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.
Places29 Draft Master Plan
Chapter 5. Future Land Use and Transportation
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
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 Commissionís 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 Commissionís 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
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
There was a general comment about
increasing font sizes wherever possible.
The Planning Commission took a dinner break at
Return to exec summary