Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 08 77 PC Minutes�S N February 8, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, February 8, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Leslie Jones; Paul Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were David Carr, Chairman,and Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman. Other officials present were Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. In the absence of the chairman and vice-chairman, Mr. Barksdale presided. He established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of January 18, 1977: The chairman approved the minutes of January 18, 1977, noting that changes had been suggested by Mr. Jones to the recording secretary prior to this meeting. Minutes of January 25, 1977: These minutes were approved as submitted. Mr. Tucker asked that the Commission act on the written request of Elizabeth Washington to accept the withdrawal without prejudice of applications ZTA-76-11 and SP-97-76. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the request for withdrawal be accepted for both applications Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. RULES OF PROCEDURE: Mr. Tucker stated that he had mailed to members of the Commission what he felt basically follow the format drafted by the County Attorney's office for the Board of Supervisors. He stated that he had also sent to the Commission a copy of the memo from Mary Joy Scala to him regarding suggestions for rules for the Site Plan Review Committee. He stated that these are procedures they wish to follow for handling their meetings. Mr. Tucker stated that he would briefly go through the revision of rules for the Commission that Mr. Payne had suggested. One substantative change was an update of the "Executive or Closed Meeting" section. An addition was "Recission of Prior Actions of the Commission." Mr. Tucker also noted that Mr. Payne had suggested the addition of "Amendment and Suspension of Rules or Procedure" and "Records of the Commission." Mrs. Graves stated that she wished to address "Motion to Reconsider." It was decided that each item of the rules would be discussed individually. Nei After this discussion, it was agreed by the Commission that under Section IV OFFICIAL ACTION OF THE COMMISSION, item (a) would be amended to include "polling of votes may be requested by any Planning Commission member." Section V AMENDMENT AND SUSPENSION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE was amended to read "By a two-thirds majority vote of the present members voting, these rules may be suspended as to any matter pending before the Commission." No action was taken on the Rules of Procedure for the Planning Commission in order that they could be properly amended and resubmitted to the members at the earliest possible date. Mr. Tucker reviewed the suggestions.for rules for the Site Plan Review Committee, noting that Number 1 had already been officially adopted by the Commission - this states that "if an applicant or his representative is not present, his application will be deferred to the next regular meeting." The remaining rules suggested by the members were: 2. If a member of the Committee is not present (Planning, Health, Highway, Engineering, Service Authority, Fire Marshal) it shall be his responsibility to get his comments to each applicant and to the Planning Staff in time for the application to proceed as ususal to the Planning Commission; 3. Minutes of each meeting shall be recorded and approved by the six regular Committee members; 4. No public input shall be received at this meeting. However, the meeting shall be open to the public; 5. A representative of the Planning Department shall chair the meeting. There was discussion relating to the fact that adjacent owners are not notified of the Site Plan Review Meeting. Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that they are notified only of the Commission meeting, though there is usually a notice in the newspaper stating the date, time, meeting place, and items to be considered of the Site Plan Review Committee. The staff was instructed to notify adjoining property owners of the meetings of the Site Plan Review Committee, but point out that there would be no public input at these meetings. ( This was to be in addition to the notification of the Commission date for consideration of an application.) Mr. Peatross moved approval of the five suggestions submitted by the Site Plan Review Committee for their Rules of Procedure; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Service Road Concept: Mr. Tucker stated that at the work session the previous week there had been some questions raised by members of the Commission: 1. What improvement will a third lane give to Route 29? 2. What improvement will synchronization of traffic lights do for improving the volume of improving traffic, etc.? 3. Consider a bypass as a long range plan around the urban area of Charlottesville. M Mr. Jones said that he wished to again address the fact that nothing is being done by the Highway Dpeartment to upgrade roads in any area of the County other than the north side. Furthermore, nothing is being done to improve sewer and water facilities in eastern, southern, and western sections of the County. This lack of roads and facilities in these areas is one of the major reasons for congestion in the northern section. Dr. Moore said that there were some problems that had been discussed that he would like to bring up at a later date for consideration, those such as water. Mr. Montenegro addressed the Commission, stating that he wished to begin with some of the conclusions he had drawn in the study. One of the major findings was that on Route 29 North, the County has been looking into the possibility of adding a third lane either in the median or on the outside. If a third lane is added, and two more lights are added between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, the flow of traffic can be significantly increased through that section. This would mean that the traffic lights would have to be properly timed in a sequential fashion for peak hour time periods. This is the main finding the Commission should concern itself with. He said that he had supporting figures for increase per lane. Mr. Montenegro said that if a third lane is added in conjunction with these lights, the capacity of the roadway at peak hours will be well in hand up to approximately the year 2000. The CATS Study finds that by the year 2000 there will be approximately 65,000 vehicles per day. Hydraulic Road, the bottleneck, at peak hours would be controlled with a third lane if there were proper timing of the lights. Assuming that the shopping center goes where it is proposed, Mr. Montenegro pointed where one light would be necessary ( this is in the area of the proposed Fashion Mall ). The other light would be necessary at Branchlands. If these lights and the others were sychronized, the traffic could flow at a steady rate of 45 miles per hour all the way to Rio Road. If the speed limit is decreased, the flow of traffic can be increased (again assuming that the lights are synchronized).. Adding the third lane, whether on the outside or in the median, would increase the traffic by approximately 1,500 to 1,800 cars per hour at the peak hour - that is an approximate 50% increase. He said that researchers at the Highway Research Council had stated that each additional lane usually means 50-60% increase in the amount of traffic that can be handled. There would be somewhat of a problem at Hydraulic, the bottleneck, but even service roads would not help that problem. As Hydrualic is improved, making it four lanes travel- ing west, the volume of traffic can be increased some without impeding flow. He said that a 90 second cycle for lights is being assumed. One of the problems now is that lights are too far apart to put them into sequential order. Dr. Moore said that he is really surprised by this data, since he had been under the impression that the roadway is already 50% overloaded. He said that once the timed light proposal is overloaded just a little, it fails. Mr. Montenegro said that the problem would arise if the lights are too far apart. Also for the proposal to work as it is supposed to work, the lights have to be in conjunction with the third lane. If this is the only thing that is done until the year 2000, the roadway will be overloaded then, too, but not by as much as it is now. However, if the bypass is added as well, it will not be overloaded. Complementary roads will take traffic off Route 29. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the light at Fashion Mall is almost inevitable, anyway. Mr. Montenegro agreed. Mr Mr. Tucker felt that the complementary roads would be just as important as a bypass, perhaps even more so in the short range. The residential uses already provide 30% of the volume on Route 29. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Highway Department insinuated if the service roads are adopted, will be traffic lights be done away with or remain. Mr. Tucker said that they would still be at the major intersections. Mr. Gloeckner said that by definition, then, an arterial would not exist. Mr. Tucker explained that if the residential traffic and other traffic, as defined by the data presented at the work session, is removed, then Route 29 will be opened up a great deal; it tends to approach an arterial route again. Dr. Moore asked Mr. Montenegro if the 50-60% increase in traffic he had spoken to earlier discounted any use of that third lane for acceleration and deceleration. Mr. Montenegro agreed this is correct, that it would have to be three lanes of through traffic. Mr. Jones addressed the left turns affect on free -flow. Mr. Montenegro stated that the left turn lanes can be controlled through the traffic lights, having little affect on the free flow. The only place traffic might back up because of left turns would be at Shoppers World. An additional 15 seconds could be allowed for the left turns from the northbound lane, and this light would come on at the same time/the light for cars proceeding northward. Mr. Tucker stated that if the third lane concept is decided upon, it should be with the the addition of decel lanes and accel lanes. Originally the third lane was to serve as the decel and accel lane. As development occurrred, this would become the third lane. It was noted that the third lane for the north and southbound sections would be built in the median, and the decel and accel lanes would be required on the sides ( what is currently being required ). Mr. Barksdale asked if the staff would consider the cost of what has just been discussed and pass this on to the Commission at a future meeting. He wanted this compared to the cost of the service road concept. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this should consider that the developers will build the decel lanes. That means no land acquisiton. Mr. Gloeckner also stated that construction costs would be approximately $50-$60 per foot. Mrs. Graves asked if the federal government would not have to approve this concept if federal funds were used. She also asked at what point they should become involved. Mr. Tucker said that this would be handled through the state. Mr. Montenegro said that the addition of the third lane in the median would cost approximately $15 per linear foot per lane. Since a third lane on the outside would require more grading, it would cost approximately $30 per linear foot per lane M This translates into a figure of approximately $80,000 per mile per lane in the inside, or $158,000 per mile, both lanes. If on the outside, $320-350,000, depending on the grading. There would be grading only in some areas for the median. It is approximately 3-4 miles from Hydrualic Road to the river. The figures for the outside do not include lane acquisition. Mr. Tucker said that there might not be any acquisition necessary because of the right- of-way. Col. Washington questioned if this would be the case for some service stations. Mr. Tucker replied that there are two stations that would be close. Mr. Montenegro stated that two-lane bridges over the river would cost approximately $500,000 apiece, and the lanes in the median would cost approximately $1 million. Mr. Gloeckner stated that bridges might not even be necessary if there is to be a future bypass. When questioned about the service roads, Mr. Tucker stated that if they are taken to Airport Road, they would cost approximately $5 million; since the river is approximately half the distance, it would cost approximately $2.5 million to have them that far. Mr. Montenegro stated, that in considering a rough concept of a bypass(running it inside the Rivanna River, and perhaps even building a bridge on the reservoir, running it around Route 743 near Shack Mountain, and align it with Route 29-250 bypass), and if it were a four -lane bypass, it would cost approximately $1-1.2 million per mile. Bridges would add an additional $1 million. It would be approximately 6 miles in length and would cost approximately $8.2 million. cost Mr. Montenegro said that a two-lane bypass would / approximately $30 for pavement plus $30 for grading per foot. This works out to $120,000 per mile, plus $500,000 per bridge. It would probably be a little less than half the cost of the four -lane bypass because it would require less grading. It would cost approximately $320,000 per mile plus $500,000 for the bridge. Mr. Gloeckner said that the bridge that exists now could be used, rather than building another. An interchange could be made with the Earlysville road. Mr. Montenegro stated that none of these figures include land acquisition. Mr. Gloeckner asked how much mileage would be saved by keeping it on this side of the river. Mr. Montenegro said that it would be difficult to run it in too close because of Routes 631 and 743, also because of so much land that is developable or already developed. Thus only one mile would be saved. Mr. Barksdale pointed out that a bridge would be saved, though. Mr. Montenegro then pointed out that there might be higher acquisition costs. Mr. Peatross asked how much traffic from Route 29 North would be alleviated with the bypass. Mr. Montenegro replied congestion would be alleviated of approximately 5,000 cars per day, or approximately 300. a Mr. Tucker said that it would not be that beneficial until the year 2000, but now would be the time to begin such a plan, especially the land acquisition. Col. Washington stated that if there is an option, especially for through traffic, not just considering local traffic, it will be ;taken. Dr. Moore said that in rush hours he had thought that according to the Highway Department, there is less than 30% through traffic; it is more like 10%. He said that is why he agrees with Col. Washington, that something is needed to pick up some of the local traffic. Mr. Montenegro agreed that it would help the trucks, which cause a lot of congestion. Trucks would ruin sequential lighting on Route 29. It was again pointed out by Mr. Gloeckner that the $5 million mentioned for service roads did not include land acquisition. Mr. Gloeckner quesitoned the target date for the parallel, or complementary, roads. Mr. Tucker stated that this would be as development occurs, to tie them together. It this could be done immediately, a tremendous change in Route 29 would be seen. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the bypass would mean the end of future commercial development for that end of the county. High density could go within that area, and there would be a good chance to zone everything else in the County A-1, with logic behind it. Mr. Tucker said that the bypass would definitely have to be limited access. Dr. Moore felt that there might be pressure for commercial and high density zoning at the interchanges. There was a brief discussion about what had been recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and what had been policy, but noted that nothing had really been written down about what would be required. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the staff would forward to them figures which had been quoted during the evening's discussion. Since there was no further business, the m i1410)?ng ad'our. d. bert W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec ary