Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 07 1995a PC MinutesV9 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 WORK SESSION November 7, 1995 - 515 Present: Commissioners - Blue, Imhoff, Nitchmann, Dotson, Huckle, Vaughan and Jenkins Staff - Lilley, Cilimberg, White, Higgins Topic: Capital Improvements Program/1996 - 2001 Ms. Roxanne White explained the process which had been followed by the Technical Review Committee in its review and prioritization of the CIP projects. She explained the format used in the presentation of the requests. She said all projects requested were funded. Commission questions and concerns on individual projects were as follows: Hydraulic Road Sidewalks - Ms. Vaughan asked about the $25,000 figure. Ms. White explained the project cost has been reduced. County Technology Upgrade - Ms. Imhoff asked if there was any possibility there will be "more and better funding" for GIS included in this project. She said the description on page 24 did not seem to mention the GIS system nor any plans to assist the Planning and Community Development Department in analyzing information. Ms. White said that need is recognized and "hopefully, that is a planned project." Ms. Imhoff said she would attend the Board meeting to stress the importance of the GIS system being available to the Planning Department. Ivy Road/Bypass Streetlights and the Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Streetlights - Ms. Imhoff recalled Commission discussions about the importance of having streetlights which are shielded and are respectful of the Observatory. She wanted it to be a part of the record that the County is asking the development community to used shielded streetlights. She thought it was important for this to be mentioned now because shielded lights may be more expensive. Fire and Rescue Projects - Ms. Huckle called attention to the statement which said "if the stations are not funded, response times will rise and the number of no -response calls will continue to increase." She asked for an explanation of what is meant by "no- response calls." Ms. White did not know the number of no -response calls. Ms. Huckle / VF- M 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 suggested if the Fire Department did not respond to every fender -bender, they might be able to respond to all other calls. North Rt. 29 Landscaping (pg. 40) - Ms. Huckle said"this appears to be much more expensive than she had understood it would be. She recalled a figure of $10,000 to $15,000 vs. $101,000 which is shown here: She pointed out that the 250 Bypass through the City was landscaped by private funds. Mr. Cilimberg said there has been a commitment from the business community for half the amount t$50,000), making the County cost $51,000. Ms. Imhoff suggested the County consider contracting with the City for landscaping projects. (Ms. Higgins said this has been discussed with the City and they are not interested.) Ms. Imhoff pointed out that there have been staff changes in the City and she suggested the idea could be brought up again. Swimming Beach Playground Equipment (page 51) - Ms. Huckle thought this project was "amazing," i.e. "a sandbox that is going to cost $30,000." Ms. White explained that the amount will cover sandboxes and other play structures within the sandbox area at three different locations. Ms. Huckle thought tax dollars could be better spent. Mr. Blue agreed the explanation could be clearer. Keene Landfill (page 70) - Ms. Huckle thought this had been planned for a couple of years ago and now it is moved to fiscal year'98. Ms. Higgins said money had been pulled from this project for other projects in the past but data is being gathered. She said the money shown is for "corrective action." The magnitude of corrective action is not known at this time. Ms. Huckle thought this project, which is to protect groundwater, was more urgent than the '98 schedule indicates. Ms. Higgins described the work that has been on'this project to date. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that even when the current set of DEQ regulations have been met, new ones are being developed which will have to be met. County Land Athletic Field Study (pg. 66) - Ms. Imhoff asked why this was not an "in- house" assessment. She thought a study to determine recreational needs, by an outside consultant, was hard to justify given the fact that the County has Planning and Recreation staff. Mr. Dotson thought it was very surprising that all the projects submitted were able to be funded. He thought departments might not be looking far enough in the future and might only be requesting projects they feel have a good chance of being funded. Therefore, he did not think the fact that all the projects can be funded means that all capital needs are being met. He suggested that the next CIP process might include a "front piece" which says "what we think we are going to be doing in terms of growth and revenues and costs in the future years and (says) we'll have these kinds of demands and this is what we think we can afford." In terms of trying to direct growth, he recalled some of Mr. Nitchmann's suggestions that "we should at least be thinking about WA 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 3 whether there is some way we should be providing some of the public facilities to draw growth to certain areas." Mr. Dotson also thought it would be helpful to have a "consolidated summary," which incorporates all the projects. He suggested a map showing the location of projects would be helpful in the -future, including a five-year map showing what has been done in the last five years. Ms. Imhoff said James City County is being very aggressive in using their CIP and funding it heavily for road improvements in order to direct growth in areas they want it to go, including building collector roads and making road connections long before these projects would show up on VDOT's list. In response to Ms. Imhoff's comments, Mr. Cilimberg said: "We've taken some shots at that in the past and it's been Deep-Sixed. I guess some of the agencies that might be proposing to do that five years out and beyond have just gotten to the point that they focus on what they think absolute needs are going to be and I think there needs to be a message that's sent to broaden what you're thinking, to meet the County's ability to accommodate and make growth areas attractive. There are a lot of projects we could have put in_ here that we may have put here in the past, if that was politically feasible, but we seem to be, from a political standpoint, focusing on a particular level of per $100 real estate tax rate and revenues for the future that just aren't going to pay for those sort of things. ... If that's something this Planning Commission feels strongly about, having looked at the Comp Plan and knowing what your focus is for the next five years to try to do, the in -fill ideas, etc., that message needs to be sent on to the Board and it needs to be tied to Capital Improvements planning for the future." Mr. Nitchmann explained how the current process had evolved over the past few years, it being the result of a desire "to be more focused and to make sure that the requests made by the departments are not wish lists." He did not think these wish lists should be included as part of the CIP program, but perhaps they could be included as an addendum with the statement that "we, as a Planning Commission or Staff, feel, if we are going to accomplish the visions of the County, this is what it is really going to cost." If there is extra money, the Board could then look at that list and decide if other projects could be funded. He did not want to see the process "take a step backwards" by asking departments to submit all the requests they were submitting at one time. Mr. Dotson approved of the more streamlined CIP document, but he thought an introductory section would be helpful which says: "This is where we're going, how we're doing, what the need is, what our ability is --now do these projects in that context." Long Term Debt (pg. 78) - Ms. Huckle asked why the debt rises 83% when the population is projected to rise only 10%. Ms. White explained the debt is going up, over the next five years, because of the new high school (a $25,000,000 project). 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 4 149✓ Ms. Higgins brought the Commission up-to-date on the work on a Consolidated Stormwater Ordinance. Mr. Nitchmann asked why the Community Recreation Facilities, which he assumed were in the new high school, were separate from the new high school funding. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We have, for the last several years, separated recreational facilities that are to serve the community and district park purposes, from those facilities that are absolutely required as part of the high school itself." Also referring to the new high school, Mr. Nitchmann asked who will determine what the road will ultimately be. Ms. Higgins said the road was originally planned to be "an urban collector road --a four -lane divided road." That description has been used in the CIP for the last five years. Ms. Higgins said new studies have been done and she intends to present a proposal to downgrade the road to a three -lane cross section. She compared it to "something like a Berkmar Drive but a rural section." She said this change could potentially cut one-half million from the cost of the road. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was any chance of working with VDOT to have Rt. 20 widened to a four - lane highway up to the school. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the proposed Land Use Plan calls for some urban density development and floating commercial areas in this area. She cautioned: "Be careful when you are downgrading these roads that you don't find yourself not following the Comprehensive Plan. I don't think we are talking about a rural section any longer. We are, hopefully, creating a community which is part of the urban area down there. She envisioned a roadway with "curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides." She hoped the Comprehensive Plan would be more detailed about how we want things to look and function. The was a discussion as to whether or not the Commission would hold a public hearing on the CIP. Ms. White said the Board will likely hold its own public hearing. It was decided the Commission would schedule a public hearing on the CIP on November 28th, with the meeting to begin at 6:00 p.m. The work session ended at 6:45 p.m. on 11-14-95 ,%W NOVEMBER 14, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 14, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and Jenkins. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of the October 31, 1995 Work Session were unanimously approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA SDP-95-082 Barclay Place Expansion Site Plan - Request for Modification of Section 4.12.3.3 to allow for off -site parking. `AW MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. M SP-95-31 Wendell Wood - Petition to establish outdoor storage and display of autos on 11.3 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. [30.6.3.2b] Property, described as Tax Map 32, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is the location of the Maupin Store. This is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. This item was referred back to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors for Commission Action. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Based on the fact that the ARB has approved this proposal, the feeling that the use is appropriate for the site, and with the conditions proposed by staff, Mr. Nitchmann said he could recommend approval of the request. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-31 for Wendell Wood be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove existing signage from the site. / -'!Z7/ 11-14-95 2 1�ftw 2. Construct a berm topped with screening trees between the entrance corridor on the southern most part of the parking area. The parking in this area shall be screened from the entrance corridor. M cm 3. ARB approval of landscape location, sizes and species type. Trees are to be large street trees (3 1 /2" caliper). 4. No elevated vehicle display. 5. The lighting shall be directed down onto the site with the source of the light shielded from view from the entrance corridor. 6. No attention getting devices shall be attached to any vehicle or structure on the site. This shall prohibit the use of balloons, spinners, streamers and the like. 7. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required prior to approval of the site plan. 8. Lighting of the site shall be limited to between the hours of 10 am and 9 pm. 9. Remove the gas pumps from the current location. Reestablishment of the gas pumps shall be permitted subject to site plan approval and approval by the ARB. 10. Vehicle sales and display shall be limited to the parking area shown on Attachment D. Discussion: Ms. Huckle thought this action "did not make sense" since the Commission had recommended denial of the ZMA previously. She concluded: "So I couldn't support this. If the Board wants to approve the whole thing I am sure they will do so." Mr. Dotson commented: "I would just explain the spirit of my second (to the motion). If the Board decides to approve the Zoning Map Amendment, then I think these are appropriate conditions for the special permit. Mr. Nitchmann agreed, saying it was in that same spirit that he had offered the motion for approval. Mr. Blue agreed. The motion for approval passed (4:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. / S-,2-.,, 05 11-14-95 3 ZMA-95-04 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone approximately 525 acres from RA, Rural Areas, PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park, and LI, Light Industrial to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park. Staff was requesting a deferral due to an error in the public notice. The Chairman invited public comment. None was offered. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that ZMA-95-04 for the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, be deferred to November 28, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-95-07 Rio Associates - Petition to amend ZMA-88-06 in order to modify proffers limiting vehicle trip generation. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 109 is located on the west side of Rt. 29 between Rt. 29 and Berkmar Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that due to changes in circumstance since the original rezoning, the use of total trip limits is inappropriate. The use of a level of service to determine permitted development is superior to total trip limits as it allows for a detailed analysis of the impact of a development on the transportation network. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the intent of the original proffer which was designed to limit impacts. In addition, this rezoning, with the proffers of the applicant, is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to minimize congestion in the public streets, provide for a convenient community and provide for adequate transportation. Based on the above, staff recommends approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers." Mr. Fritz explained further: "Development from this property will not result in an impact below a level of service C on any of the adjacent roadways. This is a technique we are going to be investigating, not only for this application but for future applications up and down Rt. 29. We are recommending approval of that as the most appropriate approach for dealing with traffic from this site." In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz listed the following methods which can be used to improve the level of service of a road: --The addition of a traffic signal. --The addition of traffic lanes. --The addition of turn lanes. --The use of 'double -lefts.' � �3 11-14-95 4 V%r Ms. Huckle asked when a traffic signal might be added. Mr. Fritz responded: "Under this proffer and with this site plan, at the time the final site plan is approved there would be a bond posted for the location of the traffic signal and then the bond would be called by VDOT or the County, or the traffic signal would be put in at the request of VDOT and the County." He said this is a common technique. He stressed that the traffic signal cannot be located on public roads until such time as VDOT allows it to be located. Ms. Huckle said she is very familiar with the area and she feels a traffic signal is very much needed, at the present time, at the entrance to Kroger. Mr. Fritz confirmed there would be an entrance to Lowe's opposite the entrance to Kroger's. Mr. Fritz pointed out that in the application which follows on the agenda, the applicant--Lowe's--has agreed to locate a traffic signal at that intersection if requested by VDOT. That would be consistent with the applicant's proffer in this rezoning application. In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed this application does not address the impact of Lowe's on Rt. 29. Mr. Fritz explained: "Physically, there is no connection between the two and can't be because of topographic considerations." He said, however, that the proffer does address traffic on Woodbrook Drive. Mr. Dotson asked if previous proffers had addressed Woodbrook Drive or Rt. 29. Mr. Fritz responded: "It was a raw count (prior to improvements to Rt. 29). The site could not generate more than 4,432 vehicle trips today. At the time the rezoning was approved 1%W the only road that existed which could be impacted, was Rt. 29. It is because of road improvements in the area--Berkmar Drive, Woodbrook Drive and Rt. 29--that makes that number no longer valid." Staff feels, after discussions with VDOT, the most appropriate way to deal with this request, and in future cases, is to use a level of service calculation as opposed to a raw number calculation. Applicants will prepare a traffic study which will determine the level of service, and VDOT will then accept or reject that determination. M Mr. Dotson asked if is possible that this request could result in the "degrading of traffic on 29 North," even though the traffic on Woodbrook Drive will be at a level C service. Mr. Fritz replied: "Yes it could if you are just increasing the total number of vehicle trips. It could have an impact on the Rt. 29/Woodbrook intersection." He could not predict the level of impact. Mr. Fritz confirmed this ZMA is triggered by the application which will follow --the Lowe's Preliminary Site Plan. The applicant was represented by Mr. James Hill. He supported the "level of service" approach to traffic analysis. He said: "We do a traffic study (to determine) what we think the property will generate, and we go from there and do what has to be done to help enhance the traffic flow." /s-4 11-14-95 i4aw Mr. Hill explained a "solution" has been sought for this 1.5 acres for five years. (Mr. Fritz described the property as "that small piece of land that lies between the miniature golf course and Kegler's.) Mr. Blue clarified: "So if Lowe's proceeds with this building expansion, and the zoning is not changed on this small piece of property, this little rectangle would have no use." Mr. Fritz confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Blue's statement. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson asked about the square footage of the present Lowe's vs. that which is proposed for the new building. Mr. Fritz replied: "Proposed is 164,000 square feet, existing is 80,000 square feet." Mr. Dotson concluded: "So it could generate roughly double the traffic." Mr. Dotson said: "So what we're saying here is not that there won't be an increase in traffic, but that the traffic, at least on Woodbrook, won't degrade the road below a level C, which many people find acceptable." Mr. Fritz responded: "Exactly. That's the minimum level of service for new entrances or crossovers that VDOT strives for in all cases." Mr. Dotson said: "We're not saying there won't be additional traffic on Rt. 29 as a result of the Lowe's expansion; there very likely will be." Mr. Fritz responded: "Yes." Mr. Dotson continued: "And we're saying that when the small parcel develops, it will not degrade the level of service on Rt. 29 from whatever "` it's established to be. You suspect it'll be a D." Mr. Fritz responded: "Correct." Ms. Huckle said the staff report clearly says: "The issue is not the number of trips generated from the site, but the impact to the entrances on the public road network." She repeated that she feels there is already a serious problem at the Kroger access to Woodbrook, particularly for traffic exiting the site wanting to turn left. She hoped something will be done quickly about the addition of a traffic signal at this location. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that ZMA-95-07 for Rio Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dotson commented: "I do think in approving this we are allowing significantly more traffic in the area than the previous conditions would allow." Lowe's of Charlottesville Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 164,800 square foot building on 22.13 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 93A, 109 and 109D, is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Woodbrook 11-14-95 6 Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Planning Commission Review was required because of the need for three modifications: (1) 4.2.3 - To allow for activity on critical slopes; (2) 4.12.7.2a - To allow fewer loading spaces than required; and (3) 4.12.3.4b - To allow for parking more than 500 feet from the entrance. Staff recommended approval of all three modifications. Mr. Fritz said the applicant has met twice with the ARB. There are issues which have not yet been resolved, but none are design -related issues and it appears those issues can be worked out. In addition to the applicant's willingness to provide a traffic signal at the westernmost entrance on Woodbrook Drive, Mr. Fritz pointed out that the applicant also has agreed to make the entrance which is closest to Rt. 29, a right -in -only entrance. This will be an improvement to the existing situation. Mr. Fritz answered the Commission's questions about possible traffic patterns on Woodbrook Drive, parking area, landscaping, loading area, etc. ` Ms. Huckle asked if the loading area will be visible from Rt. 29. Mr. Fritz said the ARB is considering that issue. The applicant is proposing a "block wall around the perimeter of the site, designed to help screen this," and the ARB is reviewing that proposal. Mr. Dotson said he was pleased to see the applicant is providing much more green space at the highly visible corner on Rt. 29. He wondered if the applicant would consider landscaping the area that is beyond the 500 feet. (The applicant explained there is an existing drainage system in the area referred to by Mr. Dotson which the applicant feels should not be disturbed.) The applicant was represented by Lindsay McGrady and Mitch Franklin. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. McGrady said the property drains into a detention basin which is sized to accept drainage from this entire property. (Mr. Fritz pointed to the location of the basin, at the end of Kegler Drive. He confirmed the calculations for the basin had been based on the assumption of an 80% impervious area.) Mr. Nitchmann asked if Lowe's has any other stores of this size. Mr. Franklin said the proposed store is the "standard prototype." He said similar sized stores are located in Virginia Beach, Newport News, and Roanoke. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the proposed amount of parking was really necessary. Mr. Franklin responded affirmatively. Additional information provided by the applicant, and answers to Commission questions, included: --This store will have an additional 14,000 square foot expansion area and "%W enough parking is being included at this time so that additional impervious area will not 11-14-95 �%kw have to be added in the future. A lot of parking spaces will be lost to the outdoor storage area which is needed in the spring for garden material sales. --The new store will offer 40,000 items, compared to 20,000 presently offered. --Loading trucks are unloaded immediately and do not remain on the site. Mr. Fritz explained a special use permit will be required for outdoor display of garden items, if said area is visible from Rt. 29. If not visible from Rt. 29, outdoor display will have to be reviewed as a site plan amendment. Mr. Nitchmann expressed amazement at the proposed size of the store and the amount of parking which the applicant feels is needed. He wondered if the County's parking requirements need to be reviewed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Vaughan asked for clarification of the total square footage. Mr. Fritz explained the smaller number (130,000) is the area which will be heated and the larger number (164,800) is the total area, which includes an unheated area used for garden display. Ms. Huckle thought this was an incredibly large facility to serve an area the size of Albemarle County. Staff confirmed the Commission was to take action on the three modifications and the Preliminary Site Plan. Referring to the size of the facility, Mr. Nitchmann said this "has the potential to change the community" in terms of the possibility of inviting other "super stores" to the area. The applicant assured the Commission their intent was to provide better service to their customers. Mr. McGrady said Lowe's is very glad to be a part of the Charlottesville community and he did not feel it should be viewed any differently than Sam's or Wal- Mart. Ms. Huckle asked how much outdoor storage presently exists at Lowe's. Mr. McGrady estimated there to be approximately 2 acres of outdoor storage area. Ms. Huckle concluded: "So actually it may not be all that much bigger, it will just all be under roof." Mr. Nitchmann encouraged the applicant, when dealing with construction and stocking of this facility, to deal with in -state businesses as much as possible. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SDP-95-087, Lowe's of Charlottesville Preliminary Site Plan be approved, subject to the following conditions, and including approval of modification to 4.2.3 to allow for activity on critical slopes, 4.12.7.2a, to allow fewer loading spaces than required, and 4.12.3.4b, to allow for parking more than 500 feet from the entrance: /f;7% 11-14-95 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. b. Building Official approval of barrier -free parking spaces. c. All existing parcels are combined. d. Planning Department approval of landscape plan. e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and computations. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of activity within the right-of- way. g. Engineering Department approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. h. Engineering Department approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. i. Engineering Department approval of plans and computations for retaining walls 5' high and greater, measured from the top of the footing to the top of the wall. j. Provision of a traffic signal at the westernmost entrance on Woodbrook Drive if required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. k. Approval of ZMA 95-07. '*4W Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan Transportation Network Traffic Mr. Benish presented a report on the potential traffic impacts of the proposed growth expansion areas. Commission comments: Mr. Nitchmann thought the maps were not clear in terms of delineating the Scottsville area. Mr. Dotson thought it would be helpful to have current traffic volumes, for comparison purposes. He also asked if staff could provide the data which would show "volume capacity ratios or level of service." (Mr. Benish said staff could attempt to provide that information.) on 11-14-95 9 Mr. Nitchmann expressed a lack of understanding of the numbers for Rt. 20. Mr. Blue agreed, explaining: 'That additional growth area really doesn't increase it very much, yet the growth area that is already there increases it significantly." Mr. Blue thought it would be helpful to look at Northern Virginia projections which were made 20 years ago, to see how accurate those projections turned out to be. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the traffic situation on Rt. 250 East. He said there is a serious problem there which is going to result in a major, multi -vehicle accident some day. He said one of the main causes of the problems is school bus traffic which causes traffic back-ups at peak traffic times. The problem will only get worse as the population of these areas increase and the number of buses increases. Ms. Huckle thought that parallel/service roads are a way to alleviate some of the traffic problems. Mr. Benish said that a certain amount of "pre -planning" must take place so that "you're in a posture to make the offers during a rezoning (to achieve) what you want to get done." Mr. Nitchmann said the total picture needs to be looked at and should not be done a spot at a time. He said: "It needs to be looked at in the broad picture and maybe the County needs to invest some time and money to put in infrastructure to handle properly the growth that's coming." Ms. Huckle said this should be addressed in the Land Use Plan. Ms. Huckle felt there should be a requirement for connections between neighborhoods and internal service roads within neighborhoods. She felt the Comp Plan statement is not strong enough. She said: "We need something that says its required." Public comment: John MacDonald (Forest Lakes) - He could not understand the numbers-- "58,300 coming down 29 South, 17,200 goes to Western Bypass, 29,000 go to Meadowcreek Parkway and 32,600 continue." He said the equation did not make sense because he thought the figures should add up to 58,300. He said Forest Lakes has done some "actual surveys of traffic" in an effort to estimate how many Forest Lakes residents will be using the Parkway. He said the Forest Lakes figures do not "square" with the staffs figures, because it shows only 10% of Forest Lakes residents will use the Meadowcreek Parkway. (Mr. Benish pointed out that the Parkway now has three access points to developable areas: the area south of Forest Lakes, the Belvedere property and Rt. 643. The Parkway is no longer limited access. He said the access points explain why the figure is higher.) Mr. MacDonald also said the 30,000 figure on Airport Road (caused by the UREF development) "certainly makes a case for the "Ws." /S�I 11-14-95 We Eddie Cleveland - He talked about how the number of vehicle trips on Airport Road are effected by the present garage and car rental business. He suggested consideration be given to imposing a tax on property which is sold. The revenue from this tax would then be used to buy land which would remain in a natural state. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00. E: 05 M V. Wayn Ocilimber e tary