HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 25 77 PC Minutes-29-
January 25, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
January 25, 1977, 7:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Col. William Washington;
and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mr. Leslie Jones. Other officials present were Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of
Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner;
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman, Board
of Supervisors; and Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Work Session - Discussion with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
Mr. Carr began the discussion stating that ever since Mr. Roosevelt had become
the resident engineer for the Highway Department for this area the Commission has had
the desire to have a discussion with him. He thanked Mr. Roosevelt for his letter.
He asked that Mr. Roosevelt tell the Commission some of the policies of the Highway
Department and thanked him for his recent letter. He pointed out that often the
Commission approves a request "subject to Highway Department approval"; he felt that
such a condition of approval should be clarified and asked for comments on this from
Mr. Roosevelt.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he wished to begin the discussion by referring to
his letter of January 11, 1977. The purpose of the letter had been to get the
attention of the Commission, staff, and Board of Supervisors. Secondly, and more
importantly, the purpose of the letter had been to try to impress upon the Commission
that they, the staff, the Board of Supervisors, and the Virginia Department of Highways
have a responsibility to do the very best job possible within their bounds of authority.
He stated that sometime back, when the intersection at Westfield Road came into
existence, the situation should have been reviewed by the entire group (staff, Board,
Commission, and Virginia Department of Highways). If this (,coup review had taken
place, such things as poor drainage, the minimum 200 foot site distance, etc. would
not have occurred. He feels that if the group does not now plan for the future,
in a few years citizens will question the planning and implementation of plans that are
currently a matter of discussion. Mr. Roosevelt expressed the opinion to the Commission
that any time some regulation is not enforced, it will later be a matter of shame for
all involved.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that on this date he had attended a transportation meeting
that put forth data that there is currently more traffic on Route 29 than should be
at certain hours of the day, specifically the hours when people are traveling to and from
work. The matter is going to get worse. He stated that there are several things that
can be done about this situation: nothing can be done and the matter will just get
progressively worse, there can be a change in policy about development along this route ,
or a means of financing a plan to correct the problem can be arrived at. He felt
that only the people in local government have the power to make such a change.
-30-
is
He said that one of the decisions that must be made hif all responsible parties
want to continue with the existing policy. He stated that the Highway Department
has no power to change the policies of the local jurisdiction, only the local
government does. He stated that the Highway Department can react to the policies
of the local jurisdiction and guide transportation development in relation to
these policies.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission wants to address the question of how to
accomplish what it wants to accomplish. There is concern about the degree of
input necessary from the Commission. He stated that the Commission is learning
that there is more flexibility in the Highway Department than what was originally
thought. The Commission can require more than the minimum requirements set
by the Highway Department and the Highway Department will abide by such recommendations.
The Commission should recommend exactly what it feels is proper, rather than stating
"subject to Highway Department approval." In some cases, only the minimum requirements
are necessary.
Mr. Roosevelt passed out to members of the Commission minimal requirements,
set forth by the Virginia Department of Highways, on commercial entrances. He
stated this is the basic guide used in designing permits for commercial entrances
onto a highway. He stated that these requirements are very low, since they were
drawn up for a state that is composed of predominantly rural roads. These
requirements fall short in urban areas, such as Albemarle County. When the County
directs the Virginia Department of Highways to require something that is more stringent
than these basic requirements, he feels the Highway Department should go along
with the policy of the County. However, he pointed out that if the County is
unwilling to go with the standards of the Highway Department, the Highway Depart-
ment can still require the minimum standards. It was the feeling of Mr. Roosevelt
that the state should not lower its requirements, especially since they are low to
begin with.
There was a discussion among Commission members where several ideas and questions
were brought forth. Some felt that now the Commission knows where the authority lies.
There was a question about cost -sharing, as opposed to each individual bearing the
cost when one is attempting to open a business. It was pointed out that Route 29 North
has been constructed to the highest standards it can within the financial means.
When that road was built, it was adequate, and only development along it has made
it less than desirable and less than what it started as. Some individuals did not
feel it proper for individuals to bear the burden of what should be provided by a
state or federal agency. It was stated that not only is Route 29 a problem, there
are other roads throughout the County that need improvements. The Highway Department
stated that there are no funds available for improvements and it is uncertain when
these funds will be available. Again it was stated that the Commission had been unaware
that it could legally go beyond the minimal requirements of the Highway Department.
Dr. Moore stated that about a decade ago he had tried to interest citizens in such
a concept as the service roads, and he could find no interested parties. The Commission
stated that it needs a better understanding of what the Highway Department feels is
proper along Route 29. The Commission also noted its realization that a problem exists
on Route 29 and something must be done to better the situation. It was suggested that
the Highway Department tell the staff and the Commission what it can require, and
what it recommends beyond these requirements. ( It was pointed out that the
only problem with this is the time factor. ) It was also discussed that the Board,
Commission, staff, and Highway Department all want Route 29 kept as an arterial
road. It was also clarified that if requirements of a site plan are not met by
time the certificate of occupancy is sought, that bonding for incompleted work
-31-
is required. Prior to expiration of that bond, and if an extension of a bond
is requested, the situation is again reviewed by the staff. If more funding
appears to be necessary ( because of inflation of possible construction costs ),
the amount of the bond is increased. If work remains undone after a certain period
of time, the Board will call up a bond and make arrangements to have the work
completed with the reserved funds. It was reiterated that it is difficult to
make certain requirements until the Highway Department has reacted to a proposal.
It was also suggested that a true by-pass around Charlottesville be considered.
The response to this suggestion was that approximately 70% of the traffic on
Route 29 is coming to or going from Charlottesville, and no by-pass will change
this situation.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the possibility of service roads, as a solution
to some of the problems on Route 29, and to be the topic of discussion later in
the meeting, is a concept supported by the Highway Department.
