HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 21 84 PC MinutesJune 21, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 21, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel;
Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were:
Mr. Keith Mabe, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; and Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner.
Absent: Commissioners Diehl, Bowerman, and Gould and Ms. Pat Cook, Ex-officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a
quorum was present.
CPA-84-5 - Resolution of Intent - To
with respect to drainage improvements
Bennington Woods area.
Mr. Mabe gave the staff report.
amend the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002
in the Four Seasons area and the
Mr. Maynard Elrod explained the options for the lake at Four Seasons project.
He concluded that it would probably be better to stick with the original plan,
i.e. to drain the lake.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bill Hartman, a resident of Four Seasons, addressed the Commission. He
suggested the possibility of building a berm behind the apartments on the
north side of the road. Mr. Elrod later explained that there did not appear
to be enough room in this area to build an effective berm.
Mr. Gregory Johnson, a resident of Four Seasons, addressed the Commission.
In order to preserve the lake in the event of future development, he
suggested that the "existing swale on the southside of Four Seasons Drive
between the apartments and project 4.33 be designated as a stormwater detention
area" in the Comprehensive Plan. (Mr. Cogan agreed that he felt this
was a good suggestion.)
Mr. Elrod then commented briefly on the Bennington Channel project. He
stated there was no final design for the project at this time. Mr. Cogan
suggested the possibility of doing spot repairs. Mr. Elrod indicated
he was not in favor of this because the County did not have a maintenance
crew who could maintain the project.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Tim Near addressed the Commission. He was confused as to what was
actually being proposed, i.e. to add this project to the Comprehensive Plan
or to delay it. He was interested in seeing a plan. He suggested the
possibility of spot repairs and stated the homeowners could then maintain
the stream. He suggested splitting funds among property owners who could
29
June 21, 1984
Page 2
then each do the necessary work on their own property. He was concerned
about the possible loss of trees and yard.
Ms. Ann Krom addressed the Commission. She stated she supported a solution
that would require the least amount of maintenance for homeowners. She
stated she was not interested in maintaining the channel.
Ms. Diane tiear addressed the Commission. She stressed the urgency of this
project.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan felt this had to be looKed at as an "overall" project and that
it would not be possible to please everyone.
It was determined the Commission was being asked to pass a Resolution of
Intent at this time to amend the Comprehensive Plan in relation to this
project.
Mr. Cogan asked fir. Mabe "if this passes does that.mean they are going to go ahead
and do it without any further consultation or further advisement from the
engineer as to what he is going to do?"
Mr. Elrod stated that if the wording is left the way it is "what we'rL doing
is we're still saying that the County is going to do the project but we
haven't said what it is going to be like."
Mr. Mabe added that when the Board took action, they adopted these Priority
One projects, but deferred any action on these two. He felt it should be
left in the proper place and the specifics could be added later.
Ms. Cogan asked that it be clear that the effected homeowners would be notified
when specific plans are added.
Mr. Skove moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
Priority I projects in the Urban Drainage Improvements section in Chapter 14
Community Facilities and Utilities Plans, be adopted as follows:
• 4.21 Four Seasons Detention Basin - Construction of a 1.9 acre basin
approximately 9 feet deep surrounding the existing Pour Seasons hake
with a 1.5 foot berm; lowering of the normal pool lake by three feet,
and restriction of the discharge pipe to create a basin 9.5 feet deep
covering approximately 1.1 acres, and in addition that the existing
swale on southside of Four Seasons Drive adjacent to the channel be
designated as a stormwater detention area.
• 4.26 Bennington Woods Channel - Specific improvements in the Bennington
Woods area to be developed at a later date.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
June 21, 1984
Page 3
WORK SESSION
Citizen Request for Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as
it relates to the proposed roads in the southern urban area.
Mr. Keeler led the discussion. He explained that Dr. Hurt was requesting the
deletion of the proposed roadway through Hillcrest, i..e. that portion from Rt. 20
to Rt. 742. Mr. Keeler stated that if shown on the Plan "we must require that
be provision be made for it and the design of the road would be substantially
greater than required otherwise if the Plan remains as currently drawn."
He gave a history of the issue and stated the only valid function for the road
is the provision of more direct access to 164 for industrial traffic.
Mr. Keeler explained various alignments that had been considered.. He
explained that currently the link Dr. Hurt is requesting for deletion appears
to be the only logical alignment to improve the access for this industrial
area to the interstate and is intended primarily to relieve the industrial
traffic through the city.
There was general agreement that an east -west route between Rt. 20 and 5th
Street was nct feasible.
Mr. Roosevelt explained the Commission was being asked to make two decisions:
(1) The feasibility of the link between 5th Street and Avon; and
(2) Whether to retain the connection between Avon and Rt. 20.
It was a consensus that the 5th Street/Avon link was not feasible.
Mr. Skove moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to delete the road connecting 5th Street (Rt. 631) to Avon Street
(Rt. 742) be approved.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
No decision was made on the Avon Street/Rt. 20 connection at this time.
Bonus Provision of the Zoning Ordinance - Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and
led the discussion.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the report was excellent and that it expressed his
feelings accurately as well as the feelings of some of the other
Commissioners.
It was the consensus of the Commission that bonuses should be deleted with
some new provision in the Ordinance for dedication of land, the formula for
which would parallel what exists in the bonus setup.
Mr. Skove moved thathesolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
delete bonus provisions with some provision for increased density for
dedication of land be adopted.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
June 21, 1984 Page 4
Streamlining Procedures Related to Site Plans and Subdivisions - Mr. Keeler
gave the staff report and led the discussion.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
--Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association - He
supported the staff report and suggested that site review meetings be
.held twice monthly.
--Ms. Joan Graves. - She expressed fear that public input was in danger of
being totally eliminated from the process. She also felt the proposed
process would not actually save much time..
--Mr. John Green - He was in favor of the streamlining process.
The Commission asked staff to look into the possibility of including the
public in the site review meetings. Ms. Scala pointed out that this had
been attempted at one time and it resulted in very lengthy meetings
which put a great burden on the other agencies involved.
Ms. Scala also pointed out that site plans take a great deal of staff time
and one way to streamline this process would be for the developers to bring
in more complete plans.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, the County Engineer, made comments on the problems with
the process, with the conclusion being that "we're not getting very good plans."
Mr. Elrod stated that many problems center around the number of plans that
must be dealt with at the same time. He suggested the possibility of
a "first in -first out" process.
Mr. Cogan stressed that neither the Commission nor the Board had any intention
of excluding the public from the process.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, supported a change in
the CountV'I procedure which would allow site plans to come in any time. He
felt thisIMa'Re the various agencies' reviews easier and would also result in
a more complete plan from developers. He also suggested changing the "focal
point." for public comment from the Planning Commission to a specific staff member.
Mr. Don Wagner suggested the possibility of Commission review of a "preliminary
site plan" which might then allow administrative approval of the final
plan.
Mir. Cogan suggested the consideration of the following:
--Undertake a study of a "rotating" system rather than a.deadline system;
--A way to segregate those plans which would not be of interest to the
general public from those which would;. .
--The possibility of the Site Review Committee meeting every two weeks
instead of once a month;
--The possibility of public comment being taken at the site review meeting;
--The possibility of hiring an Assistant County Engineer.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Recorded by: ,unite Wills -7n orne, ecre
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 11-88 I