Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 22 77 PC Minutes/D/ February 22, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, February 22, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were David Carr, Chairman, loy Barksdale, Col. William R. Washington, Dr. James Moore, Mrs. Joan Graves, ilr. Peter Easter, Mr. Paul Peatross, Mr. Leslie Jones, and Mrs. Opal David, ex-officio. Absent was Kurt Gloeckner. Other officials present were Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning and Carlos Montenegro, Planner. Also present was Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr, Chairman, established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of February 1 and February 8 were approved as submitted. Mr. Jones noted that Mrs. Gloeckner had made his recommended changes in the minutes. Mr. Carr stated that Item E on the agenda, Huntwood Apartments Site Plan on Route 654 has been deferred at the request of the applicant. He stated further that Blue Ridge Forest and Reliance Oil has also been deferred as Mr. Foster, the representative was not yet present. Thurston Preliminary Plat Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report stating that this is a preliminary plat, located on the east side of Route 810 near the intersection of Route 789 and Crozet, zoned A-l. iie stated that this is a proposal to divide parcels totaling 38712 acres into 67 lots, average size 3z+ acres. lie informed the Commission that all the lots will be served by public water with the 6" water line that is presently at Route 810. He stated that the staff has four recommended conditions of approval: 1. State Health Department approval prior to final approval; 2. Albemarle County Service Authority statement of availability of public water; 3. Shared entrances where possible; 4. The setback on Lot 67 should be corrected; 75' from the reservation, rather than 30' shown. Mr. Montenegro noted that the staff recommends the 25' reservation in addition to the 25' dedication on Route 810 from Route 789 North, with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. Airs. Graves stated that she had driven by the site today and stated that she had seen a fresh dirt road there. Mr. Montenegro stated that the road he is referring to is an existing gravel road, that will eventually be Thurston Drive. Mr. Montenegro stated that the only comment that was received from adjacent owners was from Mr. Ray Jones whose property is located across from Route 810. Mr. Jones was under the impression that a realignment of Route 810 had been proposed whereby it would cut through Lots 66, 65, 64. iir. Montenegro stated that he had contacted the Highway Department on this matter and had been informed that these plans are defunct. Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that it has been established that Route 810 will /OZ. remain as it is. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Montenegro where the pipestems are located. Mr. Montenegro stated Lots 25, 40, 41, and 20 and 24(of sorts). Mr. Peatross recommended shared entrances wherever possible. lr. Jones asked if it is possible to further subdivide the pipestem lots. Mr. Montenegro stated that there is a note on the plat: "No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval." Mrs. David suggested that the condition be added that Lots 2 and 60 enter off Thurston Drive. Mr. Carr asked if there was any public comment on this matter. Mike Boggs, the representative, questioned Mr. I-lontenegro and the Commission on the recommendation that joint driveways be located within the subdivision. He stated that this is his only objection; it hasn't been the policy of the Commission in the past to require joint driveways for interior subdivision lots. He noted that most of the driveways have frontages of 250' - 300' , which in many cases will make longer driveways. He concluded that he felt this to be an unfair requirement for interior subdivision streets. Mr. Carr asked how long Thurston Drive is. Mr. Montenegro replied one mile. Mr. Carr then asked Mr. Montenegro how far Thurston Drive is from Melton Place. Mr. Montenegro stated 3/4 mile. Mr. Carr established that a waiver would be required. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Montenegro if the staff feels the shared entrances are highly recommended. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff feels that especially where there is an easement, all lots are preferred to enter off one drive. He noted that there are so many lots on this road, and minimizing the number of entrances as possible, would certainly provide for safer interior streets. Mr. Easter stated that he can understand Mr. Boggs' objections to shared entrances wherever possible and suggested that the staff change the wording on that condition. Mr. Jones said that the wording "wherever possible" is clear enough. Mr. Carr stated that he agreed with Mr. Jones, that driveways have joint entrances "wherever possible". Mr. Carr asked if there was any further public comment on this matter. There was none. Mr. Montenegro recommended that a fifth condition be added: "Corner lots should enter off interior streets. Mr. Peatross questioned that if there is a proposal for a 75' setback and a side street that fronts another street with a 30' setback, is there any way it can be required to front the development on the 75' setback line existing, as opposed to locating the development fronting the 30' setback. Mr. Tucker stated that he believed this could be required if necessary. Mr. Peatross stated that he felt the purpose of the ordinance was being defeated in this and asked Mr. Boggs if there would be any problem in conditioning him to this setback requirement. /0.3 Mr. Boggs stated