Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 22 1994 PC Minutes3-22-94 MARCH 22, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 22, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs HuckIe, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; and Mr. Bruce Dotson. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner, and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and Vaughan. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of March 8, 1994 were approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the March 16, 1994 Board of Supervisors meeting. Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport Master Plan Update Mr. Brian Elliott reported on the Master Plan Update process and possible projects which are being considered for the next 20 years. Projects will be undertaken in three phases (1994- I999; 2000-2004; 2004-2014) with an estimated cost of $30,000,000 ($16,000,000 coming from the FAA, $7,000,000 from local funding projects, $2,000,000 from the State of Virginia, and $5,000,000 from investments from hangars from the private sector. ) His comments referred to a written report which had been presented to the Commission. Significant comments related to SPACE needs included the following: --It is predicted that passenger movement through the airport (in-planements) will increase from 150,000/year to 385,000/ year during the 20-year period. --"Apron" storage area will be be deficient by 13,000 square yards by the end of the 20-year planning period. --T-hangars are currently deficient by 23 units. That deficiency will grow to 43 during the next 20 years (if nothing is done to address the shortage in the meantime). --No serious deficiency is anticipated in the community or corporate hangar space. --A general aviation terminal building is needed to accommodate corporate aircraft which comes to do business in the area. There is an existing deficiency of 2,500 square feet which will grow to 5,000 square feet during the 20 year period. --Fuel storage for general aviation is adequate for the 20-year period, but 3 more tanks are needed for "Jet -A" fuel storage. --The air carrier terminal building is sufficient for passenger movements and a change will be needed only if additional airlines are introduced which will require additional counter or operator space. 93 3-22-94 2 --There will be a serious need for additional parking area by the end of the century. Comments related to ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT included the following: --The noise impact area is shrinking because of new regulations on airplane noise. --Impacts, "outside of construction," will be nominal. Specific projects planned to date are: (I) Improvements to the intersection of Rts. 606 and 649. The intersection will ultimately be a 4-way stop. (2) A new access road off Rt. 606 to serve an expanded general aviation terminal area (3) Construction of an equipment building on the north end. (4) Development of infrastructure on the south end for the future development of T- hanagers. (5) Runway pavement overlay. (6) Changes to Rt. 606 and Rt. 743 caused by the fact that FAA requirements for 1,000 feet of "graded safety area" off the end of each runway are not currently being met on the south end of the runway. (Rt. 606 will be pushed to the south; Rt. 743 will be pushed to the west.) FAA is "lining up the funding to do this" toward the end of the century. (7) Parking additions will take place to the north and to the west. The airport favors a 4-lane divided highway for Rt. 649 from the airport to Rt. 29 and a single ingress and egress serving the terminal. Answers to specific Commission questions included the following: --The airport presently owns 650 acres. There is a a federal requirement to acquire approximately 50 addition*gREAhe south end. --The airport's growth . / "mirror" the County's planning document. --The airport will have it's planning document completed and to the County prior to the Comp Plan review. --The airport has met with residents who will be impacted by improvements on the south end of the runway. --The historical significance of the church (to the south of the runway) is recognized by the airport and research is being done to see how other areas have dealt with similar situations. Possibilities include the relocation of the church congregation to another area (at the expense of the airport) with the historical church structure remaining in place but closed for use. --The recently approved mobile home park is outside the noise impact model. --The only possible location for another runway is a "smaller, shorter, general aviation - type runway parallel to the existing runway." 9� 3-22-94 3 --The largest aircraft ever to land at the existing airport was a 757. However, from a length standpoint and requirements for connector taxi -lanes, the current runway does not lend itself to anything larger than a 727 or 737. Design plans are being based on 737-type equipment (140-seat). --Regarding the increasing number of small private airstrips in the county, the airport feels that there would have to be a "significant proliferation" to warrant concerns about overcrowded airspace. The private airstrips may have some financial impact in terms of hangar space. He noted that both the FAA and State review approaches, etc. for these private airstrips. --There is presently some hangar space available in "general storage areas." However, T-hangar space is deficient for those persons who have "smaller planes and want their own compartmental units." --There are questions as to whether or not this particular site can expand any further beyond the present 20 year projections. --The airport is totally self-supporting. Operations are funded from parking revenues, rents from airlines and rental cars and field sales. It receives no funding from either the city or the county. --In terms of protection of ground -water, all fuel -farm construction must be done in conformance with EPA requirements and DEQ. De-icing processes and groundwater runoff must meet the National Stormwater Prevention Runoff permit requirements. That permit is presently being obtained. WORK SESSION Com rehensive Plan =Status of the Plan Mr. Benish led the Commission in a discusison of the current status of the Goals, Objectives Strategies and Action Agenda of the current Comp Plan. The purpose was to