Home Park to Rt. 29 be reconsidered. --Mr. Nitchmann asked why there are no improvements to the Rt. 250 east/Rt. 729 intersection on the list. (Mr. Benish explained that these improvements are in VDOT's PRIMARY Road Plan.) --Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission could be provided with the most recent VDOT County Road Maps. --Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff could obtain copies of Fluvanna's and Louisa's Comp Plans. He was interested in those counties' plans for the Rt. 250 east area. Public comment was invited. The following persons, all residents of neighborhoods in the vicinity of project No. 6 (Road No. 866 - Greenbrier Drive Extended) addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to this project. Their opposition was based on the belief that this project would destroy Whitewood Park, which is an important amenity to their neighborhoods. Their comments are made a part of this record as indicated below: Eric Strucco (Garden Court) - Attachment A Ron Chondross (Oak Forest) - Attachment B Robert McAdams (Townwood) - Attachment C Hilary Vickerman " Carol Chondross (Oak Forest) - Attachment D June Foster (Minor Hill) - Attachment E Ronna Buchard (Oak Forest) - Attachment F Mary Bryant (Minor Hill) - Attachment G Several of those who spoke recommended that the Board of Supervisors take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the Whitewood Park for a period of no less than 20 years, and preferably for longer. Another speaker (David ), who uses the park for jogging, expressed opposition to the project. (His name was unclear.) He said the park provides a recreational balance for the neighborhoods and the proposed road extension would irreparably change the region. Commission comments about the Greenbrier extension project (No. 6), included the following: --Mr. Dotson asked if staff could prepare drawings showing the plans for project no. 6 (Greenbrier Extended), showing not only the anticipated alignment, but also the location of the planned regional detention basin for that area. --Mr. Tice expressed the hope that staff will look very closely at this project and whether or not the need for the road is such that it outweighs the concerns of the residents of that area about the impact to the Park. He questioned the need for the 9b 10-29-96 4 road, given the improvements that are currently taking place on Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. He cautioned: "We keep inching away at our park land.... With the infill policy we are developing, we are trying to get more and more development in the urban area (and) these remaining areas of woods are going to become more and more important to preserve. I hope we will take a really hard look at this." --Noting that the proposed road will only save about .4 of a mile, Ms. Huckle questioned whether it is financially wise, particularly when taking into consideration how it will impact the "livability" of these neighborhoods. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there is no intent to remove the park. He said staff will look both at the question of need for the road as well as that of design. He said it may be that a 4-lane road is not needed. It was decided the Commission would hold a second work session on the Six Year Plan before passing it on to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. (It was the consensus of the Commission that a public hearing not be held on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan at the Commission level. It was noted, however, that public comment will be allowed, as always, at the Commission's work sessions. ) Staff asked that the Commission be prepared to comment on the revenue sharing program. Staffs next report will be a recommendation for how projects should be prioritized and which projects should possibly be modified of deleted. ----------------------------------------- WORK SESSION Development Area Initiatives Mr. Benish presented the staff report which explained staffs proposed planning process for the study of the development area initiatives. Staff was recommending the formation of a Steering Committee, the purpose of which will be "to provide assistance and guidance in the development of the public input and education process to define the general vision for and character of the built environment of the development areas, consistent with the Land Use Plan." The following members of the public commented briefly: --Tom Loach (Crozet) - He expressed support for the initiatives. He hoped staff would use the zoning tools, which this study will develop, at the community level to "complete the vision" which individual communities may have. "The tools should be made available to, but not thrust upon, communities." --Bob Watson (Blue Ridge Homebuilders) - He offered to share his organization's data in any way that might be helpful. He expressed the feeling that the development area initiatives study should be conducted simultaneously with the rural areas study. us 10-29-96 5 --Karen Dane (Citizens for Albemarle) - She questioned whether the community has given its agreement for increased density in the urban area. MOTION: Upon motion by Ms. Huckle, seconded by Mr. Tice, the Commission unanimously endorsed (by voice vote) the Development Area Initiatives as presented in the staff report and moved that they be passed on to the Board of Supervisors. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Tice asked about the status of a possible meeting with the City Planning Commission about the amphitheater issue. Mr Cilimberg said staff is waiting for a response from the City. It was decided Mr. Finley would be asked to serve on a committee which will be studying the issue of cellular towers. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. M: M ?7