The
Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on
Other officials present were
Call to Order
and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at
CPA
2003-07 Crozet Master Plan - The
Planning Commission will review the Master Plan
prepared by the County's technical consultants, for
adoption into the Comprehensive Plan, Land
Use Plan as an amendment to the Community of Crozet
Profile. (
Ms. Thomas
stated that last week the Commission worked on Section 2 of the Master Plan and
made it all the way to Section 3, Process and Form of Development. This section would be the last narrative
section of the original Master Plan document that would be absorbed and adopted
into our Comprehensive Plan with, of course, revisions and changes to it. The
second part of this is the Guidelines, the various matrixes and supplemental
design information. The Commission would start with Section 3, Process and Form
of Development. She pointed out that
they might not get through all of this section tonight.
Mr. Rieley
suggested that they find a substitute word to use for places. He pointed out
that the document was using the word places differently than Webster’s would
define it.
Ms. Catlin
asked what was staff’s intent of the use of the word places.
Ms. Thomas
stated that the intent was really for distinctive places or places with
identity as opposed to subdivisions that could be picked up and placed
anywhere.
Mr. Rieley
suggested getting rid of the word places, but if they left places in the
document that it should be defined. He
suggested modifying it by using distinctive places.
Ms. Thomas
stated that she would change the wording on # 2 and # 6 and then would do a
word search on place throughout the document.
Mr. Thomas
suggested using distinctive place types on the following page.
Ms. Catlin
stated that they would keep an eye on the lettering sequence as they go through
the document. Next they would go back to
Section B, which would be Services instead of People.
Ms. Thomas
stated that the original heading C. was moved to another place. Section C would
be titled Programs. Section D would be titled Utilities. Section E. has a
correction on page 9 and then Section F is Places. She stated that staff would work on the
letter sequence so that Section B would be entitled Services.
Mr.
Loewenstein pointed out that there was a problem with the fonts throughout the
document.
Ms. Thomas
stated that staff would correct the fonts throughout the document.
Ms. Catlin
stated that basically all of the letter headers have the same weight that and
that staff needs to make some adjustments.
Ms. Thomas asked to make a quick comment. She noted that Mr. Benish and her debated whether it would be redundant or valuable to have the base case existing condition section in here. It was not essential in making the recommendation and in some cases it has been touched on elsewhere in the document. On the other hand when they looked at other neighborhood profiles they do paint a picture of what is going on in the neighborhood. There was some value of having it all wrapped into the Crozet section as opposed to going to the Community Facilities Plan to find out what was going on with say fire or fire rescue in Crozet. She suggested that it all be under the geographic heading. Then the Community’s Facilities Plan lays out more of the standards and the countywide vision. She noted that is why it is in there, but you might have a different feeling about it.
Mr.
Loewenstein stated that he preferred to leave that in the document, and the
other Commissioners agreed.
Ms. Catlin
stated that the next was Section C, Programs.
Ms. Thomas
stated that the whole programming aspect of Crozet seemed very important to the
community. It was strictly land use like
they usually deal with it. But because
there is so much tourism potential there for local businesses, the programming
takes on an added meaning because it brings activity to that downtown cultural
core.
Mr. Rieley
stated as he was looking at the lost of community events, it seemed that the
paragraph should be put in a reduced form or possibly add another bullet
because the specific events come and go through the years.
Ms. Thomas
stated that they could restructure the paragraph or imply that there are a
variety of other things that are not specified.
Ms. Catlin
reiterated that the Planning Commission wanted that paragraph redrafted to
include something that implies something that is more open ended. She asked if there were any suggestions for
Social Services. Since there were no
suggestions she stated that they would move to Section D Utilities on page 7.
Mr. Thomas
asked that in the paragraph proceeding D. Utilities that the verbiage in the
last sentence be changed to read, Crozet like much of the surrounding County'’
area is home to a growing population of seniors.”
Mr.
Loewenstein suggested that in the second paragraph in the recycling
recommendations that they put County in front of budget restraints to read
County budget restraints.
Mr. Thomas
suggested that in the fifth line that they take out “Coiners” and replace with
“a local vendor is being used” to be more generic.
Mr. Rieley
suggested that in the recycling section in the second paragraph from the bottom
regarding ConAgra being a possible location for a recycling remanufacture or
processor that they add a sentence stating that it was a good idea and a
promising one to pursue.
Ms. Catlin
stated that under Water and Sewer, the Commission suggested that staff include
a percentage with the gallons per day so that it was paired with the 80 percent
to reflect where they were currently at without including a date. She stated
that there were no suggested changes to the section on Stormwater. She pointed out that Section E was where the
information discussed earlier was relocated.
After
discussion, Ms. Thomas stated that a brief text paragraph would be added
stating the existing conditions of the greenway systems.
Ms. Echols
arrived at the meeting.