provide the Commission with background information and increase familiarity with the existing plan and staffs progress to date. No action or decisions were being asked of the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg called attention to a copy of a Community Profile report which had been distributed to the Commission at a previous meeting. Mr. Dotson expressed a desire for any similar types of reports or information which might be available, e.g. information which might be available on farms and agriculture. Mr. Blue expressed an interest in information related to the number of rental units available in the rural area zones. Significant Commission questions, comments and requests were as follows: 0 3-22-94 4 --Ms. Huckle commented on the Statewide Building Maintenance Code referred to on page 3. She asked if this was not currently being followed. Mr. Benish explained that the Construction component of that Code is mandatory, but the Housing Maintenance component is optional. --Mr. Blue expressed an interest in a recent report on the Section VIH Housing Program. Ms. Huckle asked if there was information available on unused, vacant County properties. --Mr. Nitchmann expressed a desire to "spearhead" any proposals which go forward on the Economic Development portion of the Comp Plan. --Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation of "Regional Consortiums" and "entitlement localities" referred to on page 5. --Mr. Nitchmann noted that no mention was made of life -skills education classes being offered in the high schools, as had been discussed during the affordable housing meetings. Staff stated a strategy addressing that concern can be added. Ms. Huckle wondered if the Education Department is taking this suggestion seriously. She also asked if any information is available on industries which might use apprentices or if AMP ever uses apprentices. --Ms. Huckle felt the Social Data Base (page 8) and Housing Data Base (page 4) would provide essential information for the Comp Plan review. --Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation of "alternative agricultural activities." (page 9) She also asked if the County Office Building parking lot was being considered as a site for a farmer's market. (Staff explained that this idea has been "shelved" because of traffic conflicts with persons using the ball field. ) She suggested that Albemarle High School might be a possibility. --Both Mr. Blue and Mr. Nitchmann expressed an interest in statistics concerning the economic benefits of agricultural and forestry industries in the County. Mr. Nitchmann felt there were some inconsistencies in the existing Comp Plan in that there are strategies to Protect agricultural activities, but none to support industrial activities. Mr. Blue expressed a desire to understand better why certain environmental groups oppose "right -to -farm" legislation. --Ms. Huckle asked if it might be possible to require conservation plans for land use taxation qualification. (page 13) (Ms. Scala was uncertain as to whether or not this would be allowed by State Code.) Mr. Blue pointed out that if it were to be required, there would have to be technical assistance available. --Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Water Resource Committee will review the Comp Plan standards before the review of the romp plan. (bettor:;, page 12) (Ms. Scala explained that 3-22-94 the Committee has already reviewed the section on Water Resources, but a report has not yet been produced.) --Mr. Blue asked if the Water Resource Comittee will have a recommendation on Chris Green Lake in the near future. --Ms. Huckle asked questions about the Utilities Master Plan. She also asked when the bathometric study will be complete. She felt this was essential to the Utilities Master Plan. --Mr. Blue asked if the Utilities Master Plan would answer questions about the North Fork Rivanna sanitary sewer, i.e. whether it will be a gravity sewer or will there be a pump station to pump it over the hill to Powell Creek? He felt these decisions would effect land use decisions on the growth areas. --Mr. Nitchmann asked for a report on the status of the Board's actions on the Groundwater Protection Study. (page 14) The Commission ended their discussion in the middle of Chapter 2. Discussion will continue at the April 5 work session. The following members of the public offered brief comments: --Ms. Treva Cromwell (League of Women Voters) - She felt it is "absolutely necessary that groups like the League, or some of these others, know what is recommended as far as land uses." She noted that there are some recommendations in the Open Space Plan and Master Utilitites Plan which should be considered. She asked about the Moore's Creek Watershed Study, Stormwater Protection Study, and individual neighborhood reports. She concluded that the League will go through the Plan and make a list of items which it feels need continued action, and it will also offer recommendations. --Ms. Anne Messina - She referred to comments on low and moderate income housing found on page 6 of staffs report. She suggested that it be determined what percentage of low and moderate income families presently exist in various school districts. --Mr. Bob Watson - He expressed support for "sub -committees." (Mr. Cilimberg explained the sub -committee process and also the process for accepting public comment. He assured Mr. Watson that public comment is always welcome.) ----------------------------------------- The Commission briefly discussed the best way to proceed with the Comp Plan review. Ms. Huckle asked that Commissioners write down their thoughts and comments and either ?7-4 3-22-94 6 Pass them to staff or be prepared to share them with the Commission at the next work session. Mr. Blue asked when staff felt would be the best time to discuss "splitting up the Rural Areas zone." Given the large number of subdivisions in the rural areas, he felt it was time to stop considering the rural areas as one homonogeneous area concerned with just a and forestry. Mr. Cilimberg felt the issue should first be taken up in the Comp Plan review, particularly the land use sub -committee meetings. ----------------------------------------- Mr. Nitchmann briefly reported on the CIP Technical Meeting. ----------------------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. W: 0