Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 11 1991 PC MinutesJune 11, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 11, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 21, 1991 were approved as amended. Albemarle High School Final Site Plan - Proposal to locate 45,000 square feet of new building area and athletic field additions. The proposal includes a 10,000 square foot field house, a baseball field, two football fields and one football/soccer field as well as a 35,000 square foot addition to the existing school. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 78A, is located at the southwestern quadrant of the Lambs Road and Hydraulic Road intersection. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, this site is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area. Staff requested deferral to June 18, 1991. Mr. Cilimberg explained that because of public concern about the loss of the pinetree grove, staff was going to review the plan again to consider alternatives. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Albemarle High School Final Site Plan be deferred to June 18, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson distributed a written copy of his concerns about this project to the Commission. He did not read the comments into the record, but they are attached to these minutes as Attachment A. WORK SESSION biue Ridge Neighborhood "Area a" Study, (Review of PACC's recommendations) - Mr. Baker described the study in some detail, including background information and PACC's recommendations. The Commission was asked for comment, Commission comments included the following: Huckle: She questioned the suggested parkway to Monticello which Mr. Baker explained would be constructed within the existing right-of-way and would probably involve some widening of the lanes and straightening of the curves. ra June 11, 1991 Page 2 Johnson: He felt the the nomenclature was confusing. He also noted that North on one map was shown with a "down" arrow. He suggested that a responsible party or organization be identified on each recommendation. He also felt the Architectural Review Board should be assigned "County responsibility for the overview of the Monticello Parkway." (Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Chairman of the ARB, commented that the University has agreed to abide by that as a recommendation but not as a mandate - He also noted that he felt the parkway was not a significant part of this plan because there s no anticipated funding for some time to come. Mir. Lindstrom noted also that Monticello endorses this plan.) No formal noiklon wnp rogairsd of the Commission at this time. The meeting recessed from 7-50 to 8:00. WORK SESSION Open Spacp Plan- (To become a part of the Comprehensive Plan) Ms. Scala explained that staff's presentation would be an introduction of the organization of the Plan, and the proposed maps, but would not include final recommendations at this time. Commission comments and concerns included the following- Huckle: She felt the open space around the Rivanna River should be given consideration because of the reservoir, even though it is not designated as a scenic river. She expressed the hope that the rater Resources Protection Ordinance would be passed soon. Ms. Huckle was in favor of a 40 -acre minimum lot size in agricultural/forestal districts. Johnson: He stressed that he felt water protection should be a driving force in this plan. He suggested that the maps be developed so that there is some way of getting oriented to a specific location. Rittenhouse: He suggested that Tables 1 and 2, dealing with Open Space Resources, have another column added dealing with watersheds. (Ms. Scala explained that watershed protection had not been targeted in this study because it has already been addressed.) He "endorsed the concept of including potential techniques, whether or not they are currently enabled." He felt this would be a valuable comprehensive planning tool. 19- June 11, 1991 Page 3 The only public comments were made by Mr. Lindstrom. He felt the document would be of benefit to the Architectural Review Board. He also suggested that staff look at the report of the Fiscal Resources Committee for guidance on implementing the financial aspects of greenways. The Commission directed staff to proceed with the development of recommendations. OLD BUSINESS Sam's Rezoning (ZMA-UQ--23) - Mr. Cilimberg explained (for the Commission's information) that the proffered conceptual plan of this project had not shown clearing to the river nor a sediment basin in the greenway along the river. The applicant was now proposing these changes and the staff was going to take the matter back to the Board to see if the intent of the original rezoning was still being met. He explained that the issue "relates to clearing activity that will be necessary under the current final site plan --below the parking area down to the river and the location of a sediment basin in the floodplain of the Rivanna River." Mr. Rittenhouse recalled: The site plan "had included parking in excess of what was required by the zoning ordinance, but there had been a proffered plan and it was deemed that because the Board had approved the rezoning with that proffered plan that they had bought into the excess parking." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the excess parking was "necessitating what was going to happen with the site development according to the final plan" currently being presented. Mr. Cilimberg explained that before the final plan comes back to the Commission, staff wants to make the Board aware of the changes for their determination as to whether or not the intent of the rezoning is still being met. Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted: "So we want to make sure that the Board envisioned the ramifications of that additional parking that were shown on the proffered plan." Mr. Rittenhouse emphasized that the staff should make it clear to the Board that though the Commission had felt obligated to approve the additional parking based on the re- zoning, the Commission was NOT endorsing the additional parking. He added that the Commission had not evaluated the additional parking on its own merit. Mr. Grimm recalled that the County Engineer (Mr. Moring) had stated that the additional parking "would all be contingent upon whether or not they could stay within the parameters of Sl7 June 11. 1991 Page 4 engineering specifications-" Mr. Cilimberg noted that "at this point in time it looks like Engineering will be able to approve the drainage and grading plans, including the sediment basin." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed the Commission would review the final site plan. MISCELLANEOUS Referring to the water Resources Protection Area and particularly restrictions in the buffer area, Mr. Johnson asked if it was too late to consider including performance criteria for associated ponds. Mr. Cilimberg responded that ponds had not been addressed because "this is really a buffer area and not a development of new facilities in the area type of approach." Rather it is to deal with the existing natural environment of streams and non -tidal wetlands. He explained: "In terms of creating new detention ponds, and maintenance of those, that's really outside of this ordinance's intention." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m- ej V. Wayne ilimber , cretary DS