Planning Commission

13 January 1999

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 13, 1999 IN COURTROOM B, THIRD FLOOR, COUNTY COURTHOUSE, CHRISTIANSBURG, VIRGINIA:

Mr. Wells, Chair, called the meeting to order and Michael Ewing established the presence of a quorum.

Present:Malvin Wells, Chair

Ed Green, Vice-Chairman

Kitty Brennan, Secretary

Ray Alcorn, Member

Richard Daub, Member

Joe Draper, Member

Michael Ewing, Member

Don Linkous, Member

Jim Martin, Member

Harry Neumann, Member

Mary Biggs, Board of Supervisors Liaison

Joe Powers, Staff

Jeff Scott, Staff

Kimberly Golden, Staff

Ed Davis, Staff

Phyllis Conner, Planning Department Secretary

Absent:None

Mr. Wells opened the public hearing on the Arleta Marie Ingram Rezoning request.

Kimberly Golden showed a video of the area and made a presentation of the request.

No one was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Wells asked for comments from the public. No one was present to speak. Discussion followed concerning the area. Mr. Neumann inquired about the floodplain area. Mr. Scott stated that Plum Creek traverses the parcel, placing the northern-most third of the property within the 100-year floodplain. The Creek View, Spring View, and Brookside residential subdivisions adjoin the property to the southeast.

Mr. Wells closed the public hearing on the Arleta Marie Ingram Rezoning request.

Mr. Wells opened the Public Address Session.

There being no comments from the public, Mr. Wells closed the Public Address Session.

Mr. Wells because of a possible conflict of interest requested Mr. Ed Green to chair the Price's Meadow Subdivision Final Plat issue.

Mr. Michael Gay, Gay Engineering, was present to answer questions. Mr. Davis addressed the Boundary Loline Adjustment for the Hassell Price property that should be reviewed in conjunction with the Price's Meadow Subdivision Plat. He said that Gay Engineering had requested that the road name for the proposed road be Meadow Point Drive.

Discussion followed regarding Steinbeck Road. Mr. Gay stated that Steinbeck is a private road and will be narrowed to a 5-foot walking trail when development is begun. Mr. Gay stated that an easement would be dedicated. Mr. Alcorn said all information pertaining to the walking trail; easement and access should be provided on the subdivision plat. Mr. Daub asked if any drainage easement was necessary due to the slope of the land? Mr. Gay stated that the drainage easement would be dedicated on the other plat to connect to a natural watercourse. Further discussion followed.

1)Add easement for common area pathway (to be old Steinbeck Rd) through to Harding on both the Boundary line adjustment/Minor plat and the Major Plat.

2)Add the street name to the Major plat.

The Commission entered into Work Session.

Mr. Powers reviewed the 1977, 1983 and current 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Members discussed positive and negative concerns of the present Comprehensive Plan. Based on the discussion, Mr. Powers stated that staff would prepare a draft copy of the comments and bring back to the Regular Planning Commission meeting in February.

+ POSITIVE POINTS

1. Easy to read and understand, not technical
2. Goal/Policy/Strategy (Tab 2) is good way to organize
3. Introduction for each geographic planning area (Tab 3) provides a good summary
4. Citizen input process (110 people) was a good one
5. Plan is flexible to use, not too much detail

- NEGATIVE POINTS

1. Easy to misinterpret, statements mean different things to different people
2. County does not following Plan
3. Plan is not tied to zoning, the two don't work together
4. Planning elements (Tab 2) are not useful, geographic focus most useful
5. Need more specific definition of urban and rural expansion areas
6. Detailed maps need to reflect reality of current land uses, anticipated land use (within a realistic timeframe)
7. Need 5 year overlays

? INTERESTING POINTS

1. Plan that integrates schools, water & sewer, economic development and roads all in one book, different elements of the Plan need to work together
2. Integrate with Plans of adjoining communities
3. Spreadsheet approach, everything is interrelated
4. Pull together all development factors, then show how they interrelate
5. Update cost of services study, residential costs are higher than revenues
6. Look at other counties, what are the mistakes to avoid
7. Incorporate water & sewer plan
8. Integrate with CIP
9. User friendly document
10. Clearly define land use map, avoid misinterpretations
11. Watersheds (New River, Little River, Roanoke River)
12. Explain Plan in the newspapers, more publicity
13. Involve the public, develop process to use
14. Involve specific groups (farm community, Sierra Club, Friends of Riner, homebuilders/realtors, League of Women Voters, Town Planning Commissions, School Board, Ruritan Clubs, fire & rescue, LEPC, Transportation Safety Committee
15. Communities need to start thinking, tap into Kellogg grant committees (B'burg, C'burg, Riner, Elliston/Shawsville, northwest county)
16. Remember viewpoint of other half that never come to work sessions

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.