HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 23 1991 PC MinutesJuly 23, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, July 23, 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. Richard Tarbell,
Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Ken Baker,
Senior Planner, Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation 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 July
9, 1991 were approved as submitted.
Consent Agenda Preview (Susan Reppert Day Care Center
Preliminary Site Plan) - Mr. Tarbell briefly previewed this
item. Commissioner Huckle expressed concern about the
location of the play area given the fact that much of the
lot is in steep slopes and also about the square footage/per
child requirements. She asked staff to check to see how
much area would actually be useable for play area. In
response to Mr. Johnson's questions, Mr. Tarbell described
access to the property.
Commonwealth Drive Connection to Greenbrier Drive and Peyton
Drive Upgrade -Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
(15.1-456 Review)
Mr. Baker presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending that both projects be found in compliance.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Dick Goochy, representing ComDial Corporation, addressed
the Commission. He expressed concern about the possibility
that Peyton Drive would ultimately become a cul-de-sac with
no thru traffic. He emphasized that Peyton Drive is the
only access ComDial employees have to the west parking lot.
He noted that closing off Peyton Drive would result in an
increase in traffic problems at the intersection of
Greenbrier Drive and Rt. 29 (where there is no left -turn
arrow). He expressed support for the re -construction of
Peyton Drive for the following reasons: (1) It is an
immediate solution to the problems; (2) It would save the
County money; (3) It leaves land open for future
development; and (4) It provides an alternative access for
ComDial.
Ai3, i
7-23-91 2
There was some confusion on the part of the Commission as to
what action was being sought. Staff and Mr. Rittenhouse
repeatedly attempted to clarify that the Commission was
being asked to determine if both these projects are in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and was not being
asked to choose one or the other of the projects. The final
choice would be made by the Board of Supervisors.
Discussion dealt mainly with the fate of Peyton Drive in the
event the Commonwealth Drive Connection is the choice of the
Board.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether the possible abandonment of
Peyton Drive would be in compliance with the Comp Plan given
the inconvenience which would result to those persons who
presently use that road. He noted: "If it's a
consideration of extending Commonwealth Drive as appropriate
to contain the traffic and continuing to maintain the
semblence of Peyton Drive, that, to me, would be completely
compatible." He questioned how the Commission could
determine "what is compatible or what isn't" without being
aware of the alternatives. He also wondered if the users of
Peyton Drive had a vested right to continue to use the road.
(Mr. Bowling was unable to answer this question definitively
without researching the issue.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that even if the Peyton Drive
Upgrade is not chosen, it would still be available for
ComDial usage, and any other property needing that access,
as a non-public road. He explained that the road had been
dedicated to public use but never taken into the state
system. Therefore, if it is discontinued, the dedication to
public use would be abandoned.
Mr. Rittenhouse again attempted to explain that the issue
before the Commission was not to determine if one or the
other of the projects is in compliance, but rather to
determine that either is in compliance. He noted that the
Comprehensive Plan already recommends the Peyton Drive
improvements. He suggested that the Commission consider the
extension of Commonwealth Drive on its own merits, since the
Peyton Drive Upgrade is already recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Andersen expressed concern about being asked to make a
determination without knowing how problems which could be
created by the abandonment of Peyton Drive would ultimately
be resolved.
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was in agreement with staff's
position.
7-23-91 3
Mr. Johnson moved that "the extension of Commonwealth Drive
to Greenbrier Drive and the upgrading of Peyton Drive are
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson indicated that his motion intended that projects
were a "joint effort." He stressed: "We're saying that
Commonwealth Drive AND upgrading ARE. ... My motion is that
they both, together, are, as a unit. In other words, ...
they go as a package."
There followed further discussion about the interpretation
of Mr. Johnson's motion. Mr. Cilimberg quoted from a letter
from Mr. Bob Tucker to the Commission which explained what
was being asked of the Commission. He concluded: "They did
not consider these as a package and I can assure you that
they are not going to build both of them." He explained
that there is money in the Capital Improvements Program to
do "either/or--one or the other ... and the Board considers
the Commonwealth Drive project to be of equal priority to
Peyton." (He confirmed that prior to the feasibility study
Peyton Drive was a higher priority because the Commonwealth
Drive extension had been considered only after the figures
for the cost of the Peyton Drive upgrade were received.)