that he felt the ordinance should be changed, rather than adding conditions to each subdivision plat that is submitted. Mr. Peatross restated his point, that if you have a 30' setback on the side yard, you could use that as the setback line for the house facing the road, and that seems to be inconsistent with the County Ordinance. Mr. Boggs stated that he believed the ordinance is worded that way because many times, two -acre lots are dealt with, and depending on the topography, the setback on both sides could take all the good building area. 11r. Peatross noted that this is where a variance is required. Mr. Carr stated that he agrees and supports the 75' setback on Lots 2 and 60. Mr. Boggs said that he would ask the developer if he is willing to accept the 75' setback requirement for corner lots. Mr. Easter expressed his concern that this curve is one of the most dangerous in Albemarle County. Mr. Jones established that the right-of-way isn't long enough to straighten the curve. Mr. Carr informed the Commission and Staff that the curve will remain; there are no plans in progress to achieve the straightening of this curve, per Mr. Roosevelt, Department of Highways and Transportation. Col. Washington asked if there are any plans for public sewer. Mr. Boggs stated that the developer won't agree to put public sewer in these sized lots, and further that no plans have been made at this time. Col. Washington, addressing the Commission and Staff. stated that there are 200 residential units presently draining into Beaver Creek. He said that this subdivision, with a proposal of 67 lots will be increasing this number by 25%. He expressed his concern that some consideration to the sewer system be given as the dwelling units increase and future lots are proposed. He said that he felt the Health Department should address this issue. Col. Washington asked Mr. Boggs what the expected time frame is for the beginning of construction of this proposal. Mr. Boggs stated that the final plat will be submitted next month, and construction will begin immediately following approval. Mr. Carr suggested that the Staff address the State Water Control Board on this matter for comments on questions that Col. Washington has raised. Mr. Tucker stated that if sewers were provided, they would not be utilized until 1981, and further that the lots will be too costly. He noted that the larger lots would have to be cut down and even then, would probably still be too expensive. Mr. Tucker expressed his opinion that since rural lots of larger size were desired in this area, to put public sewer in would defeat what is trying to be encouraged in this area. Col. Washington suggested that a requirement: for soil erosion measures be made under special conditions regardless of whether an individual construction is proposed or not, and expressed his opinion that this development is included in this category. Mr. Carr said that this will be noted. LIM lD1� Mr. Barksdale recommended approval with the four conditions recommended by the Staff, and with a fifth condition that corner lots enter off interior streets, and a sixth condition that a 75' setback be required on Lots 2 and 60, 38 and 55. Mr. Easter seconded the motion. Mr. Jones noted that condition #3..... shared entrances..... should include internal streets. The motion carried unanimously with discussion that the State Water Control Board be notified of Col. Washington's questions. There were no further comments. Blue Ridge Forest Final Plat Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, informing the Commission that this proposal is located on the north side of Route 660, approximately 12 miles southwest of Earlysville, zoned A-1. This is a proposal to divide eight lots, average size 2.1-acres from an existing 190+ acre parcel. Mr. Montenegro stated that the Staff has some reservations regarding this plat: 1) the division of this land leaves the residue parcel with three pipestems to Route 660 as its only frontage; 2) the applicant has indicated that at least one more lot, lot 8, will be divided. If so, this lot will also be a pipestem off the proposed 50' easement; 3) if the applicant or subsequent buyer of the residue acreage wishes to subdivide the residue to its fullest extent, the 50' driveway easement will not be of sufficient width the Highway Department has stated that 60' is recommended; 4) If there are any future plans to develop the residue, the staff would like to review. Approval of this plat is subject to a waiver of frontage requirement for the residue acreage. Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that the staff has five recommended conditions of approval of this plat: 1. an additional 5' strip be reserved for public use along Route 660, as recommended by the Highway Department; 2. 50' driveway easement to be widened to 60'; 3. the entrance must be relocated to between Lots 5 and 6 for better sight distance; 4. the width of the pipestem in front of Lot 9, leading into the residue acreage, should be narrowed to 25'; 5. add note stating, "No further division along this easement without Planning Commission approval." Mr. Easter asked what the purpose is of narrowing the pipestem. Mr. Montenegro said that if the pipestems were narrowed, more could be added as future development increases. Mr. Jones stated that if the Highway Department's recommendations were followed, this plan would have to be replatted. Mrs. Graves asked if the Highway Department requires a commercial entrance in a case like this. /ds Mr. Montenegro stated that a,commercial entrance will be used. Mr. Coburn stated that the Highway Department will require the commercial entrance. He stated further that the sight distance for the entrance as proposed, is not that much of a problem and possibly could be improved, but that it would be safer and better sight distance could be achieved if the entrance is moved to between Lots 5 and 6. Mrs. Graves noted that if the entrance was moved, the access to Lot 9 would be cut off. Per. Montenegro pointed out that the proposed easement is an existing road. Mr. Foster informed the Commission that this property is presently owned by J. Davidson, who bought the land with the primary intention of using it for grazing land, with the understanding that the lots in front would probably be subdivided. The right-of-way shown is the existing driveway to Lot 9. Mr. Foster stated that if the entrance was backed up to Lots 5 and 6, topographically, any right-of-way that would serve in the future would be interf erred by the ravine that presently lies between Lots 5 and 6. In general, he stated his opinion that it is more logical to leave the entrance as proposed and try to achieve the sight distance recommended by the Highway Department. Mr. Foster further stated that he has objections to the Highway Depart- ment's recommendation to widen the driveway easement to 60'. He stated that he could see no future development in the remainder of this property, as too many streams and lakes feed into this area. He suggested that the Highway Department lower the speed limit so as not to cut the curve. Mr. Peatross asked why the extra 100' between lots 7 and 9 is shown. Mr. Foster stated that he has reserved -this area for planting to protect the driveway. Mr. Jones asked if 100' is necessary. Mr. Foster stated that for future develop- ment, privacy is the main concern. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Coburn if he is prepared to address the issue on the entrance egress/ingress to Route 660. Mr. Coburn stated that the sight distance is not adequate at that location and will not be approved at that location unless the sight distance is improved. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Coburn if the 5' strip reservation is required by the Highway Department. 660. Mr. Coburn stated that it is required, for the completion of improving along Route Mr. Easter asked Mr. Foster why he doesn't want to give up the 5' strip. Mr. Foster stated that it would be costly, and physically and 50' right-of-way is not needed. Mr. Easter expressed his concern on allowing Mr. Foster a waiver on the 50' right- of-way. Mr. heeler pointed out that this is a reservation of 5', not a dedication. Mr. Montenegro noted that the 5' reservation would not affect the size or shape of the lots. Mrs. Graves asked if the Highway Department would only approve an entrance between Lots 5 and 6, would the existing entrance be closed. Mr. Carr stated that it would not be closed, as it is being used at this time. Mr. Tucker stated that if Mr. Foster did stay with the 50' instead of the recommended 60', this may limit further development in the future, but a waiver can be asked for, not that it is the proper thing to do. Mr. Tucker noted that for future development, now is the time to achieve the proper right-of-way. Mr. Easter moved that this item be deferred until the egress/ingress can be observed more extensively. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Reliance Oil Corporation Site Plan Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report stating that this site plan is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive, between Westfield Road and Greenbrier Drive, zoned B-1. On September 19, 1975, the site plan was approved for Westfield Office Retail Complex. This is an amendment to this site plan proposing a two-story office building in the first phase of development; Phase II will add a one-story wing to the building in Phase 1. Phase 1 plan calls for a net office space of 1,770 sq.ft. and a corresponding nine parking spaces, one per 200 sq.ft. of net office space. 11r. Montenegro stated that Reliance Oil Corporation would like to use the building for office space. The staff.recommends five conditions of approval: 1. A complete landscape plan must be submitted; 2. Highway Department approval of the entrance; 3. Location of trash collection facility be noted; 4. Final plat must be approved for the subdivision; 5. Approval of this plan constitutes approval of Phase 1 only. Mr. Montenegro stated that there is a joint entrance serving Virginia Association for Accounting and Reliance Oil Corporation. The entrance is subject to Highway Department approval because it is 27' in width at the right-of-way line, which is undersized. Mrs. Graves said that the parking lot had been excluded, and asked what happened to it. 11r. Montenegro stated that it would be added with future development. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Coburn if the entrance would be approved by the Highway Department. Mr. Coburn stated that a commercial entrance permit will be required. Mr. Montenegro noted that the entrance will be maintained through a joint maintenance agreement. Mr. Carr asked for public comment. Mr. Gelletley stated that he would submit a plat showing what he is selling, in order to determine the maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Foster stated that there is an existing 40' opening curb cut. Mr. Jones moved for approval with the recommended five conditions of approval. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There was no further discussion or comments. /d7 Rio Heights Final Plat Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that this item is located on the southeast corner of Penn Park Lane/Drive and Rio Road, zoned R-2. This is a proposal to divide 12.481-acres into 40 lots, average size 9,500 sq.ft. An additional six lots may be added at the end of the top most cul de sac, at a later date. The proposed lots are to be served by both public water and sewer. Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be served by an access easement; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be served by joint driveways off of Rio Road. Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that the Charlottesville Community Development Department has recommended that Lili Lane be extended through to Penn Park Lane, thus creating double frontage lots along Rio Road. The double frontage lots may be desirable at this location because it would eliminate all new entrances to Rio Road and preserve a very desirable row of pine trees which line Rio Road. Mr. Montenegro further stated that the extension of Lili Lane would also allow Woodhaven traffic which wishes to go west on Route 631, to make a safe right turn at Penn Park Lane as opposed to the more dangerous right turn at Agense Street. It is noted that the Rio Heights traffic which is south bound could avoid the dangerous left turn movement at Penn Park Lane by turning left at Agnese Street. The sight distance looking right on Penn Park Lane is approxi- mately 280'; the Highway Department requires a sight distance of 400'. Mr. Montenegro read a letter from Mr. S.Huja, City Planning Department. Mr. Huja stated that he concurs with the desirability of connecting the proposed Woodmont Street with Lili Lane, however, it is recommended that the lots which front on Rio Road, be made into double frontage lots with access from the new Woodmont Street and no access from Rio Road. Such an arrangment will preserve the traffic carrying capacity on Rio Road by reducing the number of curb cuts. Also the deeper lots which result will allow sufficient room for screening the new lots from the road traffic and noise, thus making them more desirable lots. Mr. Montenegro read a letter from the owner of the proposed property, Mr. 111cKnight. Mr. McKnight asked the Commission to save the white pines which line Rio Road for everyone's advantage. Ile stated that Mrs. McKnight had planted them in 1948 and carried water from town for them. Mr. i%iontenegro informed the Commission of the staff's six recommended conditions of approval: 1. All corner lots should enter off interior streets; 2. Grading Permit is required; 3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; 4. County Engineering and State Highway Department approval; 5. realign Woodmont Drive to connect with Lili Lane; 6. City Department of Community Development approval. Mr. Easter asked if the Commission will save the trees. Mr. 1lontenegro stated that the trees would not be affected and the realignment of Woodmont Drive to connect with Lili Lane would essentially serve as a buffer. However, in the proposed plan, there will be two joint entrances and a 150' decel lane which will eliminate some of the trees. Mrs. Graves asked if this had to go the the City Planning Commission for approval, in addition to the County Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker stated that he wasn't sure if the City could approve this. Mr. Carr asked for public comment. Mr. Boggs stated that it is required by the Highway Department to install a turning lane on Penn Park Lane, 150' decel alne, 150' taper, which will take a few trees. He said that his intentions are to make every effort to save most of the trees in the area. He further stated that the City has recommended that the developer connect Lili Lane creating double frontage lots to Penn Park Lane. The,thru street will have to be brought to higher standards to carry the increased traffic flow to Woodhaven. Mr. Boggs said that the sight distance will be improved by bringing Penn Park Lane into the State system back to their entrance. Mr. Carr asked for public comment and asked the public to state their names for the record. Mr. Tom Forloines stated that he had personally checked the sight distance at the entrance of Agnese Street on Rio Road and found it to be inadequate. He said that cars disappear into a dip, a van would be impossible to see. A representative of Woodhaven, Mr. Harry Fielding, presented a petition to the Commission. 86 out of 87 residents had signed the petition in opposition to the entrance opening to the third lane. He stated that the residents felt this would cause heavy traffic that the road is unequipped to handle. Mr. Carr asked for the petition for the record. Mr. Dudley, a resident of Penn Park Lane,asked the Commission what will be done about the excessive water runoff and drainage problem on Penn Park Lane. Mr. Montenegro stated that the County Engineering Department and the State Highway Department will review the road plans. Mr. Dudley further stated that since Penn Park Lane will have to be brought to State standards to the property line, why can't the road be brought to State standards as far as the City line, since the road is maintained neither by the County or City, in his opinion. Mr. James A. Nunley, resident of Penn Park Lane, stated that in a previous case of a proposed subdivision in 1968, the developer was required by both the governing bodies of the County and City to dedicate the street and give adequate land up to the adjoining property, now proposed; that dedication was made at 50'. Since the development no longer exists, this portion is not maintained by County or City. Further, Mr. McKnight owned from that point all the way back to Rio Road. Prior to the proposed plat, Mr. McKnight sold approximately six acres to B. Crenshaw, creating a section between him and Mr. McKnight's property of approximately 300', which in his opinion, would be the only parcel (having an existing 40' right-of-way) that would not have to be widened to State standards. Mr. Nunley pointed out to the Commission that it should be taken into consideration the traffic problem on this road; that includes the number of school buses and the number of childern that wait for the buses. Mr. Forloines stated that a petition to the school board should be submitted, in his opinion, action will be taken. Mr. Carlton Brooks stated that his property adjoins Lots 1, 16, 17, 18, and 19, and that he objects to this proposal. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Brooks if his property line is the western boundary of Lili Lane. Mr. Brooks stated that it is. Mrs. Schubert, a resident of Rio Road, expressed her opinion that the Pines that line Rio Road should be preserved. Mr. Roosevelt noted for the record that the Highway Department has funding in their six year plan for the improvement of Rio Road. 16? Mr. Nunley stated that the objections that the residents in this area have are generally that the road must be improved before further subdivision occurs. Mr. Boggs noted that the sight distance on the entrances to Lots 1,2,3, and 4 is more than adequate; everything possible is being done to make this subdivision as safe as possible for public travel. Mr. Carr asked the staff why Penn Park lane has not been maintained. Mr. Tucker stated that his staff does not know. Mr. McKnight stated that there is a 20' fee -simple strip that the City owns; there is no one bound to keep the road up, yet the property owners use the strip. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff feels that if traffic were to be routed with through street, safer movements at the intersection would result; Lili Lane is fully developed to the City line, with sidewalks. Mr. Jones asked if the City Planning Department is acting on this proposal as partially their responsibility. Mr. Tucker stated that any subdivision plats within one mile of the corporate limit must also be approved by the City as is this case, and if the City disagrees, it will come back before the County Planning Commission for final decision. Mrs. Graves stated that the mile jurisdiction is given so that the roads will match up. Mr. Carr stated that in principal, the roads should match. Mr. Jones asked where the City and County differ in their opinions on this matter. Mr. Tucker stated that both governing bodies agree that the through street should be maintained. Mr. Keeler stated that if the road is approved without the connection to Lili Lane, it will require a waiver of ordinance. Mr. Easter stated that he cannot see that the connecting of these two streets will be in the best interest of the residents in this area. He stated that in his opinion, the improvement of Penn Park Lane will help the situation. He asked Mr. Payne if anything can be done by the County to enforce the State maintenance of Penn Park Lane. Mr. Tucker stated that the County and the City should make a joint statement of recommendation to the Board. Mr. Carr noted for the record that the County Service Authority now has owner- ship of the 20' strip. Mr. Payne stated that he agrees with Mr. Tucker's recommendation that this be brought before the Board. Mr. Peatross asked for the Highway Department comments. Mr. Coburn stated that he had met with the County Engineer and examined the location of the turn lane that would be required on Rio Road. Penn Park Lane will have to be brought to State standards and the site distance at the intersection will have to be improved. He stated that this could be done by grading. //D Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Coburn if any studies had been made to the additional traffic on Agnese Street. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he had received a request to ban left turns at the corner of Agnese and Rio Road. He stated that he had checked with the Division of Motor Vehicles for reported accidents at this location and none had been reported in the last two years. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Roosevelt if the sight distance to the north can be corrected. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he believes it can be improved. Mr. Coburn stated that perhaps the dip could be filled. Mr. Forloines stated that he proposes to raise the dip, thus creating 100' improvement of sight distance at this location. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Coburn if the sight distance is measured at 400' and the cars drop below that in the dip, will 400' still be adequate. Mr. Coburn stated that it would be. Mr. Easter moved that this plat be approved with the exception of the realignment of Woodmont Drive to connect with Lili Lane, and that Penn Park Lane be brought to State standards per recommendation to the Board. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried 7-1, Mr. Jones disenting. There was no further discussion. PUBLIC HEARING - SERVICE ROAD CONCEPT 9 Mr. Tucker presented the staff report stating that the staff has attempted to study the service road concept in areas outside the community, in Northern Virginia and the Tidewater area, where service roads exist, and to get an opinion from the transportation planners and traffic engineers on the service road concept. Invariably, all opinions seem to be basically the same, that the service road can be a meaningful tool, but not necessarily the answer. Their recommendation and suggestion was that service roads will not relieve the existing congestion on Route 29, a third lane must be installed. Mr. Tucker stated that there will be a problem in requiring service roads by individual property owners on a piece meal basis; the road may deteriorate before it can be tied in and actually utilized, requiring further upgrading. If there are no