Under Water
and Sewer the estimated costs need to be qualified in the text. Mr. Rieley suggested the wording that these
numbers are current estimates and the figures subject to change and that the
current estimates are slightly more than a million dollars in 2003.
After further discussion, Ms.
Catlin stated that they need to qualify the figures in the text and add a
statement at the beginning of the document that sets out that all dollar
amounts and figures set out in the document are estimates.
The Commission discussed the road
section on connections and asked that in the second paragraph that they add a
qualifier about exceeding the road’s capacity. They asked that the word
calculated be added in front of capacity in the second paragraph under
recommendations.
The Commission discussed the
greenway trails. They suggested that
under greenway trails in the first paragraph that the word “dedicated” is
replaced with “designated” and that they finalize the figure of 30% by
expressing it as roughly one-third. In
addition, in the second paragraph regarding the history after Route 240
rephrase the paragraph in the past tense.
In the heading for the Priority
List, the Commission asked that the word “primary” be deleted from rural road
recommendations to “major.”
After discussion, the Commission
asked that in the section where the road names were first mentioned (Western
and Eastern Avenues) that they put in a caveat that they expect the road names
to change from Western and
There was some
discussion about the fact that Crozet is not part of the area included in the
MPO’s study, but that something was done for Crozet as part of the CHART study.
The Commission asked that something be done to the paragraph regarding this to
make it clearer about the relationship of the Crozet’s data, even though Crozet
was not part of the CHART study area.
Mr. Benish
left the meeting at
Mr. Cilimberg
arrived at the meeting.
The Commission
discussed the charts and tables. The
Commission suggested that the following changes be made to this section:
·
Change the ratios and percentages to only ratios in the
tables and charts so that it would be clearer for people to see it. A suggestion was made that the ratios be
corrected to be 1:1 ratios. On table 1
needs to be changed to decimals and percentages need to be changed to
ratios. Table 2 the percentages need to
be changed to ratios.
·
Correct the labels on the charts and tables.
·
Either put in specifically as ratios or redefine it in the
section.
·
The description needs to match the information in the tables
and charts.
Ms. Catlin
stated that the Commission discussed using different graphics for future
roads. The Commission acknowledged that
it would be a nice distinction, but it was not worth spending a lot of money.
Under the
topic of transit service, the Commission asked that in the fourth paragraph
that BRC be replaced with “bus rapid transit.”
Mr. Rieley
asked that a statement be added before the road and transit section that states
that these projections are based upon the assumption that a substantial amount
of commercial will take place and mitigate the need for everybody to drive to
and from. If that is not the case, it will have an impact on the projections.
Ms. Catlin
reiterated that the Commission wanted a statement about the dependency of the
projection of plan elements on the economic recommendations being followed.
Mr. Rieley
suggested that before the charts that the caveat is placed that about the
projections in general that these numbers are not very good if they don’t get
the economic development.
Ms. Thomas
stated that she had to leave the meeting, but suggested that the Commission
keep working on this. She suggested that
they put in the dark skies at the end of this. She pointed out that the
consultants did not pick up that issue.
She pointed out that was identified as an aesthetic and a natural
resource by several different groups throughout the planning process. She stated that this issue was probably just
overlooked and felt that it was necessary particularly for issues such as where
they would want to have a lighted ballfield. The other issue regards some of
the discussion about the transect types found under Section G, Map Development
and Guidelines. She stated that this discussion would probably go better after
they discuss the maps and start to pull apart the matrixes. She suggested that they have one more session
with Ms. Catllin, depending on how far they got tonight.
Ms. Catlin
stated that they had ten more minutes to try to finish this section, and then
next time they would take up Section G and the maps. The next section was Bicycle Routes and
Sidewalks. She stated that they had
already suggesting making the following changes:
·
Substitute BRT for express bus service.
·
Comment in the first paragraph concerning roads about the
economic development.
Mr. Rieley
stated that there should be a discussion about the necessity and desirability
for a good on-street system for bicycles.
He stated that they have had previous discussion about where they should
paint the bicycle lanes on the road. He pointed out that he did not think that
they have to necessarily paint the lanes on the road in order to provide this
ability. He felt that there was a
paragraph that was missing regarding this issue.
Ms. Echols
stated that staff would do some research on this issue and capture that
information in a paragraph and bring it back to the Commission to review.
Ms. Catlin
stated that the next section was historic districts and asked if there were any
comments
Mr.
Loewenstein asked that they were talking about encouraging historic
designations, but they were not necessarily limiting that encouragement to the
creation of a district involving a larger area than that. He pointed out that
the terminology was confusing because a district could be a single building and
its acreage and it could be a whole group of buildings, etc. He asked that they ponder that issue. He pointed out that there were a few
typos. In the third line where it says
that Yancey Mills was applying for this status, he pointed out that this was
not really a County designation at all because they have to apply to the DVAD
for the historic designation.
