Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 13 84 PC MinutesNovember 13, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, November 13, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Com- munity Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Harry Wilkerson and Ms. Patricia. Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 23, 1984 meeting were approved as written. Raintree, Phases 2 and 3, Sidewalks - Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained this was one of the developments where the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation had re- fused to accept maintenance of the sidewalks in Phases II and III of the development. He stated the developer had modified the plans for the walks and they would be maintained by a home -- owners association. Scope of Pedestrian Obstacle Study - WORK SESSION - As part of the FY85 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) funding has been set aside to study pedestrian circulation in targeted County locations in the urbanized area to identify volumes and specific locations requiring improvements. Planning Commission's aid is requested in determining areas and items to be studied. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Cogan suggested tying the 29 North Corridor Pedestrian Study in with the Target Study. Ms. Imhoff confirmed this would be possible. It was the consensus of the Commission to focus on the Target Study option as outlined by the staff since it was felt this would be most productive. Ms. Imhoff asked the Commission to pinpoint areas they would like to see studied. The following areas were suggested: (1) Rt. 29N - It was suggested parallel networks would be desirable, i.e. along Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, rather than actually on Rt. 29N; (2) WA area; (3) Area from Piedmont Housing to Rt. 29/250 Bypass Bridge; and. (4) Rio Road/Squire Hill Area. 110 November 13, 1984 Page 2 It was determined it would be desirable to establish connector segments and not just intersection crossings. It was also determined the possibility of constructing "pathways" in some areas should be explored. Mr. Payne entered the meeting at 7:50 p.m. It was determined that it would be desirable to get input from the County Police Department on this matter. Fontana (This item was not on the agenda.) - Request to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the current Fontana area within the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Keeler presented this issue and.stated it was being brought to the Commission at this time to keep the re -zoning petition on schedule since it must be advertised. He further explained that the area subject to the re -zoning has been reduced substantially from the original PRD and it is the feeling of staff that the current development would best be served by public water. Mr. Keeler stated staff had just realized that in order to keep the zoning amendment on schedule, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is needed at the same time in order to show the area being served by public water. He explained that a Resolution of Intent Is all that is needed at this time and the :natter will then be advertised and brought back to the Commission for review at a later time. In response to Mr. Cogan's request for clarification as to what item was necessitating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in this case, Ms. Scala explained that in order for the Board to extend the water service to the area, it must be in the urban area. Mr. Cogan indicated he did not feel this was accurate since in a previous development (Inglecress) water had been extended and it was not in the urban area. Mr. Payne explained that it was not required to extend the urban area to correspond to jurisdictional areas, but it has been the Board's practice to confine public utilities to the urban areas except in special cases. He stated with the Inglecress development, the service was already physically there. He pointed out that it would not have.made any difference in the Inglecress development, but it does make a difference in this current development. tilt. Payne confirmed that the moving of the urban area line does require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Keeler stated the density being requested (1 unit/2 acres) is not an urban density, but the lot size requires central water. He stated the current jurisdictional area goes through the project so some of the lots can be served by public water, but some cannot. He continued that the idea is to amend the jurisdictional area 111 November 13, 1984 Page 3 to include the entire project in -public water, but.he did not feel this necessitated an amendment to the -Land Use Plan because the density is not an urban density. He stated the amendment to the Plan would be to include the Fontana area within the service area of the Albemarle County Service Authority. In response to Mr: Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Payne confirmed that it was advisable to include in the motion the intent.to amend the urban area. Referring to a former proposal (Keswick PUD), Mr. Skove indicated he was reluctant to amend the Comprehensive Plan each time one of these proposals comes up. Mr. Cogan agreed with Mr. Skove, but pointed out that in this particular case,the water was not available when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, but has come into being since that time. It was pointed out that all that was being requested at this time was a Resolution of Intent and no action would be taken on the actual amendment proposal until it was advertised and reviewed by the Commission at a later date. Ms. Diehl moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to extend the jurisdictional district for water to include the Fontana area and to amend the Neighborhood 3 Land Use Plan as it relates to the Fontana area. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Minor Townhouses - Request to subdivide 35 lots zoned R-6, Resi- dential. This is a reconsideration of a previously approved plat. Property, described as tax map 61W(2), parcel 45, is located on the north side of Westfield Road, north of the existing Minor Townhouses. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. In answer to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Ms. Scala confirmed that the issue being dealt with at this time is the expiration of the plat. She also confirmed that most of the original conditions of approval had been met. In reference to the letter signed by adjacent property owners suggesting that a barrier of trees be planted in the common area, Mr. Bob Hauser, the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated he had just been made aware of said letter and that he had no objections to constructing such a barrier, though it might be necessary to plant some of the trees on already developed lots in order for them to be effective. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. November 13, 1984 Page 4 Ms. Diehl moved that the Minor Townhouses Phase II Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1.. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of drainage easements; b. Provide owner's notarized signature. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Discussion of CPA 84-7 (Route 742/631 Link Roadway)and Interstate Access - WORK SESSION - Discussion of alternatives for providing interstate aa3--ss for industrial property along Route 742 (Avon Street) and evaluation of proposed road segment shown in Neighbor- hoods 4 & 5 of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982--2002. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report and presented a slide show of the area. It was determined the staff planned to present a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on this issue to the Commission on December 1.1. Mr. Cogan stated he recalled that the Commission had been leaning toward the interchange idea, but the information presented at this meeting indicated the Highway Department would not be in favor of an interchange because of funding problems. He also felt the Highway Department's stand at this time was completely contrary to previous statements made by that department. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Highway Department had not refused to do an interchange, but they would not pay for it. The funds would have to come from the County. Mr. Skove asked if Industrial Access Funds could be used for this. GIs. Imhoff indicated she felt the Highway Department would not be able to give further comment on the idea until a feasibility study had been done. She confirmed she would seek additional input from the Highway Department. Mr. Skove stated he felt the CAT study was a feasibility study. He also stated that very little available land exists in the County that is zoned LI that has water and sewer as this land does. So given a choice of developing Light Industry at this location or on Rt. 29N, he stated he would prefer that it be developed here. He added he felt an interchange at this point would encourage industrial growth. Ms. Imhoff stated if the.Commission did not wish to pursue the matter further at this time, the staff report presented at the December 11 meeting would be basically the same with the addition of the following: (1) Additional information on inter- change funding availability; (2) An explanation from the.Highway Department regarding the CAT Study comments and the possibility � /l November 13, 1984 Page 5 of doing a feasibility study under the CAT study; (3) More attention may be given to exploring the Willoughby site; and (4)Feasibility studies for the various connector roads would be available. Ms. Imhoff stated Planning Commission action would be sought on December 11 as to whether to approve or deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to delete the Rt. 742/631 roadway link. Ms. Diehl asked that the record show that she was appalled to see a connector road suggested through Piedmont Virginia Community College. She stated she did not see any advantage to trying to connect to Rt. 53 since the function and utilization of the two roads is by two completely different groups. She added such a road would have a negative impact, particularly in regard to the tourist traffic in this area. Mr. Michel indicated he was in agreement with Ms. Diehl. Mr. Cogan stated he would be opposed to any road that connected with Rt. 20 between Rt. 53 and an interchange. Ms. Imhoff confirmed that this connector road would not be given further consideration. Mr. Cogan stated he did not see the necessity of going both ways on Rt. 742, one way being sufficient to get the industrial traffic out of the interchange. The meeting recessed at 9:15 .m.; reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Discussion of Interstate Interchange Stud - WORK SESSION - A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) directed project con- sisting of review and recommendations for development impact and potential in the vicinity of four urban interchanges of I-64: Shadwell -.Route 250 East, Route 20, Fifth Street (Route 631) and Route 29/Bypass, culminating in policy and standard guidelines. (Presented to the Planning Commission on 10/30/84). Mr. Michel stated he felt it was questionable to delete the Avon Street extended/old Rt. 29 area from the Interchange Study. Ms. Davenport explained this had not been included because of its distance from the actual interchange making it fall outside the natural boundary lines. Ms. Davenport stated the area of main concern was Part 3 - Policies and Standards, since this is the area of most interest to the MPO. Mr. Cogan asked if it was stated clearly, somewhere in the study, where utilities currently exist and where they could