Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 08 77 PC MinutesMarch 8, 1977 WORK SESSION The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session to further consider the service road concept on Tuesday, March 8, 1977, 5:30 p.m., County Executive's Conference Room, Fourth Floor, County Office Building. Those members present were David Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Paul Peatross; Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Robert Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Carr stated that the purpose of the work session is to further discuss the Route 29 North corridor to hopefully reach some conclusion and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. He said that he hoped that all had read the letter of March 2, 1977, from Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Highway Department. Dr. Moore said that in his opinion the matter is somewhat service road concept vs third lane concept. He personally did not want to give up the median since it serves the public aesthetically, and therefore, this was one of the reasons he felt the third lane concept is not good. He felt that three lanes and acceleration and deceleration lanes do not solve any kind of problem. This is not a city street, but if it were it would be logical to have many more crossovers. Mr. Carr asked what Dr. Moore defined as the third lane concept. Dr. Moore replied he considers the third lane concept to mean the third lanes will be built on the inside median and acceleration lanes will be built on the outside. Dr. Moore further stated that he agrees with the concepts in Mr. Roosevelt's letter. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the amount of time necessary to have a satisfactory solution from the service roads. He felt that a more immediate solution was necessary than them. He agreed with Dr. Moore that aesthetically the service roads are more pleasing, but they may alleviate no problems for 25-30 years. Dr. Moore also stated that he felt the Commission should recommend to the Board of Supervisors they investigate several methods of financing the service roads, whether it is money from the federal government, or whatever, and let the money be paid back as development occurs. Mr. Barksdale asked if someone owns a piece of land, does not develop it until later, and during the meantime the service roads are built, would the developer have to repay the county the money spent on service roads along his property when he did choose to develop it. Mr. Payne said that he did not think so, that he knows of no state law which would permit this. He did note for the benefit of the Commission that he has previously suggested some alternative means of financing. Mr. Easter stated that not all the federal money has to come through the state, as in the case of revenue sharing. Mr. Payne said that in this case it is paid directly to the County, though there may be federal regulations on how it is allocated. He again mentioned the closest iz7 thing to assessgent ( which one Commissioner had mentioned ) is a district road tax. He said that he did wish to point out to the Commission that he is not recommending this district road tax one way or the other. However, Route 29 North does fall within one magisterial district. Mr. Barksdale felt that whatever is done to alleviate the problem on Route 29 North, it should be done within the next five years, and the third lane concept seems more feasible. Mr. Tucker said that the problem with any of the solutions seems to be the money. Mr. Gloeckner reminded the Commission that with service roads, not only must construction costs be considered, one must consider the cost of land acquistion. He felt this would be a difficult matter, and that because of probable court cases, it might be years before anything can be done. Mr. Barksdale said that the county would construct service roads only on land that is already developed, and other roads would not be built until the land is developer Mr. Gloeckner said that the worst part of the service road concept is the time element necessary to achieve any success with them. Col. Washington questioned the definition of an arterial highway. Mr. Roosevelt explained this. Col. Washington then stated that he cannot see any high speed traveling without grade separations and limited access. He said that in his opinion Route 29 North is already an urban street, and would eventually become Main Street Albemarle, if it isn't already. 4004 Mr. Carr said that he was inclined to agree with that point. an Mr. Roosevelt said that there really is not/immediate solution. Neither are there funds available for the improvement of Route 29 in this area, now or in the foreseeable future. Since most of the traffic on that road is coming into, or going from, Charlottesville, the Highway Department feels that any increase in the number of entrances onto Route 29 means additional congestion, and a bypass would therefore not be that beneficial. He cited the figure once again that only 30% of the traffic on Route 29 North is through -traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said that the third lane concept will allow more traffic on that route, however congestion will not be reduced because the number of entrances onto Route 29 North will not be decreased. In addition to this, the