Mr. Gerald Fisher stated that he had come to listen and observe, and pointed
out that though the resolution of intent regarding service roads has been passed
by the Board of Supervisors, the concept had been suggested by the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. Carr thanked Mr. Roosevelt for his time and pointed out that further discussion
should take place in the near future.
The chair deferred action on the minutes of January 18, 1977, until a later date.
Camelot Section III Final Plat:
A motion made by Mr. Gloeckner, and seconded by Mr. Barksdale, to defer action
on this plat until it is reviewed by the Site Plan Technical Review Committee carried
unanimously.
Milton Hills section III Preliminary Plat:
A motion made by Mr. Gloeckner, and seconded by Mr. Barksdale, to defer action
on this plat until it is reviewed by the Site Plan Technical Review Committee carried
unanimously.
Lyon Woods Site Plan Amendment:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the property is located
on the east side of Route 631 ( Old Lynchburg Road), and is zoned A-1 Agricultural.
12.43 acres are involved. The proposal is to amend the Site Plan for six rental units
which which was approved August 19, 1975, subject to:
1. Grading permit, if needed;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance;
3. No approval of subdivision at this time.
ISM
Major changes from the original plan include: a) re -location of entrance
from steep bank to the existing road (originally the applicant did not have an
easement); b) approximately .55 acre to be deed to the adjacent church, for
parking; c) rental units are smaller and clustered into the existing open area.
The woods will not be disturbed.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Dedication of the 25 foot strip from the centerline of Route 631;
2. Approval of this amended site plan will void previous approval.
Mr. Hearn, the applicant, stated by survey, the 25 foot strip has already been
dedicated.
Mrs. Scala read a letter from the office of the County Engineer recommending
that the 100 feet of 16-feet wide driveway be surface treated with at least a prime
and seal treatment over 4 inches of compacted stone. This recommendation was made
due to the rather steep grade in this strip of road. He further recommended that
the 12 foot driveway have a minimum of 4 inches of compacted stone.
Mrs. Scala read a letter of opposition from Mrs. Mabel C. Harlow, and also
read a letter from Mr. Hearn stating reasons for revision of the site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of the 25 foot strip from the centerline of Route 631;
2. Approval of this amended site plan will void previous approval;
3. Grading permit, if needed;
4. Four (4) inches of compacted stone twelve (12) feet wide from the end of
the new hard surface to where the driveway leaves the right-of-way.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Eva Hudson Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the property is located on
an old road on the west side of Route 631 ( Old Lynchburg Road), and is zoned A-1
Agricultural. The proposal is for division of one 2-acre lot, leaving 92.5+ acres
residue. The adjacent owners have granted a non-exclusive easement over the old road.
The staff noted that two 2-acre lots were recently approved on the adjacent Rhodes
property. No conditions of approval are necessary since Health Department written
approval was presented prior to the beginning of the meeting.
Mrs. Graves questioned if there is only access at the corner.
Mrs. Scala replied that is correct. Mr. Gentry gave easement over an existing
road.
Mr. Carr questioned the possibility of further subdivision without Planning
Commission approval.
Mrs. Scala stated that she believes that five -acre lots could be cut off
and recorded without bringing them to the staff or the Commission.
:M19Z
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat as presented. The motion, seconded
by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Miller Land Trust Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, pointing out that the property is located
on the east side of Route 675 (Albemarle Lake Road). The A-1 zoned property is
proposed to be divided into five lots, with a minimum size of 3.12 acres and an average
size of 3.51 acres, on proposed 30' and 50' access easements. Residue acreage is 96.7+
acres. The staff has received a copy of a proposed maintenance agreement for the
easements. There is a note on the plat regarding no further subdivision. The
residue will remain as one parcel. However, the parcel which is physically divided
by the easement contains about three acres. The staff recommended the following
conditions of approval:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Highway Department approval of the entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the dimension at the front of the right-of-way (55')
should be added to the plat.
Mr. Davis E. Garrison, owner of a house directly across the right-of-way ,
expressed concern about auto lights at night. It was established that this will
not be a problem because of a change in the location of the entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the two conditions recommended
by the staff plus the following condition:
3. Addition of one dimension at the front of the right-of-way (55').
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Rosamond Payne Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that this A-1 zoned property
is located on the south side of Route 53 near Nix. The proposal is the division of a
17-acre parcel, leaving 30 acres of residue. It will be served by a proposed 50'
easement across the residue. The applicant also owns adjacent parcel to the west
(Parcel 41). Old Buckeyeland Road as shown on the plat is not travelable. The owner
of the 17 acres will use the 50' easement for access. The staff recommended the
following condition of approval:
1. Health Department approval.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Easement is not dedicated to public use;
3. Change 50' right-of-way to 50' non-exclusive easement.
-34-
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
Elinore R. Brown Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that this A-1 zoned property
is located on an old road in the south side of Route 641 near Burneys. The proposal
is a division of one 2-acre lot, leaving a residue of 19.8+ acres. The lot will
be deeded to a relative for the construction of a single-family dwelling. The
staff stated that Health Department approval has been received and there are no
further recommended conditions of approval.
Mrs. Scala stated that there is one letter of objection from four adjacent
owners. They request that the deed restrictions on this property be the same as
theirs - which Mrs. Scala stated could not be required by the Commission. They
want it known that there is no written easement across this road. Therefore, the
staff recommends some proof of easement.
Mr. Buddy Bolton stated that he feels this is an oldcounty road, and showed
the Commission a series of plats over the last 15 years.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that with the realignment of Route 641, the people of lot 1
had access to the old abandoned road. Therefore, he feels that the road does exist.
Mr. Payne stated that he is not sure that he agrees with this. If this
were an old County ., the fact that it is referred to as an "abandoned road"
means there is no right-of-way. Whether there is easement by prescription is doubtful.