go. Ms. Davenport responded there were detailed comments from the Service Authority regarding the current location of utility lines but not on future location of lines. November 13, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Cogan stated he felt it would be helpful to have an idea of where the lines could be extended. It was determined a utility map would be helpful. It was determined that interstate development is an area which needs to be included in more detail in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Imhoff stated that while a formal approval from the Commission was not required, staff is seeking comments before submitting the report to the MPO. She also pointed out this study would be useful in future utility planning, Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments. OLD BUSINESS - Review of November 7, 1984 Joint Meetin with the Board of Supervisors The .Commissioners discussed Mr. Lindstrom's letter to Mr. Tucker, and there was some confusion as to the main point of the letter. It was generally felt the letter dealt with a review of the planning process. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the letter suggested it was a foregone conclusion that what was suggested in the letter would be done (i.e. establishment of a committee, etc.) by December 1. He added be felt more time was needed for tine Commission to dicrest the letter and ::take recommendations to the Board. It was the consensus of the Commission that a letter be drafted to the Board stating the areas the Corission feels should be giver_ priority and outlining a process for dealing with said items. At the same time, said letter would ask for the entire Board's analysis of the Lindstrom letter and an indication from the Board that the Commission's interpretation of the Lindstrom letter was correct. Mr. Cogan stated his feeling that such a committee would not be effective without the assistance of .the Planning Staff to answer questions as to how particular processes actually work. Mr.Payne stated, if his interpretation of Mr. Lindstrom's letter was correct, what was being suggested would be a very comprehensive study that could not possibly be done in less than two or three years. On the other hand, if the idea is to develop a catalog -type outline of the planning processes, this would be a staff function and could be completed fairly quickly. Mr. Payne stated that before a comprehensive review of the process could be undertaken, it would be necessary to determine exactly how the process works, and this is a function of staff. November 13, 1984 Page 7 It was determined that staff was being asked to develop an outline of how procedures are worked out, including problem areas and suggestions as to how to rectify problems. Ms. Imhoff stated that staff is already in the process of doing this .as part of the current computerization. Mr. Cogan stated he felt it was premature to establish a committee at this point since it was necessary to obtain staff's report on procedures before proceeding. Mr. Payne suggested the staff report might be in the form of a "flow chart" along with examples for each process. Deviating from the subject, Mr. Cogan stated his feeling that long-term planning matters should be reviewed by the Commission at separate meetings from regular agenda matters because of the diversification of the topics. Mr. Michel agreed and stated he felt the Commission could deal with these matters more effective- ly if they were reviewed separate from other items. Mr. Cogan stated the Commission needed to be mindful of not spreading its efforts too thin. It was determined the matter at issue at this time was possibly amending the planning process, but not amending the Zoning ordinance -or any other ordinance. It was determined Mr. Cogan would draft a letter to the Board explaining the process the Commission plans to follow in dealing with this issue, and would present a draft of said letter to the Commission for approval on November 20. ZTA-84-4 Emmaus with Child ZTA-84-5 Henry_Javor Due to an oversight, the applicants in these two matters had not been notified, and deferral was requested until November 27. Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA 84-4 and ZTA-84-5 be deferred until November 27. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Piedmont Corridor Proposal -- Mr. Cogan read a letter, drafted by staff under Mr. Bowerman's signature, to be sent to Mr. Harold King, State Department of Highways and Transportation. He stated that many of the questions posed in the letter were taken from a letter to Mr. Bowerman from Ms. Louise Putnam -Stoner, a resident of the Earlysville area. He added a committee from the Earlysville area had obtained many signatures against the proposal. Referring to an undated resolution drawn by the Board of Supervisors November 13, 1984 Page 8 which was sent to Commissioner King, he stated Mr. King had responded to.this resolution, but he has not responded to a letter dated October 27 sent by the Planning Staff. The Commission indicated their approval of the letter with the following additions: (1) Ask for the date of origin of the proposed road alignment; and (2) Ask for a meeting to be arranged (in Richmond) with officials after a written response has been received answering these questions. In answer to Mr. Michel's inquiry., it was determined the Piedmont Corridor proposal was in addition to the. Eastern Bypass proposal. Ms. Imhoff stated no answer has been received regarding the Eastern Bypass. Mr. Cogan stated that even though he did not feel the proposed road .would ever.actually materialize, the people in the path. of the proposed road alianz;-?nt were suffering greatly,.and he felt it was desirable to push for a.statement from the State Highway Department withdrawing the proposal. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. DS Maes R. n elly, Secretary fi 7