Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 20 1994 PC Minutes9-20-94 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia_ Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tots Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Ms. Monica Vaughan; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m.and a quorum was established. The minutes of September 6, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. WORK SESSION CPA-94-02 Kessler Group South Forest Lakes - The applicant is requesting the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include 126 acres composed of Tax Map and Parcels 46-98, 46-97A(1), and a portion of 46-26E into the Hollymead Community. The property under question is located east of Powell Creek, north of Route 643, west of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and south of Forest Lakes. If incorporated into the Hollymead Growth Area, the subject acreage would be designated for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre) and would include 185 units. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. As in previous work sessions on this subject, the main topic was once again the alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Blue asked: "Is there a way to be a little clearer? If we approve it according to that recommendation, is the developer going to be able to go through with a plan of development before the actual location is known?" Mr. Benish expressed the hope that there would be a definite location prior to the rezoning review. Mr. Benish explained: "What we are conceivably doing here is acknowledging that the County (and the developer) is agreeable to reserving that right-of-way and they could proceed forward with rezoning." Mr. Blue stated that it would be very difficult for the applicant to prepare a plan if the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment is not tied down before the rezoning. Though she expressed support for the proposal, Ms. Huckle wondered if action should be delayed until a decision on the alignment has been made. Later in the meeting she commented: "It would be just awful. if we approved this and then it was built out and then there wasn't any Meadow Creek Parkway, and we would have just made things so much worse." Mr. Benish explained; "Right now, what impacts this area, are two alternatives--T3, Timberwood Parkway Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. What you are doing is accommodating a corridor that would allow essentially the same type of roadway, although not in the exact location of the corridor, that the consultant identified. What we are trying to say in the recommendations is that the main negative of doing it this way is instead of the broad width of property between Powell Creek and the railroad you had to locate that corridor, you reduced the /fib 9-20-94 2 opportunity for that alternative down to one area adjacent to the railroad. tracks." Mr. Blue felt "this is the best we can do --the developer has agreed to reserve this and staff has said it will work." Mr. Blue was in favor of approving the CPA so that the developer could proceed with the rezoning and planning. He felt the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment would not be made definite for a long time. Mr. Benish acknowledged that there are some uncertainties about the suitability of the property that is recommended for the road (e.g. geology, soil suitability, wetland impact). Ms. Huckle felt it would be "irresponsible" to allow more growth in this area until there,are some "ancillary, parallel roads" that would take some of the traffic off Rt. 29. She asked when it will be known if the area for the road is "actually buildable." She asked if a conditional approval could be granted pending the final determination that the property is suitable for the road construction. Mr. Benish responded: "In the sequence right now, that would come when the alignment is chosen for the Parkway and we go forward with the consultant to design the roadway, and they would do the appropriate geologic and engineering work to determine the developability and the placement, refining that corridor into an actual right-of-way alignment." Mr. Blue commented: "There are all sorts of possibilities, but the most likely possibility is that it would just be more expensive --it could be built there but it would be more expensive." Mr. Dotson wondered if the consultant could be made aware of this Comprehensive Plan amendment in the hope that a decision could be made on the alignment before the rezoning is reviewed. Ms. Huckle noted that the applicant had offered as an alternative the extension of Ashwood Boulevard to the Meadow Creek Parkway. She wanted it to be clear that if the alignment along the railroad could not be built, there remains an option that will relieve traffic on Rt. 29. The Commission discussed the anticipated impact and usage of the Meadow Creek Parkway. The issue before the Commission was whether or not to proceed to public hearing with CPA- 94-02. There was a discussion as to whether or not to schedule the Kessler request and UREF's request at the same time. Mr. Dotson and Mr. Nitchmann expressed support for having both items scheduled for the same public hearing. Mr. Dotson reminded those present of the Commission's previous decision that action would not be taken by the Commission on the night that public comment was taken. Rather, Commission action would be delayed until a subsequent meeting, preferably the following week. There seemed to be agreement that public comment would not be invited at the second meeting. Mr. Benish reported that the items would be scheduled for October 18, 1994. fa7q 9-20-94 Mr. Steve Runkle, representing the applicant, briefly addressed