The time element is only sixteen years with this one parcel, and haoes not feel that
there has been enough of a time lapse or that conditions have changed enough to
have a prescriptive easement. He stated that this does not mean that the Commission
cannot approve the plat, but it does mean a lot that is landlocked may be created
by the approval.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if it can be checked if the road is abandoned.
Mr. Payne stated that is the most certain proof, but certainly not the fastest.
Mr. Carr questioned what is next if there is no easement.
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant could be directed to acquire an easement.
Mr. Gloeckner said another alternative would be that the applicant give proof
that he has the right to use the old road.
Mrs. Graves stated that she is concerned about the pipestem down the easement,
though she really doesn't understand it.
Mr. Bolton stated that Mrs. Ragland eventually expects to have the whole acreage.
This division is for initial financing.
Col. Washington felt action should be deferred until the question of 110)
the easement and the 150' pipestem could be solved. He put this into the form
of a motion.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
-35-
Herbert Speasmaker Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that this A-1 zoned property
is located on the north side of Route 743 near Earlysville. The proposal is the division
of one six -acre parcel on a proposed 50' easement (existing road). The applicant
will deed this parcel to his son. There are 43.19+ acres residue. The Zoning
Administrator has asked that this plat be subject to a review of the disturbed land
area by the Zoning Administrator and his soil erosion inspector to determine if a
formal soil erosion control plan shall be required for present and future development.
Mrs. Scala stated that any approval would wiave the frontage requirement and the
odd -shaped lot. The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Note on plat: No further division along this easement without Planning Commission
approval.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the road is essentially finished. Mr. Dick replied
that it is now surfaced with gravel, and is approximately one-half mile in length.
He was uncertain of the width.
Mr. Barksdale quesitoned if most of the erosion problem has been taken care of.
Mr. Dick stated that it has, but Mr.deHooge , adjoining property owner, has some
concern about the amount of water that is coming down on his land. He has a civil
suit pending. As far as soil erosion control is concerned, the Zoning Administrator
feels it has been covered, but feels it should be reviewed in view of this plat.
Mr. Speasmaker stated that the only desire here is to build a residence.
Mr. deHooge objected to the subdivision on the basis of existing soil erosion
damage to his property, and feels that water is being channeled onto his property.
Mr. Dick stated that Mr. deHooge has been trying to eliminate his erosion
problem, which is due largely to the road culvert constructed by the Highway Department.
He also pointed out that the soil on Mr. deHooge's property is conducive to erosion,
according to Mr. Yaeger of the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. deHooge's attorney
alleges this eroision is due to channeling of water by the Highway Department. Mr.
Dick stated that his intent is to make sure that this subdivision will not cause any
more erosion to Mr. deHooge's property than already exists. However, he feels that
the other part of the problem is a civil matter and has no bearing on the action
of the Commission.
Mr. Carr questioned if there should have been a grading permit.
Mr. Barksdale stated that since the Zoning Administrator does not know if the
subdivision will cause a bigger erosion problem, action should be deferred until this
can be established.
Mr. Carr questioned what is before the Commission.
Mr. Tucker stated that the question is the subdivision. Does the Planning
Commission approve it as submitted? Mr. Tucker stated that in his opinion a
pending civil matter should not affect the Commission's review of the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested approving the plat subject to a grading permit, if
needed.
-36-
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the plat be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Note on plat: No further division along this easement without Planning Commission
approval;
3. Grading permit, if needed;
4. Subject to a review of the disturbed land area by the Zoning Administrator and
his soil erosion inspector to determine if a formal soil erosion control plan
shall be required for present and future development.
Col. Washington seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr asked that if a grading permit is needed, is it dictated by what
existed at the start or what exists now.
Mr. Dick replied that he will review the entire situation.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the civil suit takes care of the past and the grading
permit will take care of any potential soil erosion.
Mr. deHooge stated that he felt an easement should have been secured before
any water was channeled.
Mr. Carr pointed out that such an issue is a legal matter.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that Mr. deHooge's protection is that the grading
permit will cover anything that could happen because of the subdivision.
Mr. deHooge felt that individuals should be protected from anything like this.
He stated that he had spoken to the man and told him he would permit water running
into the creek.
Mr. Carr questioned Mr. Dick, stating that if a grading permit is required,
and some corrective measure needs to be taken there, that would have been taken
originally, then that grading permit will speak to that. He asked if that grading
permit will speak to that.
Mr. Dick said that is correct.
Mr. Tucker stated that primarily a grading plan would have to show soil erosion
preventive measures.
Mr. Carr stated the County is not necessarily "wedded" to what has been done there.
That may be the best course of action, but he stated he is not speaking to that.
Mr. Dick stated that what has been done will come under the original soil
erosion provisions that applied at that time. He pointed out that Mr. deHooge
is going to challenge some of those, which he has a right to do. But he stated
that what is going to happen should be looked at and it should be decided if the
soil erosion measures that were implemented were by Mr. Speasmaker were adequate.
Col. Washington stated that for single-family dwellings the state code says
ISYM
less than 10,000 sq. ft. does not require a soil erosion plan.
Mr. Dick stated that no grading permit or soil erosion control plan is
required, but it doesn't exempt one from soil erosion controls, if those become
necessary.
Col. Washington asked if the County's hands are tied to something less than
10,000 sq. ft. He said it seems that it is required if it is 10,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Payne said the limitation in the statute is reflected in the County's ordinance.