additional lanes will afford no more relief than the existing lanes because of future traffic projections. Mr. Roosevelt did feel that service roads would be a solution, since access to Route 29 would be permitted through the service roads and permit service to adjacent properties. He said that when funding becomes available, the third lane concept, additional lanes, synchronized lights, and others, including the bypass, are reasonable improvements. He urged the Commission to decide if the County wants Route 29 to remain an arterial, or if it wants Route 29 to become a city street. Mr. Roosevelt also noted that since no public.financing is apparently to be available in the near future; he does not believe that one of the alternatives for funding is the use of revenue sharing funds for road construction. He said that he cannot imagine the citizens of the County permitting the Board of Supervisor to use the revenue sharing funds for highways, thus delaying other services it has already provided for with the revenue sharing funds ( those such as parks, libraries, etc.) M NR M He said that he hopes that Route 29 will not continue as it is, becoming more congested, until highway funds are available to correct the problem. He also pointed out to the Commission that the decision the County is shortly to make determines the options the Highway Department will have at a later date when funds do become available. He wished to note again that as long as access onto Route 29 is uncontrolled, there will be the same problems in the future as now exist, regardless of the number of lanes of roadway. He said that a by-pass might need to be considered, but probably by the time the County gets to that point, property will be developed or land will be beyond reason in price. He said that he once again wished to state that the recommendation the Highway Department makes to the County is the service road concept, though he did point out that the County may have a different intent for Route 29. Mr. Easter questioned the traffic situtation at K-Mart. Mr. Roosevelt stated that from 1965-1975 it has increased 15,000-30,000. When questioned about the capacity of the road, Mr. Roosevelt stated that ideally one lane should carry 2,000 cars per hour ( he cited I-64 as an example ). Route 29 North has a maximum capacity of 750 vehicles per hour per lane. Mr. Gloeckner stated that if this is the case a by-pass is certainly necessary. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Highway Department favors the service roads because the Highway Department could use Route 29 as a four or six lane road with controlled access. Mr. Gloeckner stated that any money available to the County or any means of financing any sort of solution should be applied to purchasing land for a by-pass now, while land is not developed and while it is within reason. The County should decide the location of the by-pass. That way the by-pass can become the arterial and Route 29 can become downtown Albemarle. Interim solutions could be a waste of money. Mrs. Graves questioned Mr. Tucker about any information the staff has received from the Planning Office for the Virginia Department of Highways in Richmond. She stated that they are doing a study of Route 29 at Fashion Mall. Perhaps they would have some recommendations for funding that the County is not aware of. She was concerned about the time the Commission had to act on the resolution of intent before it had to be moved on to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that if Fashion Mall is approved there will be nothing that can be done to prevent Route 29 North from becoming a city street overnight. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the study Mrs. Graves is referring to has already been in the works. The Highway Department has been working with the City and County formulating transportation plans for roads extending to Earlysville. The entire plan may take as long as two years to complete, however the study around the proposed Fashion Mall is a priority now. Some sort of recommendation for this area is to be completed in the next thirty days. He further pointed out that the traffic project- ion for the year 2000 has already been done, minus the impact of this project. According to that projection, there will be 64,900 cars per day using Route 29. If the road is doubled in width, there will still be the same amount of traffic to accommodate. And if the third lane concept is employed, he felt by 2000 there will be the same problem with eight lanes as exists today. /Z? He further stated that if the service lane concept is adopted, the Highway Department can control accesses onto Route 29, and thus achieve increased flow. Dr. Moore pointed out that it is the hope of every developer to draw traffic down Route 29 The Commission briefly discussed postponing any action at the regular meeting until some sort of information is received from the Richmond Planning Office of the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt once again voiced his concerns of earlier in the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 with the chairman noting that the discussion would continue at the regular meeting that night. Mr. Carr advised the Commission that it appears the first decision is if the County wants Route 29 to remain the arterial or if it wishes this route to become a city street. 9 liv March 8, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, March 8, 1977, to consider a series of public hearings. The 7:30 P.M. meeting was held in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent was Paul Peatross. Other officials present were Robert Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The chairman established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. ZMA-77-02. David Breeden has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 403.7 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-2 Residential. Property is located on the west side of Route 20 South, approximately 2.6 miles south of Charlottesville, Virginia. County Tax Map 90, Parcel 6, part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District. At the request of the applicant, Mr. Barksdale moved the public hearing and any action on the request be deferred for approximately one month. This motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously, with no discussion. Minutes of February 15, 1977, and March 1, 1977, were approved as submitted. ZTA-77-01. George W. Clark has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for abbatoir in the A-1 Agricultural Zone as a use by special permit. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the applicant has not made application for a special permit, though the intent is obviously there. This is. only a request to amend the ordinance. Mr. Pickford, representing the applicant, stated that there are only 2-3 areas in the County zoned M-2, and they are currently in use. He stated that this applicant owns approximately 90 acres. He felt that this use is in line with the intent of the agricultural zone and since there are currently no slaughter houses in Albemarle County this would provide another available service in the County. Dr. Keith Neer, with the Animal Science Department at VPI, presented a slide presentation of one existing abbatoir in the western part of the state. He noted that he has no particular interest in this matter other than from an information stand- point. Prior to 1965, concerns regarding the operation of such facilities were well justified. Now there is new legislation governing such facilities in which a federal inspector must be on duty at all times. No odor problems would occur because of the manner in which the facility will have to operate. A septic system on the site will exist. /3/ Dr. Neer informed the Commission that the only external part of such a facility is a holding pen, which must be cleaned daily. Dr. Moore questioned the number of animals that would be killed per day. Dr. Neer replied that the number would be approximately 15 cattle per day. When questioned by Mr. Gloeckner about the drainfield, Dr. Neer replied it would be approximately 1400 linear feet of leech bed. 1500-2000 gallons of waste water per day would result from the operation. Dr. Neer pointed out that the solid waste will be held under refrigeration inside the plan until it is picked up, on a periodic basis, by one of the rendering companies in the state. Mr. Pickford stated that this use is much more attractive than some of the uses currently permitted in the A-1 zone by special permit. He also presented to the Commission a petition of signatures showing interest in such a use in the County. Mr. Russell Block, an adjoining property owner of Mr. Clark's, objected to a use so close to his property. Mr. Carr cautioned Mr. Block that this is a request to amend the ordinance, not a request for an abbatoir on Mr. Clark's property, though the intent of future application is there. Mr. Block stated that when he had discussed the matter with Mr. Clark, he had been told where the abbatoir would be located. He said that he wished to note his concerns and objections to this, as well as those of Bessie Burton, on the basis that such a commercial venture would affect the value of his home and property. A residential area is a bad location for such a use. Mr. Block stated that the roads in that area could not service the traffic that would result from such a use. Also factors to be considered were odor problems, noise problems, future expansion, spillage, etc. He said that he is also concerned that a septic field would affect the stream. He said that in his opinion special permits often defeat the zoning purposes. Mr. Keeler stated that a potential abbatoir would provide a service to the County, though he reminded the Commission of the commercial aspects of such a use. Dr. Neer stated that if this abbatoir were nothing more than a custom operation the facilities would still be inspected for sanitation on a periodic basis and an inspector would be there 15-20 hours per week. Mr. Jim Roberts also noted similar concerns to those of Mr. Block. Others questioning the advisability of the future application of Mr. Clark were Mr.Charles Vest and Mr. Curtis Byers. Mr. Carr noted that the petition the Commission had received was considered by the Commission as a list of signatures of those interested in an abbatoir in the County, not as those in favor of amending the ordinance. 9 13z Col. Washington said that he was not going to discuss the possible merits of Mr. Clark's specific situation, but in general he would be in favor of amending the ordinance to provide for abbatoirs. He felt that this would be reasonable. He said that he could later discuss a suitable location when a specific petition is presented. Mr. Easter said that he has similar feelings to those of Col. Washington, but his concern is that there is nothing in the amendment which would prohibit some large packing house from coming into the A-1 zone. not Mr. Barksdale felt that two acres is/large enough for a well and septic system for even a small operation like this. He said that he favors the use on ten acres. Mr. Payne stated that it is possible to control the lot size in the special permit process. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he is opposed to such a use in the A-1 zone because of those concerns mentioned by the staff and because of the future possibility that it might become a large commercial operation. Dr. Moore agreed. Mr. Easter asked if the Commission would limit the ordinance definition of custom slaughterhouse. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the business is bound to be profitable, especially since none exist in the County now. This would probably mean a request for expansion and any operation of this sort should be in the M-2 zone. He noted that people are already concerned about such a use in the A-1 zone, which provides for residential uses. Dr. Neer, when questioned by Mr. Carr, stated that if the operation were a custom slaughterhouse, the inspector would be responsible only for the facility, not for meat inspection. Mr. Carr stated that he favors investigating the operation of such facilities in other parts of the state where they exist before making any definite decision. Mrs. Graves said that any applications would have to be carefully considered since the A-1 zone is developed residentially in many parts of the county. She said that she tends to favor amending the ordinance, however, would like to tie the special permit to an entire property in order that no subdivision could result. Mr. Keeler said that if the Commission approves the amendment to the ordinance hopefully the requirements in the M-2 zone, at minimum, would be setforth in the A-1 zone. These would address screening, fencing, etc. He said that he is also concerned about limiting any sort of business when it comes to expansion. Mr. Pickford said that it would be helpful to give property owners the opportunity for an abbatoir without applying for a rezoning to M-2, which would be practically impossible to achieve. Mr. Carr asked if these small one-man operations are successful across the county and if they are successful with absentee ownership. /33 Dr. Neer said that they are successful only when the owner is there to work hard every day, and though they are not a gold mine, they can be successful. He said that the tendency seems to be to go from a small operation, accommodating 15-20 cattle per day, to large operations accommodating 100-150 cattle per day. For some reason there seems to be no need for facilites in-between these two sizes. One of the reasons is probably with the larger operation a need for automated production occurs. Mr. Keeler stated that the character of the M-2 zone, which provides for this use, is such that it can handle a large amount of traffic. He made this remark in response to a question from Mr. Jones about road considerations. Mr. Carr closed the public hearing, noting that he is not concerned about this type of operation, merely about the locations the county might later be confronted with. He felt that two acres is not sufficient, even with water and sewer facilites. Such an operation would have to provide screening, regardless of its neighbors, and adequate land would be necessary to protect itself from its neighbors and to protect the neighbors from it. He said that he would like to hear from other localities who have dealt with this situation. Dr. Moore said that such a use is desirable for servicing the agricultural community, but he said that he is not agreeable to the use if it becomes any substantial size. Mr. Gloeckner said that he still feels as though the Commission is talking about a commercial use in the A-1 zone, and noted that there are many A-1 related uses that are not appropriate for inclusion into that zone. Mr. Keeler said that the staff views this as a processing plan. Mr. Barksdale moved action be deferred until March 29. Mr. Pickford stated that he would be out of town on that date. Mr. Barksdale said that he would amend his motion to defer until April 12. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Carr asked that Dr. Neer send to the Commission the names of several County Agents across the state who have dealt with this matter in the last five years. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 18-7 of the Albemarle County Code, known as the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Control Ordinance, concerning private contracts. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that this would give the Planning Commission authority to require that certain provision be made for the cost and maintenance of certain facilites, and to insure that the County is not and will not be held responsible for these facilites. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the amendment to read as follows: 9 l3� Section 18-7. Relation of Chpater to Private Contracts. This chapter bears no relation to any private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction, nor is the responsibility of enforcing a private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction implied herein to any public official. When this chapter calls for more restrictive standards than are required by private contract, the provisions of this chapter shall control. In the case of any plat on which is shown any road, sewerage or water supply system, or other feature, improvement, facility or element, not to be maintained by any public agency, which is designed to serve or to be used by more than one lot on such plat, the Commission may require, as a prerequisite to approval of such plat, that provision be made for the payment of the costs of construction, maintenance and upkeep of such facilites to be borne ratably by the owners of lots to be served by or to use the same. Such provision shall be made by instrument or record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County and shall plainly state on its face that costs of construction, maintenance and upkeep of such facilities will not be borne by the County, the Commonwealth of Virginia or any other public agency. Mr. Jones seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously with no discussion. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map by rezoning the following parcels from RS-1 Residential to A-1 Agricultural: County Tax Map 94, Parcels 29B, 31, 30, 25A, 26A, 26B, 26, 27B, 27A, 28A, 28, and 27; County Tax Map 95, Parcels 16, 16A, and 16B. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, supporting the resolution for the following reasons: 1. The Health Department has recommended a minimum of 60,000 square feet per dwelling unit where central water and sewer is not available. RS-1 zoning in this area does not comply with this recommendation; 2. The Comprehensive Plan recommends conservation use in this area with a density of one unit per 5 acres. This property was rezoned from A-1 to RS-1 prior to adoption of the plan. Mr. Carr questioned the number of non -conforming lots. Mr. Tucker replied that there would be a few in Pine Run of approximately 60,000 square feet. Mr. Huff supported the request stating that he felt such a rezoning would benefit the area and restrict growth. He stated that Mr. Roudabush, Board member from that district,had run a survey and no one objected to the rezoning. Mr. Easter asked if all people involved had been made aware of this. Mr. Tucker responded that all whose property would be rezoned had been notified by certified mail as well as all those owners of adjoining property. Mr. Easter moved approval of the resolution as presented by the staff. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. /3S The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the A-1 Agricultural. Zone to provide for two-family dwellings as a use by right on a minimum lot size of four (4) acres, and to repeal Section 2-1-25(34) of the Zoning Ordinance which provides for two-family dwellings by special use permit on a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the two major aspects of this proposal are: (1) the change from a two -acre to a four -acre requirement; (2) the change from a use by special use permit to a use by right. Mr. Keeler stated that this item had been advertised incorrectly, though after consulting with Mr. Payne, it had been determined that it would be in order to hear the resolution in view of the fact that the advertisement spelled out the change. Col. Washington questioned the possibility of changing the lot size to four acres by right, with 3 acres for special use permit approval. Mrs. Graves stated that her concern is that there is the possiblity of duplexes in large lot subdivisions. She also noted that there might be owners of larger acreages who would wish to develop with this sort of housing. Mr. Keeler replied that two-family dwellings are not exempt from the subdivision ordinance. There was a discussion about the lot size for the two-family dwellings and it was pointed out that many felt this would be an over and under unit rather than a side by side unit. Mr. Carr said that he favored the use by right on 5 acres strictly for cosmetic reasons. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the A-1 Zone be amended to provide for two-family dwellings as a use by right on a minimum lot size of five acres, and moved to repeal Section 2-1-25(34) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Easter seconded this motion. Mr. Barksdale offered a substitute motion that the A-1 zone be amended to provide for two-family dwellings as a use by right on a minimum lot size of four acres, and moved to repeal Section 2-1-25(34) of the Zoning Ordinance. Col. Washington seconded the motion, noting that he felt this could help the low-cost housing situation in the County, which needs attention. Mr. Barksdale said that he feels it is mostly a matter of over and under units. Col. Washington stated that even if it is a matter of side -by -side units it is bound to be cheaper than two single-family units. Mr. Jones felt that there would be more over and under units on conversions, and about equal on new construction. Mr. Gloeckner felt that this could possibly strip the roads. The substitute motion lost by a vote of 2-6, with Mr. Barksdale and Col. Washington supporting