Albemarle County Planning Commission

August 28, 2007

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session, meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Bill Edgerton; Jon Cannon and Pete Craddock. Absent was Eric Strucko. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. 

Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Harrison Rue, Thomas Jefferson Planning District; John Giometti, VDOT representative; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.  Mr. Kamptner arrived at 5:20 p.m.

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and established a quorum.

Work Session:

Places29 Draft Master Plan (Judy Wiegand):

Chapter 5. Future Land Use and Transportation Framework

Chapter 6. Community Facilities and Services

-          The Commission continued its work session held on July 31, 200, responding to the staff questions and giving guidance to the staff. 

-          At the last meeting the Commission did not quite get through the land use section or the Green Infrastructure Map.  Staff wants to make sure to get through the Transportation section in advance of the Board of Supervisors discussion next week on September 5 to make sure that all of the important information from the Commission goes forward to them at that time.  Therefore, the transportation section was discussed first.

In summary, the Planning Commission continued its July 31, 2007 work session in their review of Chapters 5 and 6 of the Places29 Draft Master Plan. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed Chapters 5, beginning with the Transportation section on page 41. The Commission reviewed and discussed Chapter 5 of the Draft Places29 Master Plan, answered the questions posed by staff, and made comments and suggestions.  Public comment was not taken.  No formal action was taken.

The Planning Commission needs to go back and finish up the land use section.  Due to the lateness the Commission decided to stop.  They acknowledged that this goes before the Board of Supervisors on September 5 and they would not get the Commission’s comments on some of these items.  It was assumed that this would come back for further comment about the other information such as the green infrastructure and land use.  Staff will schedule a date in the future to bring back the redrafted version after the Board of Supervisors work session on September 5. 

The Planning Commission made the following comments on Chapter 5 and 6:

Concerns were expressed about Guiding Principle 8 that ties infrastructure to development.  The Commission’s desire is to strengthen that Guiding Principle to the extent legally possible to tie rezoning decisions together with infrastructure availability and need. The Master Plan should refer to that principle in important places throughout the document.  For example, in the introduction to the Transportation Section, that principle should get prominently mentioned.

• The question was raised regarding whether the Master Plan locked the County into specifics regarding the Transit System.  Staff responded that the plan was conceptual and that the details will be clarified later, so flexibility is possible with regard to transit stops and some of those types of items.

• On Page 5-66, where it talks about the percentage of transit riders, there was a concern about that number being low.  An explanation was given that there was a conservative approach taken to the expected densities with regard to the modeling as is required by VDOT.  The Planning Commission talked about the desire to have goals or strategies that would try to increase that transit usage number and asked if there were design solutions throughout that would address this. 

• The Commission was asked if they heard enough in the discussion of pedestrian related elements, the grade separated interchanges and some of the other design solutions to address the transit ridership issue. The Commission expects to hear back from staff about what kinds of things that they could do or look for to increase the transit ridership level.  The plan needs to state goals or a threshold to try to achieve.  One way to state the goal is to significantly increase transit use above what might be expected in the normal course of business by doing or paying attention to the appropriate design elements, which could be listed.  There was a comment on making sure that the transportation system map, which was graphic 5.32, included a clear notation regarding the accommodations for bikes and pedestrians.  It would be too confusing to try to show the elements in the map itself, but staff was directed to make sure that there is clear notation on the map that there are pedestrian and bicycle elements and make sure that it is also mentioned in the text.  The graphics should be integrated with the text for better clarity, including in that section.

• With respect to the specific 8 issues that staff walked the Commission through, on the 2 grade separated interchanges the Planning Commission endorsed comments that people felt that this was the right approach and that it was really important to community members at large in responding to increased traffic and that those interchanges should be included as part of the system.

• Issue #6 related to the jug handle. The Planning Commission directed that the jug handle be moved to the other available location where it did not conflict with the trailer park and leave the explanation in the text as it already is. 

• Issue #8, regarding the optional connector road in the Hydraulic Road area, the Commission asked to add language to make sure that the existing residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected to the extent possible.

• There was some concern about the specific locations of at grade pedestrian crossings and pedestrian overpasses.  Planning Commissioners asked if these could be rearranged if necessary depending on whether the situation required it.  The response was yes, that was possible.

• A map would be included that showed the specific locations of those pedestrian crossings.

• On page 65, the graphic need to be redone to make it clearer.  There was a request to staff to take another look at the language about the Eastern Connector to see if it was appropriate and accurate.

• There was a general comment about increasing font sizes wherever possible.

The Planning Commission took a dinner break at 5:41 p.m.

Return to exec summary