It is exactly the same limitation. There is a 10,000 sq. ft. limitation. He stated
that if he understands this case, it does exceed 10,000 sq. ft. The question is
whether this grading was done in the words of the state code "in preparation for
the construction of a single-family house singly built." Now, if was not done
in that connection, and was done in connection with a subdivision, where there is
construction of more than one single-family house, a grading permit should have been
required in the first place. That is one thing the Zoning Administrator is doing
in going back and re-evaluating the situation. Secondly, our ordinance provides that
where there is active erosion going on causing damage to an adjacent property owner,
( and he wished to emphasize that this may not be exactly the same question as
addressed by Mr. deHooge's lawsuit) the property owner is required to be notified
by the Zoning Administrator to correct this problem, and he is required to submit
a plan within a specified time and correct the problem, whether he has done any
grading or not. He stated that it appears that there is some question whether -that orig-
inal grading was exempt or whether it indeed should have had a permit; and secondly,
whether or not it needed a permit in the first place, whether it needs to be reviewed
now in light of the existing erosion that may, or may not, be going on. As far
as less than 10,000 sq. ft. of grading, if it does not cause erosion, the soil erosion
ordinance does not speak to it, and cannot speak to it.
Col. Washington stated that the grading at the entrance seems to be causing the
erosion.
Mr. Payne stated that this is a question for Mr. Dick. He stated that the
Zoning Administrator has stated that he intends to take appropriate action, under
the ordinance. He felt the question here is if it is in the public interest to
permit this subdivision. This subdivision does require two waivers: one is the
lack of proper frontage on a state road and the other is the odd -shaped lot. If the
Commission does not feel it is in the public interest to grant this, in light of the
two variations required by the ordinance, the Commission has the right to turn it down.
But Mr. Payne felt the Commission has the right to rely on the Zoning Administrator
to take care of the erosion problem to the extent the soil erosion ordinance permits
him to do so.
Col. Washington stated that the grading is less than 10,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Payne stated this is not correct, that the grading is taken in aggregate,
in terms of the ordinance. Mr. Payne further stated that he feels the Zoning
Administrator needs to determine if this is all one project and requires a grading
permit.
Mrs. Graves asked if the waivers should not be noted somewhere.
is
Dr. Moore questioned the odd -shaped residue. Mr. Tucker replied that it^the
odd -shaped lot that requires the waiver - that is what he is speaking to.
IKM
Mrs. Graves asked if there were more subdivision on this property,
would that mean a commercial entrance. Then maybe the Highway Department would
be involved and require something better as far as the entrance.
Mr. Tucker stated that can for three or more lots.
Dr. Moore asked if there is some reason for including that subdivision into
that 50 foot easement at the end.
Mrs. Scala stated that the pipestem is 100 feet, so the 50 foot easement is
over the existing road.
Dr. Moore said that there is still a corner there in what he considers to be
the subdivision of the six acres, and it sticks down into that 50' easement.
Mr. Speasmaker stated that the reason the six acres is shaped like this is
that his father wants to leave as much wooded area as possible and stay off the road.
Part of the acreage is practically unbuildable since it slopes down to the creek.
He did not feel it could be used for a building site.
Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Speasmaker is addressing the parcel on the left
as one looks at the plat.
Mr. Carr stated that the plat should be approved with the Commission noting
the exceptions, as suggested by Mrs. Graves. Mr. Carr stated that he could justify
the odd -shaped lot on the basis of its size, and the 100 foot right-of-way exists
there( it is a fee).
Mr. Tucker agreed that this is the case.
Mr. Gloeckner amended his motion to include the waivers. Col. Washington
accepted this amendment.
The motion to approve the subdivision subject to the four conditions plus
the waiver of adequate road frontage and the odd -shaped lot, carried by a vote
of 5-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
The Albemarle County Board of Sueprvisors has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 17-5-8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and Section
18-37(1) of the Albemarle County Code to provide for service roads along
transportation arterials of the County.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report ( see attached sheets ). Through an
aerial photographic display, he explained the proposed service roads, proposed
alternatives, proposed paralled roads, existing and/or proposed third lanes, existing
lights, proposed and existing crossovers, proposed slip ramps to Route 29, and develop-
ment affected by the service roads. The plan he explained began at Hydrualic
Road and ended at Airport Road.
He amended the staff report to read that the width of these proposed service
roads would be twenty-two (22) feet rather than twenty-four (24) feet in width.
Mr. Payne amended the staff report to read Section 17-5-5 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance rather than Section 17-5-10.
-3 9-
January 25, 1977
Amendments to the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
and Zoning Ordinance for provision of Service Roads:
On December 14, 1976, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and
Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance to provide for service roads in
accordance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan or in such instances
where the Planning Commission feels that a proposed development warrants such
a service road.
The Board of Supervisors has requested the staff to review, in particular, the
area along U. S. 29 North from the Charlottesville corporate limits to State
Route 649 - Airport Road. This review was made in order to determine where
service roads are feasible and to provide a cost analysis for construction of
the service roads.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments for providing service roads are as follows:
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ( Site Development Plan Section j
17-5-8 On any site bordering a primary, arterial, or interstate highway, or
adjacent to an existing service road in the State Highway System, or
in any case in which service roads are prescribed to be located according to
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, or in any other _casein which the
Commission determines that the need for such roads is substantially
generated by the proposed development, the developer, shall construct
vehicular travel lanes or driveways, not less than twenty-four _(24) feet in
width, in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 17-5-10 hereof,
which will permit vehicular travel on the site and to and from adjacent
parking areas and adjacent rropertL� provided that, in lieu of providing such
travel lanes or driveways that-z�refFiel`-tiFe3�ie.ula�-aeeess-tee-and-fei-aelaeent
pa3t}ag-areas-ar�eT-acaeer�-pr�'pe`tl , the developer, may dedicate where
necessary, and construct a service road in accordance with existing standards
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for such roads. In
no such event shall the setback requirement be greater if the service road is
dedicated than the setback required without dedication, except that in no event
shall building be constructed closer than thirty (30) feet from the nearest
right-of-way line. Upon satisfactory completion, inspection and application by
the developer, the County shall take the necessary procedural steps to have
such service road accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation for maintenance.
