Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 13 80 PC MinutesMay 13, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May 13, 1980, 7:30 P.M., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Col. William Washington, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Layton McCann, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Charles Vest, Mr. David Bowerman, Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. was absent. Other officials present were: Mrs. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner; also present was Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington, the Chairman, called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Scenic Areas Overlay District - Scenic Rivers and Scenic Roads Ronald Keeler presented a staff report on the scenic areas overlay district. Mrs. Diehl questioned what action the Board of Supervisors wanted the Planning Commission to take. Mr. Tucker said the Board of Supervisors wanted a recommendation from the Commission either to add this to the existing ordinance or to the proposed ordinance, or the desire of the Commission in this area. Mr. Payne said it should be brought up to the rest of the ordinance. Mr. Tucker suggested the Commission adopt a resolution of intent, or make the district a part of the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. McCann questioned whose idea the scenic areas overlay district. Mr. Tucker explained that it started two years ago - a committee partially composed of the following: Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Keeler were appointed by the Board of Supervisors. It was a charge from the Supervisors. Mrs. Diehl said that this is from the Board of Supervisors to see if the rivers are deemed worthy of protection and if so, which ones. Mr. Payne said the committee was to survey the rivers and make suggestions. Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the Moormans River was the only one covered by this and considered a scenic river from this study. Mrs. Diehl said just the Moormans River was recommended at this time, because it was felt worthy of this designation. Mr. Payne said that the Moormans River was really in need of saving at this time. Mr. Gloeckner said the Mechum seems to need some saving from clearing. Mr. Payne said that the soil erosion ordinance had been violated along the Mechum River. Mrs. Diehl stated that if they had been following the present ordinance, the trouble along the Mechum would have been avoided. %3--171 Mr. Skove questioned the 15 feet and 65 feet buffer zones on the immediate environs. Mr. Payne said the fifteen feet setback is reckoned by the shadow cast at winter soltice. The shading not only has an effect on the fish, but on the water temperature and on the view. Mrs. Diehl felt the water quality should be maintained. Mr. Payne felt the fifteen feet and the sixty-five feet setback should be taken in context; people wouldn't want to build within 65 feet of a river, the 15 feet is to take care of the bank also. The 65 feet is horizontal feet. Mr. McCann shaid he had no problem with the Moormans River, but he would hate to see every river a scenic river. It is not any one landowner's obligation to make things nice for another. This is also putting another rule on the books. Mrs. Diehl suggested that it might be good for the Commission to see the list of criteria used to qualify for scenic river designation. Mr. McCann said another committee might add too many rivers. Col. Washington asked if the James River had been considered. Mrs. Diehl said that water quality was one factor considered; many rivers had spots that were picturesque. The James was one river that was considered, it had some of the factors required. Mr. McCann felt the fifteen feet setback was all right; the sixty-five feet setback worried him; approval would be needed to cut trees or anything. Mr. Payne said the Committee worked on quite a lot of rivers and criteria. Mr. Skove was worried about the need of approval to cut a tree. Mr. Bowerman questioned if 25% of cutting was allowed in the 15 ft.to 25 ft. area. Mr. Payne said that 250 of the canopy was allowed to be cut - forest cover generally. Mr. McCann questioned the location of utility lines on the rivers. Mr. Payne said this was discussed. It was felt that the scenic river, particularly the Moormans, would not be bothered with utility structures. There might be lines in the scenic area. Mr. Vest felt the Zoning Department would participate in the governing of this district. Mr. McCann felt he could not vote for the scenic rivers. Col. Washington said a recommendation was needed to the Board of Supervisors to make the Scenic Areas Overlay District a part of the present ordinance or a part of the proposed ordinance. Mrs. Diehl felt the Board needed a resolution of intent. Messrs. Payne and Gloeckner agreed. 