HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 13 79 PC MinutesMarch 13, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
March 13, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mr. James L. Huffman;
Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan
Graves; and Mr. James Skove. Absent were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; and
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker,
Director of Planning; Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum was present.
Minutes of February 6 and February 13 were deferred by the Commission
for a clarification on Christian Retreats'applications and clarification on conditions
of approval placed on the Waverly Preliminary Plat.
Upon the motion of Mr. Huffman and second of Mr. McCann, the Commission
deferred until April 3, 1979, any action on the Western Albemarle Shopping Center
Site Plan at the request of the applicant. The vote was 7-0-1, with Mr. Gloeckner
abstaining.
At the request of the applicant, upon the motion of Mr. Vest, and second
of Mr. Huffman, Thomas Lane Final Plat was deferred until April 10, 1979. The vote
for deferral was unanimous.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Route 29 North
Corridor Study
Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Richard Harrison from the District Engineer's office,
Mr. Jack Page from the State Highway Planning Office in Richmond, and Mr. Byron Coburn
and Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the local Highway Office were present to further review this
proposal with the Commission and answer any questions.
Mr. Roosevelt said that he preferred to speak with regard to the implementation,
and what he feels the county should do to assist in this implementation.
First, he noted that it is the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation's responsibility to finance design and construction of the various improve-
ments recommended by the Plan. He suggested that it is the County's responsibility to
implement the plan to the maximum degree possible through its subdivision and site
plan ordinances, thus reducing, where possible, the Department's cost of implementation.
He said that support from the locality will improve the chances for obtaining funds for
the improvements called for. He suggested that on a more long-term basis, the County
should support the plan through specific actions such as follow:
9�
1. Support of the "third lane concept" by requiring dedication of right-of-way,
if needed, and construction of the permanent third lane across the frontage
of each property as it develops. This should be made County Policy between
the intersection of Hydraulic Road and the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
2. The dedication of right-of-way and construction of additional right -turn and
left -turn lanes at major developments as they occur between Hydraulic Road
and the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
3. Adoption of a crossover policy, north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
This policy would include restriction of access, where possible, 500 feet in
advance of crossovers and a request to close crossovers not needed at this
time.
Mr. Roosevelt further stated that approval of the Corridor Study carries
with it certain future obligations, such as the following:
1. Revision of the access plan now approved for the Branchland's property, should
this plan come before the Board for revision;
2. Support of the Department's plan to not signalize the Dominion Drive intersection,
should access at this intersection become a problem in the future;
3. Support of the crossover revisions between Rio Road and the south fork of the
Rivanna River, as the Department develops a plan in this area;
4. Protection of future right-of-way needed for interchanges at Rio Road and at
Airport Road.
Dr. Moore ascertained that the plan at Woodbrook and Carrsbrook requires
lowering the southbound lane.
Dr. Moore then stated that he feels that there should be limited access
in the future to Route 29, and pointed out that this has not been lost north of
the river. He still contends that this should remain a highway and make the necessary
arrangements for local streets. Dr. Moore noted his support of the general concept,
however stated that he does not feel it goes far enough.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed.
Dr. Moore suggested that perhaps access only every mile could be included.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that since funds are difficult to come by, the plan
tries to cut expenses north of the river. He feels that some of the improvements
could be handled by the site plan and subdivision process. He further stated that
limited access along a road entails the condemnation process plus the provision of
access that has been taken away, and this is certainly a costly affair that can
take an extended amount of time.
Mr. McCann said that Route 29 North could be a good street if a by-pass
could be done in conjunction with all these suggestions.
Dr. Moore said that the problems currently facing the county will arise
again if some long range plans are not made for north of the river.
Mr. Roosevelt reminded the Commission thatone of the constraints placed
on the study was the requirement to work within the confiner of the existing right-
of-way.
Mr. Harrison said that the Code of Virginia does not give the Highway
Department the power to designate a road as limited access without providing access
to property owners that may have been taken from them. He said that in Fairfax
93
and Prince William Counties, a limited access is provided for in the Highway Overlay
District.
Mr. Skove said that since this is part of the CATS study, he has trouble
considering this plan in isolation.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that approval of this does not imply approval of the
CATS study, but if the CATS study is approved, this portion of the roadway will function
as well as possible if the suggestions are carried through.
Mr. McCann felt that this is about as much as the county can expect for
a few years; he said that he supports the concept but wants to know how it will be
implemented.
Mrs. Graves wanted to know how this study's recommendations can come about
as soon as possible.
Mr. Roosevelt said that closing the crossovers and adding traffic lights
are examples of things that can be accomplished immediately.
Col. Washington asked the practical limitations of closing the crossovers.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that opening or closing crossovers is within the
Highway Department's power and no one elses.
Mrs. Graves said that closing the crossovers as soon as possible would
assist developers in their planning.
Mr. Roosevelt agreed.
Mr. Page said that another need for closing them is the potential safety
hazard they impose due to inadequate sight distance and poor grading.
Mr. McCann suggested that the Board of Supervisors set the policy on this
study, and put the policy in ordinance form, in order that all are treated the same.
Mr. McCann moved that the Planning Commission recommend the study to the
Board of Supervisors, and recommend that the Board give full consideration to the points
addressed by Mr. Roosevelt. Furthermore, he moved that the Board of Supervisors
develop an ordinance to implement the recommendations of the study.
Mrs. Graves said that she has trouble acting on this since it has not
been advertised.
Mr. Tucker said that the Board of Supervisors forwarded the study to the
Commission for its input and consideration and that it is not a topic for public hearing.
Furthermore, he said that a public hearing will be held on the CATS study for public
input.
Mr. Payne said that no public hearing is required except for amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning map amendments, special use permits, and variances.
Policy has no legal standing and this is before the Commission in order to formulate
a policy on Route 29. He said that no public hearing is necessary to formulate policy
or for making a recommendation on policy.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion.
/T
Mr. Skove said that he could not support the motion since he feels
he is voting in isolation.
Dr. Moore said that he supports the motion in lieu of anything better.
The vote was 6-0-2, with Mr. Skove and Mrs. Graves abstaining.
PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE:
Mr. Payne went through the rules and explained the meaning of each section.
Col. Washington questioned the rules for operation of the staff, since
Mr. Payne's presentation seems to deal with the chairman of the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that rules for the staff had been established the prior week.
There was a long discussion about the rules, especially the rescission
of prior Actions of the Commission.
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission accept the rules as proposed with
the exception of C(5).
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission suspend the consideration of new rules
of procedure for the time being. She then withdrew the motion.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission accept the rules with the addition
of the following sentence to Section C. Official Action of Commission: "The chairman
may call on members of the Commission for any additional information they may have."
She included leaving in Rescission of PriorActions of the Commission.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
With no further action, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
n
95