QUlm
Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
Sec. 18-37. General standards of desi
(1) Service_ Drives. On any site bordering a primary, arterial, or interstate
highway, or adjacent to an existing service road in the State Highway System, or in
any case in which_ service roads are prescribed to be located according to the Comprehensive
Plan, or in any other case in which the Commission determines that the need for such
roads is substantially generated by the proposed development, the developer, shall
construct vehicular_ travel lanes or driveways, not less than twenty-four (24) feet in
width, in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 17-5-10 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which will permit vehicular travel on the site and to and from adjacent
arking areas and adjacent property; provided that, in lieu of providing such travel
lanes or driveways that provide vehicular access to and from adjacent parking areas
and adjacent property, the developer, ma-,7 dedicate where necessary, and construct a
service road in accordance with existing_ standards of the Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation for such roads. in no such event shall ti-_e setback requirement
be greater if the service road is dedicated than the setback required without dedication,
except that in no event shall building he constructed closer than thirty (30) feet from
the nearest right-of-way line. Upon satisfactory completion, inspection and application
by the developer, the County shall take the necessary_ procedural steps to have such
service road accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
maintenance.
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the provision of service roads along all arterial
highways and recommends a right-of-way width of 120-160 feet.
- r= servl�e I
4` ,r12' 2' I?—�Zt=sl—Io
I;
r -
1,;�n�
SOURCE: Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, p. 75
The Plan indicates that there are two arterial highways in the County, U. S. 29
( North and South ) and U. S. 250 ( East and I -lest ).
The planning staff has prepared plans for the proposed location of service roads along
U. S. 29 North. These plans indicate those areas where service roads appear to be most
feasible. The service road plan has been prepared on aerial photographs and will be
presented at the public hearings.
-41-
Service Road Cost Analysis
`*W-1 A cost analysis for construction and a typical cross section of the service road
has been prepared by the Department of Engineering. Keep in mind, however, that
these figures do not include the cost of property acquisition, drainage facilities,
nor the cost of grading and seeding.
COST OF SERVICE DRIVE PER FOOT ( ESTIMATE )
1. Pavement $24.00
2. Sidewalk 9.00
3. Curb and Gutter 6.00
$39.00
The Engineering Department has also stated that for a ballpark figure, which would
include drainage facilities, grading and seeding, it was suggested that the total
amount should be doubled or the estimated cost of $80.00 per foot of service drive.
This estimate is for a typical section - Category IV 24 ft. wide
Base: 8" aggregate stone
Surface: 3" B-3 Bit. Conc.
112" S-5 Bit. Conc .
Sidewalk on the outside of service drive
14�-
Curb and gutter on outside of service drive
:: .. -T-Y P I CAL :5 C_ � T1 O rJ `> t.= f' V► U`v I7 (Z t V t�
Iv o VLU
A
ci St)ZVlcz- /Z_G')%D
2 24 P
= v s Z�-_.-----------
v
na:.+wz.vsa+.w�cw-=.n.». 'v-.wr-.{aafi'�sr�� ��.1 1..•l�)ii �� ,- .. �" _.- _ _.... _ _ ��-5-. � � _
r+ TYPICAL.- Sc7CTIOOF Sz7LVIC5v Ic'.0 i''.j� - t� U /�i _/�� 'j•;l ('/i1"ZL �ui'10 3G0'JVI"p�
15A S1 8 N AC.G Qi -GAT '� I.i1Ji' C: I is I F1 CCi►�!t /:< i�:?%
SrJ FnCr 50 B- i?�r. CoNc.
SOTjRCE:. Albemarle County Department of Engineering
-42-
' Cost Estimate _of County's Share in providing Service Drives
(on existing development)
err+'
$756,000 - exclusive of land acquisition, bridges, and contingencies
$5 million for the total cost of construction of Service Drives on U. S. 29 N,
regardless of who constructs the service road
Alternative I - Cost Estimate of County's Share in providing a third lane
(on existing development) - $425,000 @ $50 per linear foot exclusive
of land acquisition and contingencies
Alternative II - Cost Estimate.of providing a By -Pass - $6 million with
4 lanes divided @ $100 per linear foot, exclusive of land acquisition,
bridges and contingencies
All of these estimates are based on today's cost of materials.
r
•
ME
-43-
Transportation Problem of U. S. 29 North is due to:
-Commercial zoning stripping the arterial;
-Numerous curb cuts;
-Existing traffic congestion.
Objective in solving the problem:
-Provision of service drives in order_ to regain U. S. 29's arterial design
capability, i.e., free flowing traffic movement with a minirau;n ,)umber of
lights and cross-overs.
-Provide access to U. S. 29 from the service road at a minimum of 1000 feet.
In discussions with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, it
is their opinion that the service drive's width could be reduced to 22 feet, as
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. We therefore recommend that the travel
lane of the service drive be reduced to 22 feet with curb and gutter and a 4-foot
.wide sidewalk on one side (side adjacent to the development), i.ihe total ;width of
the street - face of curb to face of curb - would be 26 feet.
QEAU
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the parallel roads are necessary to implement
the service road concept.
Mr. Tucker explained that they don't have to be included, though they
do provide another means of access. Service roads will be used quite a bit,
especially in view of all the B-1 property in the area. Putting the residential
traffic back onto the service drives and Route 29 presents much the same problem
as now exists. Some of the reasons are the proposed Michie Drive, and future
development of Branchlands. Michie Drive could tie into a proposed street in Branchlands.
There are other existing streets that the parallel roads could tie into.
Dr. Moore asked if the staff considered eliminating grade crossings anywhere
along, say from the river down to Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Tucker said that they were shown if there were any need for additional
crossovers.
Dr. Moore stated that he was addressing such crossovers as Rio Road and
Greenbrier.
Mr. Tucker asked if what he means is grade separations. He stated that the
staff did not get into that. The staff's thinking is that if service roads were
provided, the intersections could handle themselves. If service roads are done
away with, some sort of grade separation should be considered.
Dr. Moore did not feel that people would be happy to stay on one side of
Route 29 all the time.
Mr. Tucker said that he did not follow the conversation, that there are
places they can make U-turns and get across.
Dr. Moore said that that is at a light.
Mr. Tucker agreed.
Dr. Moore said that would leave a certain number of traffic lines that will
impede flow.
Mr. Tucker said that when that becomes a topic of discussion, that means a
lot more money. Another objective here was to keep the cost down as much as possible.
Dr. Moore said that the cost should be considered, but what is needed in totality
should also be considered. Dr. Moore agreed that a suggestion such as Col. Washington
had made,where a road would leave Route 29 about the railroad line along the reservoir
that eventually finds its way back down to the 29-250 by-pass would be needed.
He felt that the concept presented by the staff is needed, plus some more.
Mr. Tucker said that his objection to a by-pass beginning at the river is that
the area is developed for intensive use out to the river. He felt that another mistake
might be made by building a by-pass too close in.
Dr. Moore felt that this would be needed to serve local traffic, and not be
a non -limited access by-pass. A by-pass might be needed too.
-45-
Mr. Tucker asked if he didn't feel that the roads that are proposed here
to tie into Hydraulic, and with its improvements, might not give the same relief.
Dr. Moore said that something that would skirt by the high school and get
down to Route 250 would be an advantage. Even if it comes out there, it might be
advantageous to have it go out to the river. He pointed out that with the property
zoned as it is, a tremendous amount of development can go in.
Mrs. Graves said that she did not see one other case on the map where business
traffic has been channeled into a residential area except in Berkeley. Berkeley has
an exit and does not have to go onto Route 29.
Mr. Tucker said that the other alternative would be to bring it in at the
intersection and that would create problems.
Mrs. Graves said that Shoppers' World already exists. What is the use of a
service road at that corner.
Mr. Tucker said that the only use would be to get the congestion off one road.
They only have one entrance, and this would force them to use the Berkmar entrance
(existing) which is seldem used. This road she was addressing was put there only
because Dominion already exists. He pointed to other B-1 zoned property which
could be developed adjacent to the street.
Mrs. Graves said that she is not even sure "that you can do it in light
of the court decision." She didn't know if the staff had taken that into consid-
eration. She did not know if it would be a different thing if it were a service
road. An entrance there was denied by the court.
Mr. Tucker stated that was not taken into consideration.
He did point out that no commercial use is being run into the subdivision. It is
just directly adjacent to it. We find ourselves in a position where people talk
about how bad Route 29 is, yet if it has anything to do with, or comes near, their
subdivision, they are not for it. He felt that this was unfair.
Dr. Moore agreed and felt that the "big picture" had to be looked at first,
and then solve some of the details later, if they come up. In order to correct the
situation, he did not see where it was possible not to hurt people someway.
Mrs. Graves felt that it would hurt Woodbrook and Carrsbrook too.
Mr. Carr said that it might hurt, but. it is also going to help.
Mr. Carr then pointed out. that Mr. Tucker and the staff have done a tremendous
amount of work and this plan merely reflects what might be achieved. It is not the
final plat, but shows one method in which the concept might be developed. He has
taken the existing roads, problems, etc. and shown the public what might be done.
Mr. Carr emphasized that the resolution of intent is not to adopt this particular
plan, rather to adopt the concept. He stated that he is interested in the comments
from the public, though he did ask the public not to comment on exactly where
everything is to be located. Prior to receiving public comment, he asked for
comment from the Highway Department.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Highway Department has worked with the staff
and Board of Supervisors on this matter, and as a general statement it supports the
concept.
-46-
Mr. Gloeckner questioned how long this particular concept will solve
the problem, twenty years, or what.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that if this concept is adopted, it will make the
solution of further problems more simple and more economical.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the service road concept is a better solution
than the third lane concept.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that in the long run it is a better concept.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the third lane concept is much cheaper.
At that point Mr. Carr opened the topic to public discussion.
Mr. Jim Hill felt that the traffic problem began many years ago when
I-64 was shifted to the south rather than to the north. He felt that congestion
can be controlled, but this plan would not do that, only make it worse. He suggested
a by-pass to connect Route 250 East with Route 250 West. Mr. Hill also stated that
he does not feel that that adjacent owners, ones with undeveloped B-1 property, should
legally be made to construct his own service road. He suggested that county leaders,
members of the state legislature, plan for a by-pass on one side of the bridge,
to connect Route 250 East and 250 West. Since this is the only way people coming
from the North can enter the city, he suggested a survey on the number of out-of-state
vehicles. Several years ago, at a meeting conducted at Shadwell, the engineer from
the federal government stated that Route 29, as presently constructed, would require
$50 million in funds to correct. He did recognize that there is a problem with
traffic on Route 29 .
Mr. Frank Kessler questioned the Highway Department which of the suggested
alternatives shown on the aerial photographs is their recommendation.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Highway Department supports the concept, but
when it comes to individual locations of the service roads, the Highway Department
will get more involved. He pointed out that the concept is a separated roadway
from Route 29. The map shows several locations of that concept.
Mr. Kessler stated that he realizes this is not a discussion of particulars,
but four years ago his business dedicated 18 feet at the recommendation of the
Highway Department. Later he was informed that the 18 foot dedication was wrong
and at that time this particular Commission asked the Highway Department's representative
what it is that the Highway Department wants. The representative stated that "off the
road was no good, and a third lane was wanted." This Commission asked that that be
recorded. He stated that the Commission had also stated that when anything was done
with his property, he would have to put a third lane in and move the entrance. He
stated that he is prepared to meet this requirement, and having had this experience
he is interested in what is being considered now.