19 Mr. McCann still felt it was another bunch of rules and regulations. Mr. Skove said being against scenic rivers was like being against motherhood. Mrs. Diehl suggested that a motion was needed. Mr. Tucker said what was probably needed was a resolution to hold a public hearing. Mr. Payne said a public hearing should be held and then work out the problems. Mr. Tucker suggested a resolution to make this area a part of the new ordinance, if the Commission Prefers that it be made a part of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner said that someone will say that the Meechum or Rivanna needs to be a scenic river. Mr. Tucker said the Committee felt the Moormans was the number one river; maybe the Commission will want to add some others. Mr. Payne suggested that the Hardware Falls is a nice place for a park, very scenic. Mr. Gloeckner said the idea was good, but might be abused. Col. Washington requested a motion - Mrs. Diehl made a motion that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to take the scenic area overlay to public hearing for inclusion in the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked what would be taken to hearing. Mr. Payne said the ordinance that is now before you. Mr. McCann asked about any other scenic highways to be considered. Mr. Tucker said Route 53, Monticello Road and Garth Road are recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, but none have been brought before the Commission. The motion was voted upon and carried unanimously. Mr. Vest asked whether a part of a river could be designated as scenic. Mr. Payne said it could be. McIntire Road Improvement and Extension Mr. Tucker presented the staff report. After showing a schematic drawing of the proposed four lane road in the city and county, Mr. Tucker stated that if the road went to two lanes, at each intersection, the Highway Department would want four lanes. How far back from each. interestion it would have to be four lanes, could make the two lanes impractical - depending on Highway Department requirements. The staff is not adamantly opposed to two lanes, this can move a lot of traffic. If two lanes is recommended to the Board of Supervisors, then grading out for construction for four lanes should be recommended to the Board. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department who had entered the meeting, about the distance required at each intersection to be four lanes, and to speak to the two lane and four lane idea. Mr. Roosevelt stated that first he would give some background on McIntire Road: There are three sections of road - Preston to Bypass, one section; Bypass to Melbourne Road, second section; Melbourne to Rio Road is third section. The existing traffic and estimates for the year 2000 are all the figures they have on traffic for this area now. By the year 2000 this area will need a left and right turn lane and a four lane divided highway. The urban area feels this will all be needed in the city at the time it is opened. In the county - it is felt that one lane in each direction with left and right turn lanes will suffice for a while - assuming this is what is wanted. A left turn lane at least 300 feet long and a taper a couple of hundred feet - this is what is needed for this road; about 900 feet on each side of each intersection. A taper of 500 to 600 feet to go back to two lanes. Mr. Roosevelt then showed a map of the area. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Highway Department would even consider necking the thing down if it were not for so called "expert" committee recommendation of two lanes in certain portions. Mr. Roosevelt replied in the affirmitive - one thing the Highway Dept. would consider was if money were available and when they would be able to construct. Hydraulic Road was started out in 1976 - with an estimate of one million plus. Now the estimate is four million, three thousand. Inflation is taking money down faster than the department can save. It is estimated now that the County portion of McIntire Road will be three million dollars. Construction of McIntire Road will lead to development in this area; comprehensive plan directs development to certain areas - this is one of the areas. By year 2000 will need full cross section, but overriding factor is what can we build now that we can afford. May have a problem if McIntire Road is built two lane, but think of problem if we don't build at all. Mr. McCann stated that he would prefer to go with four lanes. Mr. Skove asked. Mr. Roosevelt if money is set aside, how is this managed. Mr. Roosevelt said that the Highway Department has secondary road funds - now have three million, four hundred thousand dollars (3,400,000). Hydraulic Road should be built - whatever can be managed for two million. If this were done, then money could be saved for the next project - which would be McIntire Road. Col. Washington questioned whether the city received the same amount of funds. 3.5 Mr. Roosevelt said he knew the scale of funds for counties, but thought that cities used a different fund scale. He said the city portion might be financed in 1985 - Don Wagner in charge of this. r" Col. Washington said this road creates a peculiar position - regardless of what the County does, if the City doesn't do something about McIntire, then the County won't or can't - whether two lanes, four lanes or nothing. Mr. Roosevelt said in 1976 when he came here there was no major project except Hydraulic Road and some like 614 near Free Union. He revised the plan. Then finally went to the City and had them look at their priorities. The city agreed that McIntire Road was top priority. If the City drops the project - then the County would have to go to the Secondary Road Division, or to the Highway Dept. as a whole and say this is necessary improvement to bypass and get traffic off of Rio Road. Col. Washington questioned whether the city goes through the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said it did not go through him individually, but the State office. Mr. Bowerman questioned the road could go elsewhere, or does the County have to go along with the city. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Dept. has recommended this particular one; for another would have to go back to a hearing, etc. Mr. Bowerman said he felt the Highway Dept. would propose the best solution. He would favor the four lanes for the county, even if the city only put in two lanes. Then he asked why highway construction costs were increasing at six times the rate of increases in the general economy. Mr. Roosevelt said that items in highway construction are based in petroleum; prices for paving materials go up also. 20%-25% increase is cost of materials. Mr. Bowerman suggested the use of concrete. Mr. Roosevelt said they had tried to get away from this because of maintenance. Some of the cost is because of more detailed estimates - set of plans is more detailed now. Mr. Skove stated that gas has gone up 100%. Mr. Gloeckner said it takes fuel to operate road machinery also. Mr. Payne said it would be difficult for County to support a highway connecting Park Street - the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended. Mr. Tucker said he would hope to stick with this plan for the highway and recommend to the Board to proceed. Mr. Tucker then made the staff report on the highway alignment. On the suggested re -alignment there would be a loss to the county of only .15 acres - net. Mr. Gloeckner queried if there had been any prior concept to the alignment between Preston and the bypass before the Committee got hold of this thing. Mr. Tucker said the only other was to go to the four lanes on existing McIntire. The proposed re -alignment for McIntire around the County Office Building was passed around for the Commissioners to see. Col. Washington asked about the bottle collecting place. Mr. Tucker said there is still a place for it. The access on McIntire was discussed. Mr. Tucker said that access would be at Rio Road, Melbourne Road, and the Bypass. Mr. Tucker went over the Board of Supervisors renaming of McIntire Road Extended to Meadowcreek Parkway and the staff suggestions and recommendations for land- scaping and the bikeway and diamond interchange design. Mr. McCann recommended that the Commission go along with the staff re -alignment of McIntire Road. Mr. Skove felt that to have four lanes to Melbourne and then narrow to two lanes was a bad idea. Mr. Tucker said if the city later on didn't follow up with four lanes, it could be bad, but not at the beginning. Mr. Roosevelt felt that if there were a back up of traffic, that people would get off at Melbourne Road and go down to Park Street, to get downtown. Mrs.Diehl favored building two lanes to begin with. Mr. Gloeckner asked about the idea of building two lanes divided (leave median two lanes to be constructed later) - thus designing for four lanes. Mr. Roosevelt said that in an emergency that would leave no way to get around on a paved area. If what we are looking forward to is a four lane highway, then we ought to point toward a four lane facility, ought to prepare for it and buy land for it and plan toward it. Mrs. Diehl asked if the latest vehicle study and counts show the increase that was anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt said the only available figures at this time are the CAT (Charlottesville Albemarle Transportation) study - there is nothing between now and the year 2000. Between 1976 and 1978 - 5000-7000 cars per day (would be 5000-6000 increase to 10,000 at shopping center).Overall increase each month of 4% to 5% from a year ago. Because of gasoline shortage there was a drop of 4%-5% in July :Last year. Mr. Bowerman said that people are driving as much as they used to, just using smaller cars and more efficient cars. Mr. Gloeckner said that at some future date the bridge would have to be closed, and also Garrett St. The citizens oppose this because they are thinking of today, not the future. Mr. Skove felt that two lanes could handle the traffic now on McIntire, who knows what will be needed in fifteen years. Mr. McCann proposed recommending four lanes and building two lanes - what we can afford. 13 7 Col. Washington said McIntire Road should be built ultimately to four lane, but two lanes initially would be acceptable. Mr. Gloeckner said we should not indicate to the city that we intend to build two lanes, if we are really planning ultimately to build four lanes. It would depend upon how it is worded. Could be done in priorities - Obtain land (right-of-way) for and construct four lane highway in priorities Obtain four lane right-of-way, design four lanes, and build two lanes to begin. Mr. Bowerman suggested that we are encouraging development in that area. Mr. Gloeckner made the motion for the County portion of McIntire Road, it is recommended that a four lane facility be constructed as soon as possible, however, should monetary constraints alter this objective, then immediate execution of a two lane facility with design and grading for four lanes should be implemented. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote was 5-1 with Mr. Skove dissenting. Mrs. Diehl was out of the room at the time of the vote. It was agreed by concensus of the Commission that staff's alternate alignment which preserves County property, reserved for the future County Office Building and parking expansion, as well as protects and buffers existing dwelling units along McIntire Road, should be recommended to City Council in lieu of the City's Design Committee recommendation. It was further agreed that handling of the limited access and development along that portion of McIntire Road in Albemarle County had already been decided upon and handled effectively by the Virginia Highway Commission. The Commission agreed again by concensus on the renaming of McIntire Road Extended to Meadowcreek Parkway and agreed with the staff recommendations of a parkway corridor, extensive landscaping along the corridor and median, curb and gutter along the roadway with a sidewalk on at least one side, a bikeway location contiguous with the travel lanes and that adequate land be acquired for a future grade separation of a diamond interchange design at Melbourne Road and McIntire, with an at -grade intersection being initially feasible. Capital Improvements Program Mr. Eckel presented a staff report. After the library section of the staff report, Mr. Chris Devane, executive director of the Jefferson -Madison Regional Library, made a brief presentation: the capital improvements figures are estimates only, they have not gone to the library board. The library is running out of space in Crozet. The big issue is the location of the Northside Branch - should the branch be built where it was needed five years ago, or where it will be needed in fifteen years, in the Hollymead area. The location of the Crozet Branch was questioned. Mr. Devane explained that it was being constructed behind the cold storage plant and would serve the Crozet area. There is $8,500 in the budget for furnishings for this building, this is in addition to the funds now available for the building. gJ Mr. Skove ascertained that the people of other jurisdictions could used the library facilities and that they pay from those jurisdictions a part of the operating expenses, in proportion to the amount they used that particular branch. The other jurisdictions have never funded the capital improvements. Libraries are no longer funded by Federal funds. Mr. Eckel continued the staff report - starting on the section for the improvements and renovation of Lane High School into a county office building. Mr. Bowerman questioned the original estimate of cost for Lane. Mr. Tucker said about $800,000. Mr. Bowerman said it sounds to him as though the cost has doubled. He asked how the process of arriving at costs was handled. Mr. Tucker said he was not familiar with the process. He said he believed the architect was the original estimator. Mr. Agnor probably could answer this question. Mr. Keeler said he believed the original estimate was a ball park figure and then there was a detailed estimate. Mr. Bowerman asked what is the Commission to do with the capital improvements schedule and how does the Commission relate to this. Mr. Eckel said the Commission helped the Board of Supervisors to decide on priorities - this has to do with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCann said that the building at Lane High School was bought at a bargain and then the cost of remodeling was not investigated thoroughly enough. 144) Mr. Gloeckner said that the improvements to Lane may be a good idea, but the Commissioners really don't know. Mrs. Diehl felt that it was difficult for the Commission to assign priorities. Mr. Tucker said a number of these items are carry overs. We need to look at other areas of the program and see how they relate to the comprehensive plan. Some can not be related to the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Diehl felt it was difficult to know how to advise the Board of Supervisors. Col. Washington suggested going to the school capital improvements. Mr. Eckel made the staff report for the school section. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from any discussion on the following parts of the school capital improvements program: Vehicular Maintenance Facility, Scottsville Elementary, Red Hill Elementary, Albemarle High Track. There was a discussion of the idea of rebuilding Meriwether Lewis Elementary and whether or not to build a new school and where a school should be located in that area. Mr. McCann felt the Commission should go along with what the School Board recommends, should rely on them and what they see as a need. There was further discussion of the Brownsville School and the Greenwood and Crozet Schools. Mrs. Diehl left the meeting. The report of the Airport was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Skove asked if the airport was planning to have larger aircraft landing at this airfield. He was worried about the noise impact. This seemed to be an unknown factor. Mr. Gloeckner said that with the 727 aircraft that the larger craft was already here. He asked if the capital improvements program called for a cross runway, or an extension of the present one. Mr. Tucker replied that this is an extension. Mr. Tucker skimmed over the reports to see what other personnel the Commission would like to have present at the next work session meeting. The Parks and Recreation report created some discussion of the use of those funds. The department has grown in scope - ball fields are increasing, but the use of the ball fields is also increasing. There was no old business or new business. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.