HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 12 2000 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
September 12, 2000
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 in the County Office Building. Members attending were:
Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William
Rieley; Mr. Pete Craddock; Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials present were: Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Tracey Hopper; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein.
Review of Principles 11 & 12 [Site Planning that Respects Terrain, Clear Edges];
The Transect and Master Planning the Urban Neighborhoods.
The Commission held a worksession on principles 11 & 12 of the DISC Neighborhood
Model, then convened their regular meeting.
Approval of Minutes — August 22, 2000 and August 29, 2000
The Commission, moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the minutes of August
22, 2000 and August 29, 2000 as amended.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting — September 6, 2000
Mr. Cilimberg presented the review, noting that the Board approved a special use permit
for the South Fork soccer fields. He said that the Board wanted to ensure that
applications under Commission and Board consideration reviewed under the principles of
the Neighborhood Model not be held up or denied because they don't meet these
standards. "They had some discussion apparently about what they really meant in their
action to adopt those principles, and at least one board member thought they were
accepting, not adopting." He emphasized that the Board wants the standards to be used
as part of Commission and staff review, and did not feel that staff should advise anyone
that the application will be denied if they don't meet DISC principles. Mr. Cilimberg
said that he asked the Board to provide a memo or letter reflecting this.
Mr. Rooker commented, "I think that we've made it clear any time we've taken an action
that no action has been based on a lack of compliance with some new proposed
provisions that have not yet been adopted .... a lot of the principles that are being looked at
in the DISC model are a continuation of principles that are already in Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Finley recalled that the Commission was advised that the principles would be
considered in reviews of projects.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff is giving information in all projects about how they
comply, but staff wouldn't be making recommendations based on compliance.
Planning Commission — September 12, 2000 542
Work Session
CPA 98-03 Post Office Land Trust
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report, noting that the area under consideration for the
Town Center is intended to be designated for a combination of uses — regional, office,
industrial, residential — which is not currently recommended for this area in the Land Use
Plan. He explained that staff has tried to provide enhanced guidelines which articulate
the county's expectations for development in this area, which encourages a more
cohesive development pattern, and discourages piecemeal strip development to create a
more defined more pedestrian -friendly destination point that includes residential
development. Mr. Cilimberg said that the most significant impact of the proposed
amendment to uses permitted under the current Land Use Plan recommendations would
be regarding very large land consuming buildings and parking areas with low floor -area
ratio; the amendment discourages this type of development.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at the last meeting, the Commission asked staff to come back
with input on the county's capacity to incorporate an expanded public process in further
review of the proposal. Staff outlined three approaches: not doing anything until the
Hollymead Neighborhood Plan is done; undertaking a master planning process for the
Town Center area similar to what is recommended by DISC; and conducting additional
community meetings in Hollymead to present the current amendment proposal and
receive public comment. He noted that due to funding, staff workload and availability,
the last two options would take several months to one year to execute.
Mr. Cilimberg continued that Commissioners had raised concerns previously about
requiring a 100-foot tree buffer along Route 29, and questions were raised as to whether
it could be provided on site and allow sufficient area for development of the properties
which front Route 29. He said that the staff recommends that the amendment language
be modified to continue to recommend the 100-foot buffer when possible, but also
recognize that some flexibility may be needed in the width of the buffer, or there may
need to be alternatives to maintaining the buffer to allow some properties to develop.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff has provided recommendations for designation as a Town
Center versus a Neighborhood Center.
Mr. Rooker commented that in the context of DISC, this proposal doesn't call for any
more intense development than what DISC illustrates.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is trying to contrast Town Center, which is on a somewhat more
regional scale — to a Neighborhood Center, which is a little more local. "Certainly, under
the Development Area Initiatives approach, you're going to have to have some places
that are regional in nature."
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the important thing to remember is that the Town Center
proposal is intended to provide an alternative to the traditional sprawling style of
Planning Commission — September 12, 2000 543
IM
development that could otherwise occur under the current Land Use Plan for this area.
"It's really intended to identify a different form for these types of uses than we have seen
along 29, particularly south of the river."
Mr. Rooker commented, "One of the things we're looking at, obviously, is an inward
focused development, rather than a development that's focused toward the highways."
He added that his understanding is that the DISC model can accommodate a variety of
uses — some very intense, some not as intense. "I haven't certainly forseen anything
we've done so far as necessarily precluding most kinds of commercial development in
some form....we don't necessarily see that if DISC is adopted, you will never see another
large department store built in Albemarle County, it's just that if a large department store
is built, we would expect to see it take a certain form and fit into the community perhaps
in a certain way."
Mr. Finley asked, "What is the town, though, would the town have a name?"
Mr. Cilimberg replied, "It's not really identifying a town, it's identifying a center for an
area, and the area is Hollymead here....it's a large development area in our Comp. Plan
that is — in some sense — expected to be a center for employment -generating uses,
residential development, and commercial development. The Town Center becomes one
the focal point areas wihtin that kind of community, which is what is designated in our
plan."
Mr. Rooker commented that he understood the area in question to be approximately 180
acres, which is about the size of the neighborhoods considered in the DISC model. He
asked about the original 641 acres originally considered with this CPA.
Mr. Cilimberg responded, "The 641 [acres] really was that southwest quadrant of the
Airport Road/29 intersection, and as we refined this in your work, we really got into this
more specific area of 180 acres." He added that the Post Office Land Trust application
was actually much less than that initially.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the exact acreage in question be clarified prior to a formal
public hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission did hold a formal public hearing in their
last review of this, so there is not a requirement for that; the Board will have to hold one.
Mr. Finley asked if in the future, when Neighborhood Models are employed, if this will
be called Town Center.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that what it's called now in the DISC model is "Center," and
what it will eventually be labeled will be a function of the master plans done for each
neighborhood and community.
Planning Commission — September 12, 2000 544
In
Mr. Rooker said that there was a pedestrian access study done along 29, and there is a
long range plan that includes potential pedestrian overpasses. "There has to be some way
to get people from the east side of the road to the west side of the road without them
having to get into their car and drive a mile to get back into a center that may be 200
yards away."
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Board of Supervisors is expected to receive a
presentation on the 29 pedestrian plans in October, noting that 29 itself is going to cut
through the heart of Hollymead.
Mr. Rooker commented, "For too long, Route 29 has been the Great Wall of China in the
community. We need to find ways to improve on that; this is a great place to make a start
on that."
Mr. Rooker said he felt fairly satisfied with the changes as recommended for the text in
this CPA, and added that it is very important to continue to move forward with this
process, especially in light of VDOT's plans. He agreed that staff could come back with
some draft language with the points discussed at this meeting, and asked fellow
Commissioners if there should be a public hearing on the final text.
Mr. Rooker noted that he would be in favor of having one more public hearing on the
proposed final language. "I don't think that we should drop back into... an early part of
DISC procedural aspect with this, and all of the sudden deploy a process that has not yet
been adopted as the process for moving forward with changes to the Comprehensive Plan
yet. I think that would put this back to some point where we were perhaps 2 years ago,
when we were trying to decide with respect to this area, the size of the area we would
look at, the various considerations that should be included, including transportation and
other things....I'm not in favor of adopting one of these three procedures that would put
us back to a point where we were some time ago on this particular matter."
Mr. Finley asked what would have to happen for Planning to proceed with development
of road systems, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the first step is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and the
inclusion of this in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Rooker's comments, and said he appreciated the 100-foot
buffer change to include "where it can be done."
Mr. Rieley commented that the 100-foot buffer was never suggested as a mechanism to
limit development, but was intended more to provide separation and to establish character
of that section of 29. "As we make modifications in order to allow a particularly narrow
piece of property to be developed, I think we should keep in mind that we need to utilize
other mechanisms to achieve the same goal of separation of 29 and inward orientation of
the development."
Planning Commission — September 12, 2000 546
Mr. Rooker pointed out that this is a potential change to the Comprehensive Plan as it
exists today, and this was going to be called a "Town Center," and if DISC is adopted,
"'"'� the name may change.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that this specific proposal — with its mix of uses including
residential, pedestrian access, and street network — takes on the characteristics of small
center town area.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff needs to adjust statements regarding floor area ratio, so
that the .5 to 1 is not the only range offered. He added that staff also wants to include
language that has recommendations on how pedestrian bicycle access can be provided
within and leading to the Town Center. Mr. Cilimberg said staff also wants to amend the
text to include recommendations for road design and classification for Town Center
streets. He emphasized that there has been some concern that VDOT's plans for parallel
roads and Route 29 may not mesh with this proposal. He suggested that through
amending the plan, the county can establish a network of streets and a classification of
streets to be proactive with VDOT.
Mr. Rooker agreed that establishing a road pattern is highly important, and stated that it is
vital to articulate a vision before VDOT's location hearings on Route 29 North
improvements in December.
Mr. Cilimberg concluded that provided the Commission will not have an extended public
process, and is agreeable to the points that have been made, staff can bring the CPA back
to the Commission and move it onto the Board of Supervisors. "One thing that ultimately
getting this adopted does for us not only gives us something we can work with developers
on with their proposals, but it gives us something the county has adopted that we can tell
VDOT `this is our plan."'
Mr. Finley asked if the road system would be finalized by the developer then brought to
Planning staff.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the roads would first go into the plan, then as development
proposals come in, a street network will have been identified and worked within. He
indicated that the plan will also require VDOT to work their road alignments within that
accepted pattern.
Mr. Rieley said that it is important to be specific that the pedestrian/bicycle access needs
to extend across Route 29. "We should think about the pedestrian and bike access in the
same systematic way that we are thinking about the road network... in order for the
strategy that you outlined... to be effective, we need to be very specific with the location
of the roads. They need to have a feasible vertical and horizontal alignment that's
defensible, and they need to be a solid, identifiable location on the ground, and not open
to a lot of interpretation."
Planning Commission — September 12, 2000 545
CM
Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Rooker's suggestion for one more hearing on the
proposed final language.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff will provide final language for adoption, which could be
brought before the Commission on the same night as the final public hearing.
Mr. Rooker stated that there must be time for input into what goes into the VDOT
December public hearing. "I would hope that our plans for the area might also get
presented at that public hearing."
Mr. Finley asked if a motion was needed.
Mr. Cilimberg said no, adding that staff will go ahead and get the hearing advertised,
probably by the middle of October.
Fellow Commissioners agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Planning Commission — September 12, 2000 547