Mr. Carr stated that at one time a third lane was being considered in that
area, in fact one leg of it had been set aside. But that leg was wiped out, mainly
on the recommendation of the Highway Department.
Mr. Bill Edwards stated that everyone agrees that there is a congestion problem
on Route 29, but that the solution recommended by the Highway Department is not a "now"
solution in view of the fact that there are no public funds. He noted that the
Highway Department has stated that it has no funds for A1lbgTMiarle County. He did feel
that there is a "now alleviation" .
-47-
Mr. Edwards feels that one of the biggest problems on Route 29 is left turns. 144)
A left -turn light takes about 45 seconds out of a two minute cycle. If improved
traffic flow on Route 29 is the objective, a plan should be developed to eleminate
the left turns at intersections. However, this will require funds, too. Mr. Hope
of the Highway Department, at a meeting with the Board,
had indicated that there are no funds, but in 25 years all the property
will be developed and there will be service drives and the problem will be solved.
Mr. Edwards does not feel this is the solution. He does not feel that service drives
is the solution unless the Highway Department is committed to assist the County in
securing the funds. He further stated that it is his understanding that the County
does not have the legal authority to build highways - it has to be the Highway Department
He feels this is an exercise in futility, unless there are funds.
Mr. Wendell Wood stated his opposition to service drives, pointing out that they
have not worked anywhere else. He felt that this concept was too late for Route 29.
He pointed out that according to one proposed solution, the service road would
go behind Real Estate III and in Carrsbrookiback yard. He does not feel that the
public will go for that concept. He noted that there is a right-of-way on Route 29.
He also noted the population of the area now, and pointed out that it is just not
going to increase that much. He said that at one time there was a Highway Department
plan that called for Route 29 to be a six -lane highway to the river by 1980. He stated
that by adding a third lane on each side, it does not add a third of the capacity.
He cited the example that when a 2" water line is replaced with a 4" line, the capacity
is not doubled, it is quadrupled. By adding one lane, the road would carry double
the traffic. He suggested widening Route 29 as the solution. Three lanes of traffic
in each direction would make left and right turns relatively simple. Mr. Wood
felt that the traffic count there now is approximately 22,000 vehicles per day.
A third lane would handle approximately 50,000 cars per day. It surely would be
a cheaper solution. Limiting the accesses from Route 29 into businesses may mean
a great deal more travel to arrive at the destination. He felt that this would mean
more congestion. Also Mr. Wood does not feel that the project can be accomplished
for $80 per foot, especially when the terrain is considered, and the fact that bridges
must be built. He suggested that one bridge would cost approximately $1 million,
and two would be called for in this concept. He pointed out that the population in
the area is 80,000. The solution is widening Route 29 and the ultimate solution
would be a by-pass it where it takes off at the airport. That would get through
traffic off Route 29, and then Route 29 could handle local traffic.
Mr. Goode Love felt the solution is a by-pass beginning at the airport,
one going west taking the interchange out at Crozet, and one going east taking
the interchange at Shadwell to the interstate. It would only have to be a two
lane road. That would be money better spent than the service road concept;
if they think that another lane is needed, then we could have three lanes and
the Highway Department ought to put it in rather than the developer. If they
wouldbuy the right-of-way for that by-pass now they would save approximately the
amount of money that is proposed to be spent on the service lane concept.
Mr. Wood questioned the Highway Department about the capacity of a three -lane
road.
Mr. Roosevelt explained that the capacity depends on congestion.
Under ideal conditions, the maximum amount of traffic one lane can handle is
2,000 cars per hour. However, stop lights and entrances into the side of that
road, and cross traffic, the capacity is cut back. The capacity of a lane on
Route 29, as he best remembers, and a maximum capacity at that, is 750 cars
per hour.
I
Capacity for the year 2000 is shown as much less that this, into the range of
500-600 per hour.
Dr. Moore questioned the percentage of local traffic on Route 29.
Mr. Roosevelt, stating that he is quoting from memory, gave 70% as the
amount of traffic that is either coming from or going to Charlottesville.
The figures for the year 2000 showed an increase in overall traffic for the area
(not just Route 29 ) to be 87% higher than it is today. He stated that this is
not the Highway Department's plan; the Highway Department can only go the way
the local jurisdiction wishes to go. If this plan is adopted, the local jurisdiction
adopts it. The Highway Department will do everything in its power to implement
the county's plan.
Mr. Love asked if anyone knows about the time schedule for completing
a road from McIntire Road to Rio Road. He feels this would eliminate a lot of
the congestion.
Mr. Carr said that at one time it had been in the'75-80 plan, but it is
doubtful where it is now.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he has met with the city to discuss the Rio Road/
McIntire Road connection. He feels that the Fashion Mall will drastically affect
the time schedule for this connection, because if the city approves Fashion Mall,
the city will have to use whatever funds it has available to improve the roads
around the mall. That would further delay their portion of the Rio Road/McIntire
Road connection. This would also delay the state's portion of Rio, since one cannot
be built without the other. Without the mall, it appears to be seven years away.
Mr. Gerald Fisher stated that the matter of the Rio Road/ McIntire Road
connection has been a growing matter of concern for the Board of Supervisors.
He stated that the Board has talked to the Highway Department and City Council
to try to raise the priority of this connection in the city. However, that is
number four on the city's list of priorities - of the four roads that need work,
it is the last on their list. He stated that the County Board has asked the
Highway Department to work with the city, doing everything possible to raise
that priority. However, when the Highway Department works with six year plans,
7 years is almost the immediate future. He stated that he also wished to say
to the Commission that this concept of service roads was brought to the Board of
Supervisors by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as being
their recommendation of the best way of the alternatives available, for doing
something about the traffic. problems as they exist on Route 29. Mr. Hope,
from Culpeper, attended two of the Board meetings and made very strong, outspoken
recommendations that it is not only within the County's power to do this, it was
the County's responsibility. With that recommendation, the Board feels that it
must be considered. He stated that is the reason the matter has gone to public
hearing. He again pointed out that this was brought to the Board by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. Hill pointed out that the Highway Department has very little money
and this is a way to alleviate the Highway Department of the cost and get the
property owner to help the Highway Department.