Mr. Benish further explained that the Commission is being
asked to "affirm that the Peyton Drive Upgrade is still in
compliance and that there is a second alternative which is
also in compliance. You are just affirming an alternative."
Mr. Cilimberg added: "You're not being asked to determine
if one is more compliant than the other."
Ms. Andersen asked if the Board, when making their choice,
would also consider the issue of the safety of Peyton Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I am assuming they will." Mr.
Benish added that the Engineering Department is
contemplating maintaining access to Peyton Drive, their only
anticipated change is to preclude thru access.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if Mr. Johnson's motion was still
consistent with what had been discussed. Mr. Johnson
replied: "Probably not." He felt the plans for Peyton
Drive, in the event of the extension of Commonwealth Drive,
should be known before making a decision. He felt the
abandonment of Peyton Drive was not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Huckle stated she was not in favor of Peyton Drive being
a cul-de-sac. She suggested that the maintenance of the
road could be left to the users.
/,46-
7-23-91 4
Mr. Johnson restated his motion: "I move that we find the
extension of Commonwealth Drive to Greenbrier Drive and
upgrading of Peyton Drive in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Jenkins affirmed his second to the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
It was decided the Board would be made aware of the
Commission's desire that in the event the Commonwealth Drive
Extension is constructed, Peyton Drive should be made
available as a private access (ingress and egress) to
properties it serves.
marle County Sewer Authority (ACSA) Scottsville Water
Sanitary Sewer Line Installation (Review for Compliance
the Comprehensive Plan) (15.1-456 Review)
Mr. Baker presented the staff report.
Ms. Huckle asked if properties in this watershed would be
able to connect to the line. Mr. Baker responded that
connection would be available to properties which are
"within the ACSA jurisdictional area." Mr. Cilimberg added
that any additional availability would require Board
approval of additional jurisdictional area.
Mr. Bill Brent represented the ACSA. In response to Ms.
Huckle's question, he explained the function of the pumping
station. He offered little additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Albemarle County Sewer Authority
Scottsville Water and Sanitary Sewer Line Installation be
found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Open Space Plan - Ms. Scala presented the staff report and
reviewed the recommendations.
The Commission had the following recommendations, concerns
and comments:
HUCKLE :
--Elaborate on No. 6, page 3, related to groundwater
recharge.
7-23-91
5
--Contact owners of properties which border the
reservoir to ask them to consider donating part of their
property to serve as an increased buffer area.
--Define more clearly the Earlysville Forest park.
--Provide land use taxation for those persons who
follow BMPs for forestal activities.
RITTENHOUSE:
--Consideration should be given to a trail system along
the James River.
WILKERSON:
--He expressed concern about possible impact to cost of
land as the plan is implemented.
GRIMM:
--He felt the plan will help developers identify
resources that should be protected and will add to the value
of the County in the long run.
JOHNSON:
--(Mr. Johnson read a prepared statement which is made
a part of this record as Attachment A.)
Public comments were as follows:
Jack Marshall, representing Citizens for Albemarle:
--He called the Commission's attention to a prepared
statement which he had distributed earlier.
--Open space categories should be "clearly,
unambiguously, and operationally defined."
--Citizens supports the document.
(The following statements were the comments solely of Mr.
Marshall and not of Citizens for Albemarle.)
--There should be more discussion of "voluntary
compliance" and a clearer definition of "voluntary
encouragement."
--Important natural areas should be added.
--There should be more recommendations for protection
of farmlands and forests.
--The plan takes an "unnecessarily timid" approach to
the limitation of development rights and the issue of
density.
Mr. Frank Kessler:
--He suggested that density should be increased in
those areas which are suitable for development so as to
protect those areas which need to be protected.
--Developers should be allowed to suggest what is the
best use of land because it is they who must perform all the
analyses of slopes, wetlands, vegetation, etc.
7-23-91 6
No formal action was required of the Commission.
University Corporate Center Final Plat - Deferred to July
30, 1991
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:30 p.m.
V. Wayne limberg, S cr tary
DB
4-3 CR