the motion. The motion originally offer by Mr. Gloeckner carried by a vote of 5-3, with Mrs. Graves, Col. Washington, and Mr. Barksdale dissenting. PUBLIC HEARING - Service Road Concept: Mr. Carr pointed out for the benefit of the public that there has been considerable discussion on this matter. Mr. Calvin Mawyer questioned the service roads, especially in the area of the Woodbrook school. He felt that service roads would destroy the safety conditions in that area, especially at peak hours of traffic. Mr. Montenegro explained the basic concept, stating that service roads would considerably assist in maintaining traffic as residential traffic. Mr. Mawyer felt that service roads are good as long as they are built along Route 29. There was a discussion about the use of Route 29 North as a residential street vs its use as an arterial road. not Mr. Wendell Wood felt that the service road concept is/a feasible solution south of the river. Past the river he felt they might be a good idea. South of the river Mr. Wood said that a third lane would be much more beneficial, since it would practically double the amount of traffic Route 29 could handle. Mr. Carr pointed out to the Commission and Mr. Wood that the Virginia Department of Highways favors the neighborhood road system, which could be implemented by sere ce roads. He also pointed out that any approval of the service road concept would not be specific approval of the roads as they are located on the aerial photographs. Dr. Moore said that he did agree that where there is an alternative route to a service road, he did not feel a subdivision should be violated. Mr. Jones said that since financing is not available to complete the service roads at one time, and since any construction must be done in a piecemeal fashion, he had been under the opinion that this is not desirable. Dr. Moore said that he felt that the Commission should make its best recommendation to the Board with little regard to financing. He felt that financing is their consideration and perhaps there are several alternatives for financing. When Mr. Carr said that he had thought earlier that the Commission had heard and digested all the information that is available and felt the Commission was ready to make some sort of decision on this matter. He asked if the Commission were ready to make a decision or if it wanted to wait for further information. Dr. Moore said that the new information that might be helpful is the result of the study for the Fashion Mall area and what impact its traffic is going to have on Route 29. Mr. Easter stated that if additional information will be relevant perhaps the Commission should put off a decision until it receives the results of that study. Mr. Gloeckner stated that earlier (at work session) that the Highway Department had told the Commission that in almost thirty years almost all the solutions will have to be used. Either the third lane, or the center being developed with two more lanes, or the service roads, plus the secondary parallel roads, and eventually when 29 deteriorates, a by-pass around this whole area. 137 Mrs. Graves asked if the Commission had considering taking her suggestion about seeking more information from the State Planning Office of the Highway Department to see if any information is available. Mr. Tucker stated that the State Planning Office has set aside 45 days to complete the work on the section in the .immediate area of the proposed Fashion Mall of the city. There was a brief discussion of the Highway Department's objectives. Mr. Gloeckner said that as far as the Highway's Department's desires, the third lane concept is not their recommendation. However, the County's desires might be different. Mr. Gloeckner said that as far as he is concerned, the County's interests are to alleviate the problem on Route 29 North, regardless of whether the County retains the arterial 29, which the Highway Department wants. Second is to have a final solution. Mr. Montenegro stated that he wished to speak to the third lane again. He said that the third lane is not a final solution, though implementing this would give some time for other solutions to catch up. He said that the third lane is an interim solution. He said it should be looked at as giving almost immediate relief, though, because of its low construction costs as compared to the other alternatives. If grade separations are added at a later date, that added lane will be a bonus, and never go to waste. Even without improvement of the lights, 50-60% capacity could be increased. If service roads are adopted, there will be no decongestiot for a considerable period of time. Mr. Wood advised the Commission to consider some of the Highway Department's motives, especially when it comes to budget concerns. It would be much easier for their funding if someone else paid for as much of the road construction as possible. Mr. Montenegro said that after the last meeting he had spoken with Mr. Roosevelt about the third lane alleviation and Mr. Roosevelt had concurred to the percentage of alleviation. Mr. Gloeckner said that he wished to make a motion for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in the form of priorities: Priority #1 - Construct two lanes in the median; fund and construct immediately; Continue requiring acceleration and deceleration lanes as businesses make improvements on their property and as new development occurs. Priority #2 - Synchronize lights from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road. Priority #3 - Choose a by-pass route (preferably to the west of Route 29 ); Purchase the right-of-way for the by-pass and fund this purchase over the next ten years. Priority #4 - Develop the parallel road concept, or these residential roads. Mrs. David noted her concern for the crossovers with this approach. Mr. Gloeckner said that there would still be 24 feet of crossover with 12 feet of stacking lane plus one vehicle turning. Mr. Barksdale said that the stacking space can be as long as is desired. Dr. Moore said that he couldn't support this motion because it forces Route 29 North to become an eight -lane or more city street. It essentially says that as a city street it should have more crossovers than it has now. Isk It means that any traffic coming from the side of the street going someplace where it can cross over now has to cross four lanes of traffic( such as from the post office to Greenbrier Drive). He said that he does not feel it is going to be suitable as a city street and as a thoroughfare. Dr. Moore said that another thing is that he hates to give up that much median. He said that he might be able to go along with the accel and decel lanes which might eventually become a third lane and the service roads in addition to that. Mr. Barksdale said that he would second Mr. Gloeckner's motion. Mr. Payne asked for a clarification of the motion, asking if it recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the amendments to the Site Plan Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance not be adopted requiring service roads. Mr. Gloeckner said that is correct. Discussion on the motion: Dr. Moore said that in addition to his other comments, he does not feel the public has been adequately warned that the Commission might be considering this sort of approach, which he felt is a drastic departure from the service road concept. Mr. Easter said that he is not ready to vote on the motion. He asked Mr. Tucker if he thought anything meaningful would be gotten out of the study that is being done in the area of the proposed Fashion Mall of the City. Mr. Tucker said that the last time he had talked to them they had indicated the study would not be completed until the end of the month. He said that though he did not know all the areas they were working on, he did know that it is a very limited area; so how beneficial it would be he did not know. He said that it might give some indication as to what they might be recommending for improvements along Route 29 at least up to Greenbrier. He said it would then be possible for the County to consider extending that concept on up. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the reason for his motion is weighing all the evidence that had been put before him. To alleviate the immediate problem is the reason for his first priority. The staff recommended the second priority. Mr. Gloeckner said the reason for his third priority is that after all is said and done and everything has been done to Route 29, a by-pass is still going to be needed(he also pointed out that Mr. Roosevelt had said this was the case during the work session). If the County waits a long time before doing anything about a by-pass, buying the right-of-way or whatever, the costs will be prohibitive. Mr. Gloeckner said the reason he did not pick the service road concept as a first priority is that if the property isn't developed, that section of service road has to be waited for. That concept would be very good if all of it could be done at one time. Mr. Easter suggested reserving the right-of-way as property develops. Mr. Gloeckner said that this would not solve the problems that the County will be faced with during the next ten years. He further stated that the reason for his fourth priority is that these roads will eventually be needed too. Dr. Moore said that if this proposal carries, all the land along the road can be developed and it all has entrance to Route 29. As a city street it should have lots more crossovers; as a thoroughfare it should have a lot less entrances. He felt that these two are mutually exclusive. Mrs. Graves said that she hated to throw out the service road concept on other highways. She felt that these priorities might be fine for Route 29 but the Commission should also consider what it is doing to Routes 250 and 20. Mr. Tucker said that the amendments would cover arterials as defined by the Comprehensive Plan - Routes 29 and 250. He said that Route 20 is not projected to handle that much traffic. Mr. Jones said in reference to Route 29, he felt the County is eventually going to have to have a by-pass and the state has the responsibility of keeping an arterial highway open. If the County finds funding for the by-pass, that will force the State Highway Department to build a by-pass sooner. Let the state worry about keeping Route 29 as an arterial. He felt that the area between the by-pass and Route 29 should be preserved as much as possible, to make crossover as safe as possible. Col. Washington said that he would like to amend the motion to include grade separations across Route 29 on the primaries. He felt this should have a distinct order of precedence. Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like to make this priority number 4 and make the parallel road concept the fifth priority. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that this fourth priority read: "Grade separations at major intersections. Thus the motion was as follows: The Planning Commission does not recommend to the Board of Supervisors amending the Site Plan and Subdivision Ordinances to include service roads. It recommends the following priorities in regard to Route 29 North: Priority #1 - Construct two lanes in the median; fund and construct immediately; Continue requiring acceleration and deceleration lanes as businesses make improvements on their property and as new development occurs. Priority #2 - Synchronize lights from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road. Priority #3 - Choose a by-pass route (preferably to the west of Route 29), Purchase the right-of-way for the by-pass and fund this purchase over the next ten years. Priority #4 - Grade separations at major intersections. Priority #5 - Develop the parallel road concept. Mr. Barksdale said that he accepted this amended motion. Mr. Carr thought that the Commission still had mixed thoughts on this subject. Mr. Carr said that in all the discussion, and listening to the Highway Department, he had decided that service roads offer to Route 29 some opportunites that will not exist with any other solution. However, he said that it could take as long as twenty years to build them and that disgusts him. And perhaps by time they are all built and connected�a by-pass will have to be built anyway. He said that in that respect he had to agree with Mr. Gloeckner. However, as that road matures, and as the by-pass is built, the businesses along Route 29 must live and exist. This will still be main street of Albemarle. And traffic has to be able to move on that road. Some latitudes have to be available to the Highway Department. He felt that in order to accomplish an effective system with roads built in the middle of Route 29, major engineering would have to take place, to let traffic under Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, etc. He did not feel this is achievable. He felt that perhaps the County should start picking away at the service roads. Mr. Carr felt that the only thing he would be achieving by the year 2000 is that there will be more latitudes to deal with the traffic. Mr. Barksdale said that this is assuming the service roads would work better here than in other places, such as Virginia Beach or Norfolk. Mr. Carr said that Mr. Roosevelt had stated that the reason they have not been working there is that they are in the middle of the process. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the service roads have not solved the problems in those areas, according to the experts there. Mr. Montenegro stated that the reason for their inadequacies is that they have been used as the only solution. Alone they cannot work. Mr. Barksdale said that if the developer is required to build the third lane, dedicate land for the service roads, there is no room for his business. Mr. Montenegro said that was the reason for putting the third lane in the middle. There will not be that much land required for dedication for the service roads. He also noted that in most cases the highway right-of-way varies from 120-160 feet. Dr. Moore said that he wished to make the comment that in view of the development of that area and its becoming an urban area, the Board of Supervisors is going to have to look at some ways for financing road construction, since the Highway Department has no funds. Mr. Carr read the motion to the Commission one more time. Mr. Easter felt that each phase of the motion should be analyzed, and noted that he did not like the location of the future by-pass being specified. Mr. Gloeckner was agreeable to not specifying the location in the motion. Mr. Barksdale accepted this amendment to the motion. Mr. Gloeckner said that he wished to note the difference in thinking of the past two administrations of the Highway Department. About six years ago the service road concept was their recommendation. Then with a new administration this concept was changed to the third lane concept. Now, with a recent change in administration, the Highway Department is once again recommending the service road concept. He said that with that sort of indecision from the Highway Department it is up to the County to take matters into its own hands and decide how things are going to be. Mr. Easter suggested deferring action on Mr. Gloeckner's motion. Mrs. Graves seconded this motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-3, with Col. Washington, Mr. Barksdale, and Mr. Gloeckner dissenting. Mr. Carr suggested that perhaps each item of the motion should be voted on individually at the next meeting. He said that this might be one way to achieve an agreement. Mr. Carr said that the motion was deferred until March 15, 1977. Mrs. Graves asked that the Commission direct the Director of Planning to get any information that is available from Richmond on the study that has been going on in the specific area of the Fashion Mall and any other information they might have that is available. A'/ The meeting adjourned with no further business. VI . Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec etary