-49-
Mr. Carr stated that there is another side to that issue too;
people live in this community. The time is rapidly moving when communities
have to find some solutions to their own problems. Some of the economics
in this country says that we do that. Mr. Carr further stated that he hopes
this happens. He stated that we all live and earn our livings in this community,
and we should help pay part of the bill.
Mr. Wood said that he feels all should pay their share but that is not to
say that people who own property on Route 29 should pay the cost of highway construction.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the matter is just for discussion - property
on Route 29 will make the owner a return, and perhaps this owner should pay a little
more than someone who lives on the south end of town. Those property owners
have an interest there. Looking at federal and state funding, we should pay some
of those bills, and pay some of our own problems.
Mr. Wood rebutted this by stating that this is a federal highway and not
a road through a subdivision ( which a developer already does ).
Mr. Carr stated that he is talking about building a service road to save
the federal highway. Mr. Carr said that he is not supporting service roads at
this time, he is only thinking about it. He noted that there are many interested
in this matter. Somehow, a way to save Route 29 must be found, so that people
can continue to do business there.
Mr. Hill suggested considering, in the overall schedule, a northern by-pass
Then congestion can be controlled. Again he suggested doing this through the
political bodies. The by-pass could be controlled and kept pretty. The problem
already exists on Route 29, and it will be 6-7 years before any concept can be
followed through with.
Mr. Edwards stated, with respect to Mr. Hill, that the Highway Department's
figures do not support his suggestion. The problem is from our own community.
He questioned how long it will take the Highway Department to secure public funds
to assist in building service roads, instead of putting all the burden on the developers.
Mr. Roosevelt said that it is very difficult to answer that. What determines
the allocation of public funds is what develops in an area to make it one of the
top priorities in Virginia. He also stated that he knows of no funds, nor any that
will later be available, to widen Route 29.
Mr. Wood noted that there are two sections of the road that must be addressed.
One is up to the river on Route 29 North. That is committed today. There is no
way to penalize someone who is trying to develop today. He just does not feel this
concept can work from Charlottesville to the North Rivanna River. Also to be considered
in that area are the physical constraints. The same is true with Route 29 South - there
are just no large tracts of B-1 land that are undeveloped. Once the river is crossed,
the situation changes. Perhaps some plan, such as this concept, could be planned for
that section of Route 29.
Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Wood would agree that a problem now exists in this
area.
Mr. Wood did not view it as a problem as much as a lack of everyone's willingness
to accept reality in what has been happening in the last ten years. No one wants to
accept Route 29 North as being the growth area in this community. If this had been
realized, Route 29 would already be a three lane road on each side and already have
-50-
left and right turn lanes. Three lanes of traffic, plus a right and left turn
lane - 5 lanes of roadway - does not yield a traffic problem. The problem exists
to the point that we haven't addressed it sooner, because nobody wants to.
He said that he just does not believe it is as serious as everyone wants to make it.
Mr. Carr asked him if what he means is that with major refinements, in existing
facilities, that improvements can be made in the utilization of that road.
Mr. Wood said "exactly." He said that he could go a step further, since he
had just learned that only 30% of the traffic is through traffic. After learning
that, a simpler solution would not be a by-pass, but something similar to what
exists coming out of Washington on Route 95: it is what they call bus lanes.
When one gets to the river on Route 29, funnel that traffic by signs into a lane
by themselves, curbed off, and keep them moving through. Put them in the center.
Use the existing lane. That way only one ramp over the interchange would have to
be built. That way no cloverleaf would be needed at Rio Road. The main thing is
to look at the physical restraints and forget the scare tactics.
Mr. Carr stated that he hoped the Commission would not choose to make a decision
on the concept that night. He preferred to keep the public hearing openuntil it
could be put on an upcoming agenda.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that though he would like to think about the concept,
he did like Mr. Love's suggestion: the short term solution of the third lane
and the long term solution of the by-pass ( a two-lane by-pass ), in order to
provide a second north -south access to the City of Charlottesville. He said that
he hates not to look at what will happen twenty-five years from now. He felt that
the by-pass is a necessary planning manuever. But he felt the short term solution
is in the third lane, and probably the left and right turn -lanes as suggested by
Mr. Wood. Mr. Gloeckner said that it seems the service lane is a medium range
solution that doesn't solve the problems now, and will not solve the problems in
the long run. Implementing that makes it a medium range project to begin with.
Mrs. Graves stated that she was sorry that she spoke out of turn earlier.
She said that she does wonder what impact the Charlottsville-Albemarle Transportation
Study has, or if it has any impact, that would affect the County's decision.
She stated that that study group will have public hearings to take their plan to the
public. Mrs. Graves felt that their assumptions might have some affect on the County's
decision.
Mr. Tucker stated that this is the Highway Department's plan for the city and
the urban area of the county. This re -study group will be making recommendations
on what is needed for the next twenty years. Their recommendations are approximately
a year off.
Mrs. David added that they are focused on the year 2000. She stated that
the data being received by this group could be very helpful to the Commission.
Mr. Carr asked that this be made available to the Commission. He suggested
that if the Commission has any information or questions that need review by the
staff this could be submitted to them prior to the next meeting.
-51-
Mr. Barksdale moved that the resolution of intent be deferred until
a later meeting. This motion was seconded by Dr. Moore.
Prior to the vote, the public hearing was scheduled to be continued
until February 8, 1977.
This motion to defer carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
9