the Commission. He explained the differences between A-B and A-F alignments. He also expressed a willingness to "reserve a corridor from B to this point (Rt. 643)." NOTE: The location of "this point" was not clear to the transcriber but was believed to be to Rt. 643).] He offered, also, to delay development for 1 year - 18 months, in order to allow time for the alignment of the Parkway to be tied down. It was the consensus of the Commission to move the item to public hearing, to be scheduled for October 18, 1994. WORK SESSION Draft CATS Policies aAn Goals _For Review and Comment A report was presented by Ms. Hannah Twaddell, Senior Transportation Planner for the WO (Metropolitan Planning Organization). Ms. Twaddell answered Commission questions about the make-up and operations of the WO and general questions about the CATS policy. Specific Commission comments and questions about the CATS Policies were as follows: --(Nitchmann) Is there a strategy in the draft policy which says that local government should become more involved in providing infrastructure in order to guide growth into certain areas? ANSWER: Though Ms. Twadell stated that this strategy was not presently in the policy, Mr. Dotson called attention to No. 2 under the Economy heading. He felt this was similar to what Mr. Nitchmann was saying. Mr. Benish also called attention to No. 8 under that same heading. --(Jenkins) He noted the benefits of this type of planning in dealing with VDOT, e.g. if a project is referenced in this plan, it lends credibility to the project and there is a better chance of getting federal funding. --(Dotson) Regarding the Overall Policy statement, he wondered if there should be an additional statement to the effect that "local land use decisions should be made so as not to exceed, or to be compatible with, the transportation system to support those land uses." --(Hackle) She suggested the addition of a statement that "we need to provide parallel roads to major roads for local traffic." (She did not specify where this statement should be added.) --(Dotson) Referring to Economy, No. 1, he felt that "the word enhance paints too rosey a picture." He felt a more honest statement would be that "we are trying to reduce congestion where it currently exists and to avoid congestion where it doesn't yet exist." He felt the statement should be more focused on congestion. Referring to the same statement, he also asked if there was a strategy to "reduce the number of commuter trips" anywhere in the document. ANSWER: Ms. Twaddell replied affirmatively and referred Mr. Dotson to the Environment heading. --(Dotson) Referring to the strategy to "cluster employment areas," Mr. Dotson interpreted this as referring to new areas. He suggested: "It seems to me it is also important /a s, 9-20-94 4 in terms of in -fill existing commercial areas and intensifying the established employment centers that exists." --(Dotson) Referring to No. 2, under Economy, he suggested the addition of the Barracks Road area, i.e. shopping center, Carruthers Hall, former Michie Building- --(Nitchmann) Economy, No. 2 - He suggested the addition of the Rt. 29 intersection with Airport Road (Rt. 649). --(Dotson) Economy, No. 5, last bullet - He noted that most of the other statements were more "decisive," but the last bullet says to "consider methods." He suggested the wording "Seek to promote." --(Huckle) Economy, No. 4 - She questioned how the 4th bullet, related to "increasing opportunities for direct, competitively priced air access to major destinations" could be accomplished by the county. ANSWER: Ms. Twaddell explained that this was an airport issue. --(Dotson) Economy, No. 8 - He suggested that in all instances in the report, the terminology should be more decisive, i.e. instead of "where appropriate," simply begin the statement with "Use more flexible design...." --(Hackle) Environment, No. 1 - Expressing concern about bicycle safety, she wondered if there were some way to require that bicyclists be licensed. She felt the situation presently was very dangerous. Mr. Nitchmann expressed the feeling that bicycle usage should not be promoted until bike paths are guaranteed. (Mr. Blue recalled that it is necessary for bike plans to be included in the Comprehensive Plan to insure that they will be built. He also recalled, however, that Ms. Huckle had suggested that they not be advertised.) --(Dotson) Environment, No. 5 - In addition to a sidewalk system, he suggested that a strategy be added to "provide ways to safely cross the major roadways." --(Dotson) Environment, No. 12 - He felt that addressing travel demand was a very important item and should be made No. 1. --(Hackle) Environment - She wondered about the addition of a strategy to limit the number of vehicles used by university students. --(Huckle) She described a free bus service which is used in Amherst, Massachusetts, and has been found to be less expensive to provide than parking lots. She also felt buses would be used more if there were shorter waits between runs. Ms. Twaddell explained reasons why buses are not more utilized. Mr. Nitchmann felt the only way to increase bus usage is to "make it free and make it frequent." --(Dotson) Neighborhoods, No. 2 - He felt the term "targeted neighborhoods" should be more clearly defined, --(Dotson) Neighborhoods, No. 6 - He felt it was not clear what was being suggested should be done. He felt the statement, as it appeared, was too simplistic. --(Nitchmann) He felt there should be some strategy dealing with a "complete bypass that goes around the city." MISCELLANEOUS %1?9 9-20-94 Mr. Benish briefly reviewed upcoming agendas. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:1.5 p.m. Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw /30