HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 12 77 PC MinutesApril 12, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
April 12, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Buildling, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter
Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington;
Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were
Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mr. Leslie Jones. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning;
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner.
order.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
Billard Parlor request from Robert Riffle:
Mr. Carr noted for the benefit of interested citizens present that Mr.
Riffle had telephoned the Planning Department requesting deferral until the May 3
Planning Commission meeting, and had followed this up by a letter. All adjoining
property owners except Mary Marshall ( who has no phone ) were telephoned about
this request for deferral. The chairman felt that it would be a duplicate effort
to hear the matter that night as well as May 3.
Mr. Easter moved that any discussion and vote on this request be deferred,
noting that this has been a matter of procedure in the past.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that this request will not be considered by the Board of
Supervisors until it is considered by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Keeler explained to Mr. Booth the reasons the applicant had requested
deferral.
The motion to defer discussion and action on this request until May 3
carried by unanimous vote.
ZTA-77-01. George Clark - request to amend Zoning Ordinance to provide for
abattoir by special use permit in the A-1 zone:
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that he had mailed the previous week
some additional information regarding this request. He read the memo which discussed
his interview with Dr. R. B. Albritton, Area Supervisor for Virginia and West Virginia,
Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, U. S. Department of Agriculture. He also
reviewed the M-2 rezoning requests that had been before the County. Furthermore,
Mr. Keeler read the statements of intent of the A-1 Zone and the M-2 Zone. He
answered Dr. Moore's question regarding input from the Health Department on septic
fields for such facilities - there had been no input. Also in the explanation was
the definition of abattoir for the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance.
✓87
Mrs. Graves asked if the staff had possibly considered "custom "
slaughter house." Mr. Keeler said that they had not, because this was not
the applicant's intent.
Mr. Gale Pickford stated that when he had discussed this proposal with
Dr. Albritton, he had stated that his objections were the same he would
have living next to any industry. The same sort of operation exists in Harrisonburg
and it is not a nuisance. He pointed out that this operation handles aprpoximately
300-350 animals per week.
Dr. Friedman from Richmond stated that he was, resent to discuss with the
Commission compliance of such an operation, no matter what zone in a county it is
located. He said that he is charged with enforcement of Virginia's laws regarding
such an operation. These laws are somewhat similar to federal regulations.
He said that there is a federal act plus two additional state requirements that must
be met. He said that generally the regulations are very strict, and such nuisance
factors as odor are carefully controlled. He discussed the operation in general
and explained the three different types of inspection to the Commission.
Mr. Carr questioned the number of small operations in Virginia, and the
number that had begun in the last 10 years.
Dr. Friedman said that the number being regulated by the State is approximately
25 to 30.
Mr. Easter said that the only difference in inspection is that meat that is
sold to the public has additional labeling, but the cleanliness and waste
control are the same in all the various kinds of inspection. Dr. Friedman
agreed that this is correct.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the number of inspections. Dr. Friedman responded
that the facilities are inspected somewhere between once a week and once every
two weeks.
Mrs. Graves said that she had visited the facility in Staunton, and understands
that it existed prior to zoning in the area. One point that concerned her was
that they had made a written request that the plant not be inspected any more
( it was when the facility was two years into the operation) and this had been
accomplished with that single letter. She said that she did not know if it made
any difference, but the place had run in the "red" while it was under inspection
but that is not the case now. Also there had been problems with blood and chicken
feather disposal and this had involved the city Sanitation Department. She said
that she was informed that thisplant served cattle and hogs in the winter, and chickens
in the summer. The number was approximately 60 per week.
Dr. Friedman said that the facility in Staunton comes under the custom
inspection.
Mr. Barksdale said that this means they cannot sell meat anymore, but all
other regulations must be complied with. Dr. Friedman agreed.
9
When questioned if a septic field can manage an operation like this proposal,
Dr. Friedman said that this is left to the local Health Department. He said that
he gets involved only if there is a nuisance.
Mr. Carr asked if custom slaughter houses are generally successful.
Dr. Friedman replied that they are successful, but most successful with
strict regulations. He said that therel custom slaughterhouses in the state.
Mr. Pickford said that this applicant intents to buy, butcher, and sell
as well as use the facility for a custom slaughterhouse. He pointed out that something
can certainly be done if the facility proves to be a nuisance.
Dr. Friedman told Mr. Keeler said that he does not have with him information
stating the number of gallons of water per head that are necessary for sanitation.
Mr. Easter asked if Dr. Friedman feels this specific request to be a reasonable
request. Dr. Friedman said that there seems to be a need in the County for such
an operation, and that it certainly would help the livestock industry in this area.
Mr. Easter then questioned if Dr. Friedman felt it would be a blight on the
neighborhood in which it might locate.
Dr. Friedman replied that it would not be a blight with the restrictions
that the County could place on it.
Mr. Carr asked if the operation can be closed if it is not maintained properly.
Dr. Friedman said that it can be closed with no warning.
Dr. Gus explained the disposal systems that can be used for such a facility.
He said that lagoons can be used. He stated that since some places have restrictions
on blood disposal, a septic field can be used for the purpose, however the septic
field would have to be quite large.
Mrs. Graves said that her concern is that the septic field might later be
found to be in trouble.
Dr. Gus said that if a septic field is used there is no monitoring.
Mr. Keeler asked if a lagoon would have similar controls to a municipal lagoon.
Dr. Gus said that it would. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission of all the problems
with the municipal lagoon near Woodbrook.
Mrs. Block, an adjoining property owner to Mr. Clark, said that she realizes
this is a request to amend the ordinance, however, if the ordinance is amended
Mr. Clark will apply for a special use permit for such a facility on property he
owns. She presented a petition from all adjoining property owners to Mr. Clark,
in order that he would know the feelings of the neighbors. She stated that she
feels as though two acres of land is not large enough to protect the neighbors
from such an operation. If an abattoir is requested on Mr. Clark Is property,
Mrs. Block said that the road will be a problem, since it is not capable of carrying
the traffic that is likely to be generated.
�0
Mr. Pickford said that in his opinion the question is if this use
is comparable to other agricultural uses. He said that he feels it to be
no more harmful to property values, etc., than landfills, hog farms, dairy
farms - which are also permitted in the A-1 zone. He also pointed out that
it should be a service to Albemarle citizens, since currently they have to
take their animals out of the County to be slaughtered.
Mr. Barksdale said that there are three conditions that the Planning
Commission should consider placing on these requests: (1) a minimum of 10 acres
are needed for such an operation; (2) there should be at least 100' setback
from all boundaries; (3) a maximum of 40 animals per week should be slaughtered.
Mrs. Graves said that she finds a custom slaughterhouse much less objectionable
than an abattoir.
Mr. Carr asked what she means by a custom slaughterhouse, so that everyone
is thinking about the same thing. Mrs. Graves said that the owner would not be
permitted to buy animals to slaughter for resale.
Mr. Barksdale said that he feels this might not be a profitable operation.
Mrs. Graves said that if an operation is commercially inclined, she does
not favor its location in the A-1 zone.
Col. Washington said that a custom slaughterhouse would only process animals
for others, no selling would be permitted.
Mr. Payne stated that the definition could exclude retail sales if
this is the intent of the Commission.
Mrs. Graves said that she does not feel a custom operation would limit
the farmer to only his animals, that he could bring other animals to be slaughtered.
Only no sales would be permitted from this operation.
Col. Washington said that he feels it means no meat sold after slaughter
on the premises.
Mr. Gloeckner also felt that a custom slaughterhouse might be in order,
though he certainly opposes an abbatoir.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. He thanked the officials who had been
present to assist the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner said that a proper definition is necessary for "custom
slaughterhouse" before the Commission can act on this request.
Mr. Easter pointed out that the applicant's intent has been for a commercial
slaughterhouse. He asked if the applicant would be agreeable to the "custom
slaughterhouse."
Mr. Pickford said that the operation must be economically feasible; he said
that the number of animals that can be slaughtered should not be limited unless
it is a reasonable limit.
/40
Mr. Clarke said that he had anticipated 100 animals per week, at full capacity.
Mrs. Graves once again pointed out that this is an amendment to the ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner asked how the number permitted is not abused. Mr. Carr replied
that the operation will have to be monitored.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Barksdale that what is most important is
the minimum acreage permitted for such an operation, and its setback from other
property lines. He felt that a site plan would certainly be in order, and the
Health Department should be involved with the size of the septic field or the lagoon,
whichever is used.
Col. Washington said that he would support an amendment to the ordinance
for a "custom slaughterhouse" but that a lot of rules would have to come with
a specific case. He felt that the minimum acreage should be at least 10 acres,
and that there must be a location for a suitably sized septic field.
Mr. Carr noted that it will certainly be difficult to deal with a specific
location. He said that he is not sure that a 10-acre minimum is large enough.
He also stated that he is more inclined to 300' setback from the property lines.
However, he pointed out that the circumstances might dictate the setback.
Mr. Payne said that he has problems with placing a density restriction
on a custom slaughterhouse, and felt that the number of acres should be addressed
at the time of special /pF6;46. He said that he feels that such an acreage requirement
might prove to be too little or too much. He said that the Commission should bear
in mind that if an acreage limit is written into the ordinance, it would be the
Board of Zoning Appeals rather than the Commission and Board who would control
the acreage, since variances could be sought. He said that if no acreage requirement
is placed in the ordinance that this can be addressed at the special permit
level in the conditions placed on the operation.
The Commission then had a brief discussion on the area size. Some felt
that this should be established in the ordinance so that the applicant would know what
he is up against. Others felt that it should be addressed at the time of special
permit review.
Mr. Payne once again pointed out that the BZA cannot vary a condition of
a special permit, but it can vary a requirement setforth in the ordinance.
Col. Washington said that he felt that there should be some sort of adequate
area limitation, since in this County residences and farms are permitted to
exist side by side in the A-1 zone. If the zoning ordinance can require 2 acres for a
residence in A-1 zone, it should be possible to have an area requirement for an abattoir.
Mr, 'Payne said that his comstents apply to Col. Washington's theory also.
Col. Washington said that there would be less concern from the public
if they were aware of the area limitation.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission direct the staff to formulate a definition
of "custom slaughterhouse" with the intent of the Commission to amend the zoning
ordinance, subject to the Commission's approval of this definition.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, but said that he would like to amend the
motion to include an area requirement in that definition with particular property
line setbacks. He stated that he would like the staff to consider a 300' setback.
191
Mr. Keeler asked if the intent of the motion is to address only
the operation as a service, and not as a retail sales operation.
Mr. Barksdale accepted the amendment to the motion, and said that Mr. Keeler's
assumption is correct.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the staff discuss this with the Health Department.
The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
( Mr. Payne left the room and did not participate in the discussion of
the following item.)
ZMA-77-03. Richard H. deButts, etal., have petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 15.6 acres from B-1 Commercial and R-2 Residential
to B-1 Commercial. Property is located on the west side of Route 29 North,
approximately 1500 feet north of Rio Road. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 108,
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He noted that since the
zoning ordinance was adopted, there have been five requests for B-1 zoning along
Route 29 North. Three have been approved.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing one of the owners of this property, stated
that the owners are now negotiating for a B-1 use for the entire parcel. He stated
that the property is adjacent B-1 uses. Only a narrow frontage of this property is
zoned B-1.
Mr. Keeler read the comments from the Highway Department, which noted
the traffic problems in the area, and how the County is currently in the process
of trying to solve these problems or find a solution.
Mr. Steve Helvin, another attorney for the applicant, stated that he feels
as though the request is reasonable. The 129 feet of B-1 zoning is limited for
potential uses, because of size and lay of the land. He noted that there is no
public opposition to this request. In light of what is around it, he does not
feel that it is fair to keep these owners from the highest and best use of their
land. Mr. Helvin stated that these owners should not be penalized because other
owners of B-1 land hold their land for speculation. Rezoning the back part of
the land will enable the property to be used for its best use.
Mr. Keeler stated that if the property is used for its highest possible
use, it will generate about 6,000 vehicle trips per day. Since Mr. Helvin had
also addressed possible wholesaling for the property, Mr. Keeler suggested that
action on this be deferred, and that the special use permit be submitted in conjunction
with this.
Mr. Helvin reminded the Commission that though he has mentioned this, the
applicant is not bound to use the property in any specific way, and that the
potential use really has no bearing on the request, since zoning is not conditional
in Albemarle County.
Dr. Moore stated that he does not favor more intensive rezonings until the
traffic problems on Route 29 are solved. He said that he would not support the
request. 140)
119Z
proposed
Mr. Barksdale said that since the/zoning is compatible and comparable
to what exists around it, he would support the request.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed, noting that he supported the request the last time
it came before the Commission.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support this, since she feared that
it would bring on more requests for business zoning along Route 29.
Mr. Carr said that he has never agreed with the reasoning of the staff
that the area is already overzoned for B-1, and therefore this request should
be denied. However, he said that he does agree with Dr. Moore about the traffic
congestion that exists in the area. He said that before he agrees to more business
zoning on Route 29, he would like to see some other problems resolved, though
there might be a time when the property is given a higher use potential. For
the moment, though, he said that he could not support the request because an effort
is being made to correct the traffic problems of that area.
There was no additional public comment, and Mr. Carr closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the request be approved. This motion for
approval was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, and he noted that he would rather see
a business there than bring people out onto Route 29. Also given as a reason
for supporting the request was the zoning that exists in the area.
Mr. Carr said that it is unfortunate that it is not legal to see the use
of the property.
Dr. Moore said that the property will have an exit over the brow of the
hill, and it may never be able to have an adequate entrance.
The motion to approve did not carry; the vote was 2-4-1, with Messrs.
Washington, Carr, Moore, and Mrs. Graves dissenting, and Mr. Easter abstaining.
( Mr. Payne re-entered the meeting.)
Request for vacation of right-of-way off Dominion Drive:
Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that this request had been made by
Mr. Michael J. Demetsky of the Berkeley Subdivision. He said that this right-of-way
presently provides access to two lots: Lot 1, Block 4, Section 1 and Lot 11,
Block 4, Section 1 off Dominion Drive. The right-of-way could never be extended
without the acquisition and removal of several townhouses in Four Seasons. For
that reason the staff recommended that the right-of-way be vacated, provided an
agreement is made between the three affected property owners for an easement across
said right-of-way.
Mr. Barksdale stated that this should be reviewed by the County Attorney's
office.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the right-of-way be vacated, subject to the agreement
between the three affected property owners for an easement across the right-of-way,
and subject to the County Attorney's review. Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion,
which carried unanimously.
193
Vacation of Kaskaskia Court - Key West Subdivision:
Mr. Tucker reported that Kaskaskia Court was platted in 1959 as a future
street to potentially serve approximately 45 acres. Most of this property is being
leased by the Key West Club, Inc., as a park and recreation area ( swimming pool
and tennis courts). Most of this land, with the exception of the recreational
area, lies within the flood plain area of the Rivanna River. The staff felt that
the vacation is proper since the development of the property which would be served
by Kaskaskia Court would not be in the best interest of the County or this area.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that Kaskaskia Court as recorded in Deed Book 353, page 197
and Deed Book 361, page 175 in the County Clerk's Office be vacated.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
SERVICE ROAD CONCEPT:
Dr. Moore stated that he was reluctant to act on this matter or proceed
with any part of the public hearing until he had read the entire report; he
said that he had read only 3-4 pages of it.
Mr. Tucker stated that he had been so pressed for time as far as receiving
the information and forwarding it to the Commission as soon as possible, that he
had felt that the only part of the report that the Commission had wanted to see
in the first place was the conditions that the State Highway Planning Commission
had recommended.
Dr. Moore said that perhaps deferral of the public hearing would be in
order so that those who would want to read the entire report could do so.
Mr. Carr said that since the Commission had waited to have the study,
it would be a shame not to review the entire thing.
Mr. Tucker again stated that he had thought it was the recommendations that
the Commission had wanted.
Dr. Moore said that he would like to be acquainted with the thinking behind
recommendations.
Mr. Gloeckner said that since it is the same ideas that are discussed
at every meeting about the service roads, he would like to proceed that evening
with the matter. He said that he felt that the recommendations were sufficient
as far as review of the study done by the State Highway Planning Office.
Mr. Wendell Wood, a member of the public, who reminded the Commission
that he owns a great deal of property with frontage on Route 29 North, said
that he had rescheduled a trip out of the country in order to be present that
evening.
Dr. Moore moved that the Commission defer any discussion and action
on the motion on the floor until all members of the Commission who wished
to do so could review the report in its entirity.
Mr. Payne suggested that any motion should address a specific date,
for the benefit of the public.
If /T
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, and recommended the date of April 19, 1977.
Dr. Moore said that the date was an agreeable amendment to the motion.
3-4,
The motion lostn with Messrs. Barksdale; Gloeckner; Easter; and Washington
dissenting.
Mr. Tucker explained the study results to the Commission ( see attached
sheets ).
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there is any mention of "service lanes" in the
entire report. Mr. Tucker replied that there is not, in those words. However,
some of the concept does carry over.
Dr. Moore asked if this report suggests unlimited accesses to Route 29 North.
Mr. Tucker responded that there will be limited accesses onto the frontage of
Route 29 North.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this report calls Michie Drive a service road,
while the Commission has been calling it a parallel road.
There was discussion from the Commission about recommended closing of
crossovers and the cost of construction.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that this study was done for the city because of
the impact of Fashion Square. There is a study underway for the entire Route 29 N
corridor. The report has not been completed enough to determine what other
recommendations might be made, such as by-pass, other alternative routes, etc.
Personally, he said that he feels as though only a small amount of traffic will
be drawn away with a McIntire Road connection. Based on the figures of this
cost estimation, the breakdown of funds would be: The Virginia Department
of Highways would be responsible for $4.9 million; the city - $2.5 million;
the developer - $1.0 million; and others $400,000.
Mr. Gloeckner asked who the county needs to put pressure on to direct
funds for use on Route 29. Mr. Roosevelt replied that pressure should be put
on the State Highway Commission by the Board of Supervisors. He also stated
that though the term "service road" is used specifically in this report, he doesn't
feel the roads around the proposed Fashion Mall could be called anything else.
Dr. Moore asked if this report addresses limited access. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that there is a layout for a trumpet intersection to Fashion Mall.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if adopted, the study group ( State Highway Planning
Office ) feels this to be the best solution. Mr. Roosevelt said that it is the
best that is economically feasible.
if
Dr. Moore asked in any additional study that is to be done if limited accesses
will be addressed.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that in one way, with development as it has occurred,
there is limited access.
Mr. Carr said that until overpasses are built, there is just no way to get
very far. There are other things that should be done as well: make the road at
K-Mart four lanes and complete Michie Drive at the rear of the shopping center.
/9,5
Mr. Roosevelt stated that there is no decision that can be made now
that will affect the situation over night. It is possible to get it only
in piecemeal fashion.
Dr. Moore asked if Mr. Roosevelt felt that limited access is the way to control
some of the problems. Mr. Roosevelt said that there must be some sort of service
road for controlled access.
Mr. Goode Love told the Commission that if the developer is forced to
build service roads there should be some way that he could write off some of the
expense and consider the construction as an improvement to Albemarle County.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that the following motion is on the
floor: That the Commission recommend that the Board not amend the Site Plan and
Subdivision Ordinances to include service roads; but recommend the following for Rt. 29N
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; 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. Gloeckner suggested rewording Priority #1 - he said that he is going
to amend his motion to read: Fund and construct immediately two lanes; one in the
median on the northbound side, and one on the west side of the southbound lane.
Continue requiringacceleration and deceleration lanes as businesses make improvements
on their property and as new development occurs.
Mr. Gloeckner then asked if the staff has any feelings on the priorities
of the motion.
Mr. Tucker replied "not in the listing, however #5 should be continued
throughout the planning period process."
Mr. Barksdale suggested adding priority #5 to #1.
Mrs. Graves asked what would happeniif the median is partially used
about the utility lines underneath. If
Mr. Tucker stated that provisions for lowering them or whatever was necessary
would have to be made.
Dr. Moore said that he disagrees with priority #1 because it permits
unlimited accesses. He said that he feels that service roads can be built
at less cost, because of the standards for construction that would be required
in priority #1. He said that he cannot see four lanes on two sides of the road
with unlimited accesses, especially since it will encourage traffic accidents.
r
Charlottesville Transportation Study model to produce the highway traffic
volumes. These link volumes were calibrated and turning volumes balanced
bgsed on bbserved 1976 turning movements. The forecast year 2000 ADT and DIiV
contained in. the appendix reflect theimpact of Fashion Square plus the
forecasted growth of the study area on the existing highway network. No
fro
additional highway improvements, such as a possible bypass to relieve the.
external traffic, are included inthisanalysis. '
.Recommended Highway Improvements
13 Emmet Street (Route.29) should be upgraded to 6 lanes from the Route
• 250 Bypass northward. Additionally, all crossovers between the Bypass and
Greenbrier Drive should be eliminated. With the traffic volumes anticipated
in this vicinity, this appears to be the only concept which will provide
acceptable flow on Emmet Street. -The approximate construction cost is $900,000.
The Hydraulic Road - Emamet Street intersection will ultimately have to
be grade separated and an interchange provided. The existing traffic volumes
at this intersection exceed the capacity of the existing roadways and in the
•future as volumes increase, the intersection will continue to be overloaded.
Based on the traffic projections prepared by this office (Year 2000), this.
• intersection will be approximately 40% over capacity even with significant
improvements to the existing geometrics (6 lanes on Emmet Street, 4 lanes
divided on Hydraulic Road, free flow right turns, double left turns, etc.).
' The.approximate construction cost is $4,000,000.
r.
.. An interchange will ultimately be required at the Hydraulic Road inter-
section with the Route 250 Bypass. This intersection is presently over capacity
and the operations will continue to deteriorate. The Year 2000 traffic
projections indicate that this intersection will be approximately 20% over
capacity even with major improvements to the existing geometrics. As shown
on the attached aerial mosaic,•a grade separation is recommended at this
location with ramps provided to and from the east only. The appr
oximate con-
•struction cost is $1,500,000.'
in conjunction with the above reco=.endations for the Hydraulic Road -
Route 250 Bypass intersection, it is recommended that Michie Drive be connected
directly to the interchange, with Hydraulic Road treated as -the minor roadway
and connected to Michie Drive. Michie .Drive should be extended northward to
proposed Greenbrier Drive (or beyond) as a-4 lane divided roadway. The
err. approximate construction cost is $500,000.
Hydraulic Road should be upgraded to a four lane divided roadway between
Emmet Street and Michie Drive. This will'be a necessity to jccommoda'-e future
•traffic volumes along with numerous turning maneuvers. The approximate
construction cost is $500,000.
Greenbrier Drive should be extended eastward to connect with existing
Greenbrier Drive as a four lane divided facility. The approximate construction
cost is $400,000. Although not as critical as -the Hydraulic Road intersection
with Emmet'Street, the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Emmet street may
ultimately have to be grade separated. .
• • F
___ --.•_..�...�.-.. .�.....�wr+•.�+�+M�.T^I-n M--�•.wy1 .....mow .� r-..•-.....��..YH
-;- .
The developer of Fashion Square should consider an underpass entrance
to the shopping center to accommodate the large left turn volumes anticipated.
it is•felt that the concept shown on the aerial mosaic would be desirable and
could be beneficial to the. post office complex also. The approximate construction
cost is $1,000:000.
As previously mentioned, t4ichie Drive should be extended to proposed.
Greenbrier Drive. Additionally, this roadway should ultimately extend to Rio
.Road (Route 631) and possibly further as additional development occurs. It is
suggested that this concept be explored on the west side of Route 29 also and
it appears that such a roadway could possibly be created by connecting existing
streets. The benefits of these parallel roadways are obvious when considering
the in strip development proposed in this area along $mmet Street and in
order to maintain acceptable traffic flow or. Ernamet Street, intersections,
crossovers, etc., will have to be planned and spaced for the benefit of all
• concerned. This will intensify the need for around the block type circulation,
eas well as alternate routes through this area.
All of the previous recommendations are shown on the. attached aerial
mosaic (scale 1" = 2001). A rough estimate of the total construction cost.is
$8,eo0,000, not including right-of-way.
t
• • k
f
7
61?
Mr. Tucker said that the only comment the staff has is that at some time -
in what is called the middle planning period- service roads could be effective.
However, he said that he does not think they will help the immediate problem.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the reason for this motion is that it can be
expedited quicker and could be done somewhat all together. The motion,in his
opinion,is a compromise to get something started.
Mrs. Graves said that she hates to see the Planning Commission shut the
door on service roads in other parts of the county. The resolution of intent
passed down by the Board had addressed service roads for other parts, and they
could certainly be used on Route 250 West. She said that she does not feel
that the Commission should recommend denial to amending the ordinances involved.
Dr. Moore handed out a sketch showing why he felt that service roads were
viable on Route 29 north. He suggested amending priority #1 for a third lane only
on the outside and service roads be required as site plans and subdivisions come
in. That way there would be a setback provided for the service roads.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he is not opposed to making room for service roads
but he does not want the developer to be required to build the service roads.
Mr. Payne said that it might not be necessary for the motion to address
Dr. Moore's suggestion, since the site plan ordinances already provides that the
Commission can reserve what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Col. Washington said that the Commission is about to compromise out of
doing anything that will do any good in the immediate future. He said that he is
not willing to compromise too far from the original motion since something to
correct the problem should begin immediately. He said that he certainly favors lanes
in the median strip.
Mr. Payne said that if what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan is not
sufficient for a future service road, the Comprehensive Plan should be amended,
because otherwise the Commission would be attempting to implement what would
be an inadequate plan.
Mrs. Graves said that it recommends a right-of-way 120 to 160 feet.
Dr. Moore said that he would like to specifically mention service roads in
this motion.
Mr. Barksdale said that he agreed with Col. Washington about doing something
that would held the problem now.
Mr. Gloeckner also agreed that they were moving away from the original motion,
which would help some of the immediate problems.
Col. Washington suggested that priorty #1 should read as follows:
Fund and construct immediately two lanes: one in the median on the northbound
side, and one on the west side of the southbound lane. Continue requiring
acceleration and deceleration lanes as businesses make improvements on their
property and as new development occurs. Require reservation for future construction
of service roads.
M
However, Col. Washington said that he does not think that the developer
should have to build the service roads.
Dr. Moore said that he still feels as though the median should not
be taken at this time.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he wishes the original priority #1 to stand.
Mrs. Graves asked that the motion address the boundaries. Mr. Gloeckner said
that it should be to the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Mr. Easter said that he does not feel that the Commission is anywhere
close to making a good recommendation.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like to Vote on this one priority at a time.
He said that he would like to vote on priority #1 as amended by Col. Washington.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Easter that he did not feel that the Commission would ever
get any closer to making a decision. He said that the Commission has to say,
after hearing all the evidence, that it knows of no course of action that it wishes
to recommend; or else the Commission has to take a "stab" at it.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the boundary be Rio Road rather than the river.
Mr. Barksdale said that he would second Mr. Gloeckner's motion on priority #1.
Mrs. Graves suggested deferring any action until after the coming Monday,
since Mr. Tucker said that the consultants were recommending a by-pass route
as a possible solution to the problems on Route 29 North.
Mr. Tucker said that the consultants might not even get that far in the
review of the plan on the coming Monday.
Dr. Moore said that he would like to hear a little more about the concrete
barrier down the middle, the boundary, grade separations, and what is recommended
in terms of these in this motion.
Mr. Gloeckner called for the question.
Mr. Easter said that there are too many variables in this thing, and the
Commission has no idea about them. With the amount of money that is to be spent
on this, the amount of plans, etc. He said that he is inclined to think that
no decision is better than what is being done at this meeting.
Mr. Payne reminded the Commission that this does not involve "no decision."
If the Commission does not make some sort of recommendation on this, it moves
on to the Board of Supervisors as recommended by the Commission. There would
have to be a motion to address no recommendation.
Mr. Tucker said that as far as what Dr. Moore is concerned about - barriers,
etc. - he is not sure it is necessary to include those items in the motion. Before
this could be implemented, barriers, etc. would be considered by the Virginia Department
of Highways for such things as safety.
Dr. Moore said that his point is if the County wants to give up the median.
240/
Mr. Carr said that he does agree with some of the other members that
the boundary - whether to the river or Rio Road - should be addressed in the
motion.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he agreed - he said that he would include in
the motion the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Dr. Moore said that this does not solve the accesses on the downhill
stretches.
Mr. Carr pointed out that that is an engineering problem, and the
Commission cannot address that.
Col. Washington again stated that the motion should address that the
entire median is not used.
Mr. Gloeckner again called for the question.
Mr. Payne said that strict procedure on this is that the Commission votes
on the calling for the question as a separate motion. If that passes, then
the Commission has to vote on the principal question.
The motion lost, with a vote of 3-3-1, with Messrs. Easter and Moore,
and Mrs. Graves dissenting, and Mr. Carr abstaining.
Mr. Carr said that he did not vote since he does not feel the Commission
is ready to vote on the principal question. Mr. Carr said that there has to
be some give and take to resolve the question here.
Mr. Carr also stated that he does not want the Board of Supervisors
think he is ready to endorse that resolution, because he certainly is not ready to do
that.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he is afraid that is what will happen unless the
Commission acts on something.
Mr. Payne said that the easy way to do that is for the Commission to say
that it is does not approve of the resolution of intent passed by the Board of
Supervisors. The Commission can then come up with some other recommendation.
This can be done at a later date.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Planning Commission recommend against the
proposed amendments as stated in a resolution of intent of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission is going to have to agree on the essential
priorities and he does not feel that those priorities can be engineered.
Mr. Payne said that Mr. Gloeckner made this motion with the priorities
and if it is not to be voted on, it should be withdrawn before another motion is
made on the recommendation of these ordinances.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he will temporarily withdraw this motion. Mr.
Barksdale said that he would accept that, since he is the one who seconded the
motion.
2oz
Mrs. Graves said that she would like to propose a substitute motion.
She said that she would like the motion to read that the Planning Commission
has no recommendation to make at this time, other than to vote to not recommend
this. "44)
Mr. Carr said that he wants to vote to recommend that the Board not adopt
the proposal they adopted in resolution form.
Mr. Payne said that this would be an affirmative action to make no recommendation
so that takes the Commission out of the statute.
Mr. Barksdale said that he thinks it is a "rotten shame" that the Commission
spent all this time on this matter and then sends it to the Board with no recommendation
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with this.
Mr. Easter said that he does not think it is a waste of time, and that he
is as confused as everybody else is on this matter. He said that it does have
to be dealt with, but feels as though the Commission does not have the answers that
night. He said that he would like to add to this motion that the Commission knows
this is a problem, and will continue to work on it.
Dr. Moore said that he would second the substitute motion offered by Mrs. Graves.
There was not further discussion on the substitute motion.
The substitute motion lost, with a vote of 3-4, with Messrs. Carr,
Barksdale, Gloeckner, and Washington dissenting.
Mr. Carr said that this vote brings the Commission back to the original
motion: The Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that they not
approve the resolutions sent to the Commission.
Mr. Carr said that he would like to amend that motion to further state
that the Commission has pursued the matter with the cooperation of the Highway
Department, the staff, and the Commission will continue to pursue the matter.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would not accept- that amendment. He said that
he wants to vote that the Commission recommend that the Board reject the proposed
amendments. Mr. Gloeckner said that the Commission has listened to this matter
for more than 8 weeks now, it has as many facts as are available, and if the
Commission cannot make a decision now, it can never make a decision. One or two
more weeks is not going to make a bit of difference. Engineering problems can be
worked out later, but the intent is to do something. Whether the Commmission
recommends two things or three things in priority #1 is what the Commission should
think of.
Col. Washington said that he is not sure waiting is going to solve anything
either. He said that he has tried to look at this problem , and he feels as though
everyone else has too. He said that if everyone is as confused as they appear to
be, then maybe the problem is bigger than the Commission and perhaps some group
of consultants should be employed to evaluate the situation. Perhaps that should
be the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission just looked at that, the most professional
group that could be - the State Highway Planning Office.
-2,0-3
Col. Washington said that in his opinion parallel roads do the same
thing as service roads, and in his opinion they do it better.
Dr. Moore said that they don't.
Mr. Carr said that this is a difference of opinion.
Mr. Barksdale said that maybe the motion should add Col. Washington's
suggestion, and note that there is a study coming out by the State Highway Planning
Office and recommend that the Board wait to see what their recommendations are.
Mr. Carr pointed out that Mr. Gloeckner does not want to change his motion
and that he is calling for the question on Mr. Gloeckner's motion ( that the
Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Site Plan and Subdivision
Ordinances not be amended to include service roads ).
The motion carried 5-2, with Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission act on priority #1 as a recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors:
Fund and construct immediate) two lanes: one in the median on the northbound
side, and one on the west side of the southbound lane. Continue requirinq acceleration
and deceleration lanes as businesses make improvements on their property and as
new development occurs. Require reservation for future construction of service
roads to the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion. It carried by a vote of 6-1, with
Dr. Moore dissenting.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission adopt the following as priority
#2 to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors:
Synchronize lights from Hydraulic Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission adopt the following as priority #3
to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors: over the next ten
Choose a by-pass route; acquire the right-of-way for the by-pass
years.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission adopt the following as priority #4
to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors:
Grade separations at major intersections from the City/County line to the South
Fork of the Rivanna River.
Col. Washington seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission adopt the following as priority #5
to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors:
Develo the parallel road concept from the city limits to Airport Road.
Col. Washington seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Zoy
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
�VV
�r
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary
9