extensive plans for the service roads, there will be problems where the service roads will not actually tie in properly The overall concensus of the professionals surveyed is that it is not advisable to develop service roads where congestion already exists, as does on Route 29 without first relieving the existing congestion. The congestion will not be relieved by the service roads, appreciably, unless other measures such as the construction of a third lane in the medium of Route 29, are taken in conjunction with the construction of service roads 6r the installation or coordination of progessive traffic lights on Route 29, or the construction of grade separated intersections which are now regulated only by traffic lights. Mr. Tucker further stated that as development occurs, the construction of parallel or complimentary roads will begin, which will collect residential trips and deliver them past the congested corridor. Mr. Tucker stated that the construction of a by-pass would even further relieve congestion and is proposed for the year 2000. The majority opinion to relieve congestion is the construction of a third lane in the medium of Route 29 and coordinated light signals k that will result in a more controlled intersection. He stated that the construction of the service roads will compliment the Route 29N facility in the middle future and the construction of grade separated intersections and a by-pass would serve in the distant future, parallel roads will be constructed as development occurs along their path, and will compliment Route 29 in relieving it of commuter traffic. Mr. Tucker called the Commission's attention to the time table in the staff report for proposals of beginning construction for a third lane on Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to the Rivanna River. He stated that in 1981, the construction of service roads will begin, but on a piece meal basis, it is the opinion of the profes- sionals, that service roads would be useless. By 1995, the construction of grade separated intersections will begin, by the year 2000, if it is deemed necessary, the construction of a by-pass will begin. Generally, if it is intended to make Route 29 an arterial road, a limited access highway, the provision of service roads, grade separated intersections and an additional lane will be necessary. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Tucker what the cost would be in coordinating the signal lights on Route 29. Mr. Roosevelt interrupted, stating that there is no way that signals can be coordinated on a two-way roadway that would make the roadway as if the signals weren't there. In order to do this, the coordination would have to based on the heaviest side road volumes, in this case Hydraulic Road, which would mean further up the system, the traffic would be stopped for no reason. Mr. Roosevelt advised the Commission that a coordinated light system would not make the traffic move any smoother than it does now. Mr. Tucker pointed out the reason for this is that there are no+ enough lights on Route 29. Mr. Montenegro stated that service roads alone will not significantly relieve the congestion problem; the third lane , with timing of lights, etc. will increase the capacity of the facility by 50-60%, according to various traffic engineering sources. Mr. Roosevelt further stated that there are far more important needs than funds available to fill them. He said that in 1972, a 10-year plan was adopted for the primary system for which Route 29 is a part. However, Route 29 in the vicinity of Charlottesville was not included in the 10-year plan, as it wasn't anticipated at that time that major improvements would be necessary. Mr. Roosevelt informed the Commission that until the current plan is either changed or a new plan is adopted, there are no major funds available for this project. Dr. Moore asked if the Highway Department has any position as to cutting into the medium strip. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the situation would have to be reviewed. Mr. Carr asked the Commission if they have the information necessary to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in reference to this matter. Mrs. Graves stated that Route 29 is the major study, but this concept speaks to all primary arterial roads in the County. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff has noted that there are other roads that need improvements in the County, however, the emphasis for now is on Route 29. Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a matter of adopting a concept not a plan. Mr. Carr agreed, stating that a schedule must be set and adopted, pursued and changed as progression occurs. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Tucker if this item could be deferred to a later meeting. It was decided that this item would be heard again in the Board Room, March 8, 1977 from 5:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. SOIL EROSION FEES - Continued Public Hearing Mr. Tucker stated that the staff's recommendation is to repeal these two ordinances; the additional fee cannot be required, and in his opinion, is illegal. Mr. Barksdale moved that these items be repealed. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. MINK CREEK DAM PROJECT - Compliance with Comprehensive Mr. Tucker stated that before the Zoning Administrator will allow grading, indication from the Planning Commission that this project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, must be given, which in the staff's opinion, it is in compliance. Mr. Barksdale made the motion to that effect. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. There was no further discussion. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.