Mr. Catlin
summarized Mr. Loewenstein’s suggestion that he wanted some type of
clarification that there could also be individual sites that might be eligible
for consideration beyond what is really thought of as a district. Also, he asked that they clarify that the
application for historic landmark status begins with the state first and then
moves forward from there. In the
sentence about the registration he asked that they mention that the
documentation piece of that is what has actually gotten underway.
Mr. Rieley
asked that they add a sentence to the first one that says this is not mutually
exclusive with the designation of individual eligible sites.
Ms. Catlin
stated that the next section was schools.
She asked if there was anything to add between this section and the
maps.
Mr.
Loewenstein asked that regarding libraries that it be made clear that the
facility is already needed in Crozet.
Ms. Catlin
stated that a sentence should be added to state that Crozet currently has one
branch library of 1,864 square feet, which was already inadequate according to
established standards.
Mr. Rieley
asked that under parks and recreation that they add another level between #3
and #4 that stresses that development and linkage of squares means types of
spaces that are associated with developments to the larger park and open space
system. He pointed out that they would
end up with 5 instead of 4.
Ms. Catlin
summarized the changes proposed by the Commission during the work session.
·
On page 1, places would be replaced with distinctive places
or something that staff might come up with that captures the use better and use
it throughout the whole document.
·
Straighten out the alphabetizing of the sections and the
font sizes.
·
In Section C under the existing conditions, the bulleted
listing needs to be recrafted into a paragraph or something to imply a more
open-ended less defined list.
·
Under the existing conditions in social services, the
sentence needs to be changed to say that Crozet, like much of
·
In utilities in the second paragraph of recommendations add
language that recycling despite County budget constraints.
·
Also under existing conditions in the second paragraph take
the reference out to Coiners and put in something like a private local hauler.
·
Under water and sewer, there was some discussion that a
broad reaching statement should appear at the front of the document that says
something about qualifying the use of dollar figures, numerical designations to
say that they refer to current estimates that may change over times with
different situations.
·
The capacity figure needs to be expressed in a percentage
that would be more closely related to the 80 percent capacity of the item. This needs to be added further up in the
recommendation part.
·
Regarding connections, in the first paragraph take out 50
percent and say something like roughly one-third to give some flexibility. In addition use the work designated instead
of dedicated on the rural areas.
·
Add a brief text paragraph on the existing conditions of the
greenway trails.
·
Under roads, add a statement about the dependency of the
projects and other plan elements on the follow through of the economic
recommendations. Also, a qualifier needs
to be put in about the variable nature of the projection and how these numbers
may not be exactly precise, specifically the traffic projections.
·
In the second paragraph under recommendations on the first
line insert calculated between roadway and capacity.
·
Rephrase the section on the southeastern quadrant and put it
in the past tense to reflect that the Board has taken action on that.
·
Change the listing from primary road recommendations to
major road recommendations.
·
Back track in the document to where Eastern and Western
Avenues are first mentioned and put in something that says something about them
being in the western corridor and called
·
Under methodology, clarify the section about the chart
network that the information came from data compiled from CHART even though
Crozet was not a part of that study.
·
Under the forecast results they have already mentioned the
qualifier and don’t have to do that again, but they did want to some work on
the graphic itself to fix the ratio and percentage confusion issue.
·
On figure one and two find a way to distinguish between the
current and future roads.
·
Under transit service, insert bus rapid transit instead of
express bus service.
·
Under bicycle and sidewalks, include some discussion about
the necessity and desirability for good on street on street bike paths.
·
Under places put in distinctive places and explain the
historic landmark status applying for state status.
In summary, the
Albemarle County Planning Commission held the third facilitated work session on
the Crozet Master Plan.
The meeting adjourned at
The meeting convened at
The Albemarle County Planning
Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on
Other officials present were
Call to Order
and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at
Other Matters
Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Marcia Joseph stated that the
Commission might have heard about this at their last meeting, but she wanted to
bring the matter to their attention again.
There is a great deal of construction activity on Route 795 in the
County from the intersection of Route 708 and the
Mr. Cilimberg asked for a copy of the map so that staff could check into it and get back to them.
Mr. Rieley asked that both engineering and zoning take a look at this construction activity.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone else who would like to address an item that is not on tonight’s agenda. There being none, he stated that the meeting would move on to the consent agenda.
Consent
Agenda:
SDP
02-083
Mr.
Rieley stated that they would move on to the consent agenda, which has one item
on it for Blue Ridge Shopping Center Major Site Plan Amendment. He stated that
there has been a request to pull this item from the consent agenda and be
discussed as a regular item. He stated
that if there were no objections that he would like to honor that request. He
asked Mr. Waller if he would summarize the staff report.
Mr. Waller
summarized the staff report. He stated
that this request was for the approval of an amendment to an existing approved
final site plan, which was SDP-1996-133 that was originally entitled the Blue
Ridge Highway Commercial Area. The Planning Commission at its