Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 24 82 PC MinutesM June 24, 1982 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Thursday, June 24, 1982, from 3:30 - 5:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 5/6, Second Floor, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice Chairman; Mr. James Skove; and Miss Ellen Nash, Ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Mr. Kenneth E. Lantz, Jr., Associate Transportation Planning Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in Richmond; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; and Mr. R. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order and asked Mr. Tucker to start with some preliminary remarks concerning the CATS work session. Mr. Tucker stated that at the last work session on the CATS study, there had been a concensus among the Commissioners to request that the Highway Department look once more into possible alternatives to the Western Bypass and the Route 20 Connector. Mr. Tucker said that the results or findings of the Highway Department had been distributed a week or so ago and that Mr. Lantz was present to answer any questions and to provide some background on this follow-up study. Mr. Lantz said in summary of his analysis of the Route 29/Western Bypass alternatives, that he had run the computer models again, once with the bypass in place and once without. Mr. Lantz said that based on this study, and evaluating the level of service to be maintained in the corridor, an eight -lane Route 29 North theoretically would be needed, without the Western Bypass in place, to accommodate the traffic forecas Mr. Lantz noted that the Commission's job had not been made any easier with the development of this alternative. He cautioned, however, that there were several factors to consider in comparing the choices at hand. Mr. Lantz referred to the last pages of his Analysis of the Route 29 North Corridor, dated June, 1982, where such issues as travel time, level of service, accident rates, etc. were raised in a comparison of the alternatives. Mr. Lantz said that there were serious tradeoffs to consider and weigh. He said, for example, with the Western Bypass in place, one might have higher speed and reduced travel time with better access to the region, but perhaps with great impact on the Rivanna watershed and valuable rural land. Mr. Lantz stated that he had deliberately not drawn any conclusions or made specific recommendations, because he believed that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would make their own decision after reviewing all aspects of the various alternatives. Mr. Lantz asked whether the Commissioners wished him to pause for questions or discussion at this time before proceeding to the matter of the link between Route 20 North and McIntire Extended. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commissioners wished to discuss the Western Bypass at this time. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Lantz what the definition of "unacceptable" might be in reference to level of service as contained on the last page of text of his analysis paper, regarding a stretch of Hydraulic south. Mr. Lantz indicated that for this segment of Hydraulic, between Route 29 North and the 250 Bypass, regardless of the alternative chosen, the level of service would probably be E or F, which he implied was meant by "unacceptable" level of service. Mr. Lantz further explained that the desire in the CATS study had been to provide a level of service of C or better for the area outside of downtown Charlottesville and a level of D for the central business district. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Lantz whether when these calculations on level of service were made, distance was a factor. She gave as an example, a level of service that might be unacceptable on a five -mile stretch of road, might be perfectly acceptable on a half -mile segment. Mr. Lantz responded that there were a couple of methods that could be used in making level of service calculations. He said that one way to measure level of service was to look at intersections. He said that his approach had been to take short segments of roadways. He showed Mrs. Diehl a link node map and explained that level of service had been measured for each one of the links with the nodes representing major intersections in the area. Mrs. Diehl asked what the variation in time might be between levels of service, such as between C and F; she wondered whether it might not be a very slight difference of some few minutes, for a segment of road as short as Hydraulic south. Mr. Lantz replied that level of service calculations were done on peak hours, when traffic was at its height on a twenty-four cycle. Mrs. Diehl determined, then, that all of the Highway Department figures were based on peak hour traffic, but that the time differential between a level C and F had not been calculated. Mrs. Diehl explained that her point was that for the difference in time, it might not be worth achieving the higher level of service at greater cost. Mr. Lantz stated that he understood what Mr. Skove and Mrs. Diehl were saying, but then it was a question of how far north such a level of service could be tolerated, because problems would exist up to Rio Road with such a low level of service on that stretch of Hydraulic. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Lantz did not have figures on how many hours out of twenty-four service would be above or below a certain level or the duration of certain levels of service. Mr. Lantz said the figures based on peak hours were measured on a sixty minute duration. Mr. Skove asked when the peak hours were. Mr. Lantz replied that generally there was one in the morning when people were going to work and one in the afternoon. He added that this area was a little different with the University being a factor. He said that there was a fairly high peak at mid- day also, attributed to shopping and classes. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the duration of the peak hours would run from about an hour and a half to two hours. Mr. Lantz replied that this was correct, with the worst of that peak time running from thirty to sixty minutes in duration. From this, Mrs. Diehl determined then that three to four ;hours out of the twenty-four were the basis of the level of service measurement. Mr. Lantz added that when severe congestion exists, there is a tendency to extend the intolerable situation or stretch it out over a longer period. He gave as an example someone finding a particular intersection to be intolerable during a certain hoar choosing to leave home twenty minutes earlier, which when enough people made this choice, tended to spread out the intolerable level over a longer period of time. Mrs. Diehl remarked that the choice to leave a few minutes earlier or later in order to avoid the peak rush was just the sort of alternative she would hope people would select. Mr. Tucker pointed out on a Highway Department diagram most of the level D or better recommended in the CATS study was in areas within the City, pil_,s tle P<..i.nt:ops area, about the only part of the County included in the D or better level of service. Mrs. Diehl determined, then,that expanding level of service D within the County would mean expanding it in the urban area of the County. Mr.. Skove asked whether level of service D on Hydraulic had been calculated based on the widening of Hydraulic. Mr. Lantz replied that it was, adding that the models run were with Alternative 4 of the CATS study which assumes the widening of Hydraulic, improvements to Rio, McIntire Extension east, etc. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the so-called Eastern Bypass, McIntire Road Extended, was looked at as a limited -access highway, in this alternative. Mr. Lantz replied that it was examined with the travel speeds in mind. He said that speeds on McIntire Extended were calculated to be 55mph from the intersection with 29 North down to where it would tie in with existing Rio Road. He said from Rio down to Grove, it was specified at 45mph and from Grove down to 250 Bypass, it was specified 35 mph. Mr. Lantz said that down to about Grove Road, this was similar to a limited -access facility. He added that the reverse frontage concept was employed here so that there would not be a lot of at -grade intersections coming in and slowing things down with a lot of strip development. Mr. Roosevelt asked Mr. Lantz whether in determining the speeds along the so-called Eastern Bypass, the 55 mph figure was with no stops. Mr. Lantz replied that this was correct, on that 5.5 mile segment. Mr. Roosevelt said that it appeared that if the Eastern Bypass were developed as a limited access road in order to get cars wishing to go west of the City to come down the Eastern Dypass to McIntire and then McIntire around to the west, travel time would be about eleven minutes. Mr. Roosevelt said that he had discussed this routing with Mr. Lantz and the time had been estimated from Route 649 at 29 North down to the Bypass at Route 29, even with the improvements in place to the Eastern Bypass and McIntire. Mr. Roosevelt said that if traffic went straight down Route 29, even with congestion and reduced speeds, such as 25mph from Greenbrier on in, travel time would be eight minutes, forty-five seconds. Mr. Bowerman observed, then, that the Eastern Bypass alternative would never work, being two and a quarter minutes longer in travel time. But, he asked, the Western Bypass would work because it moved people west in a m<-re direct fashion and unloaded Route 29. Mr. Lantz replied that this was correct. Mr. Roosevelt asked whether the 8.72 minutes of travel time was with or without the • Western Bypass in place. Mr. Lantz replied that it was with the Western Bypass, he said that although he had not gone back and adjusted the model without the Western Bypass, it would be a longer travel time. Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Lantz that the 8.7 minutes was based on Alternative Four with the Western Bypass in place and 6 lanes on Route 29. He reiterated the travel times on the Eastern Bypass as almost eight minutes down to its intersection with the 250 Bypass, plus another three minutes to go from the Bypass at McIntire back over to the Holiday Inn. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Lantz how he would feel about eight lanes on Route 29. Mr. Lantz predicted that travel time would increase from 8.7 upward... Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Lantz had said it was eight and a half minutes to go from Proffit Road to the Holiday Inn at the Bypass, on 29, with the Western Bypass and eleven and a half minutes to go on the Eastern Bypass. Mr. Bowerman said that assuming there was no Western Bypass, what would happen with eight lanes on 29. Mr. Lantz replied that travel time would probably increase to within a range of eleven or twelve minutes, with six or eight lanes. Mr. Bowerman said that this would assume, based on Mr. Lantz's first alternative, that McIntire Extended would be built to a little lower standard than what the Commission was currently thinking. Mr. Lantz said this was correct, but that McIntire Extended as run in the models was operating as a limited access highway down to Rio Road. Mr. Bowerman asked about the intersection at Rio, whether it was at grade or grade separation. Mr. Lantz indicated that discussion had covered both possibilities, but at present was designed to be at grade. Mr. Lantz said that this feature brought the second project to be discussed to mind, that of the intersection of McIntire at the 250 Bypass, which he stated had been demonstrated to need a grade separation. Mr. Skove went back over the figures, asking how the 25mph speed equated to a level of service. Mr. Lantz said that it was probably down into a C-D range. He reiterated that 55mph was projected on 29 to about where the Western Bypass would take off at the Rivanna, then about 35mph to Rio Road, then 25mph on to the Holiday Inn, going south. Mr. Skove said he was coming up with a three or four minute savings by using Route 29, whether six or eight lanes, without the Western Bypass. Mr. Lantz said if the Western Bypass were not in place, travel time would go up on 29; he reiterated that the 8.72 travel time on 29 was with the Western Bypass in place. Mr. Lantz predicted travel time would go up to probably eleven or twelve minutes on 29 without the Western Bypass. Mr. Bowerman remarked that travel time on the Eastern Bypass with an intersection at grade at McIntire would be eleven plus minutes, making it about the same length of time to reach the Holidy Inn. However, he added, if you put a grade separation in at McIntire and all the way around, including Hydraulic, you might pick up some time. Mr. Bowerman suggested that if the Western Bypass were not built and Route 29 was widened to six lanes, and 250 Bypass made grade -separated, you could get to the Holiday Inn maybe a little faster on the Eastern Bypas; without the Western Bypass. He added that this would be due also to more traffic on 29 that would slow down travel time from the 8.72 minutes. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Lantz had not run a model through the computer with Route 29 six lane and no Western Bypass in place. Mr. Bowerman concluded, then, that travel time would be about eleven minutes on either the Eastern Bypass or Route 29. Mr. Skove said that his approach still was to get up four minutes earlier. Mr. Bowerman said it seems that not a lot would be gained by the Western Bypass Ms. Nash said that the reservoir should be considered also. Mrs. Diehl said that she had always felt that :in the next ten to twenty years a lot of radical changes in resources available would be seen and the means at hand to maintain the level of service presently existing. She wondered whether it would be Possible to maintain current levels of service or whether it would be preferable to bite the bullet now; she said she had real difficulty in making this decision. Mr. Tucker said that this factor would probably have very little bearing on the problem, since funding in any event was unknown, but he wondered what the difference in cost would be if the Western Bypass were eliminated and 29 widened to eight lanes. He added that it might be comparable in cost because a lot of business property would have to be purchased and a lot of interchanges constructed. Mr. Tucker asked where the eight lanes would run or start. Mr. Lantz replied the eight lanes would start near the Rivanna where the Western Bypass was proposed. Mrs,. Diehl asked whether it waS intended to use the median in widening Route 29. Mr. Lantz replied that the median would be used, but that a considerable amount of right-of-way would have to be purchased on both sides for eight lanes. He explained that the problem with eight lanes was the filling that was required and the slope off the side of the road. Mr. Lantz referred to some figures, such as for a six lane road the right-of-way was anywhere from 120 to 160 feet minimum and an eight lane cross section would require another 25 to 30 feet. Mr. Lantz said that he believed six lanes could be put in today, using the median and the existing right-of-way. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there would be no encroachment. Mr. Lantz replied that there might be minor encroachment, with fill. Mr. Roosevelt said some additional right-of- way would be needed on the southbound lane. Ms. Nash asked about the difference in traffic danger between eight and six lane. She pointed out that with three lanes, all the truck traffic could be contained in one lane. She voiced concern about lane -changing on a four -lane road. She wondered whether there was any real advantage to an eight -lane instead of a six -lane. Mr. Lantz recognized the danger. He said that he did not know of many instances in which the Highway Department had built an eight -lane road. He said that at that point, generally the feasibility of a bypass was examined. Mrs. Diehl asked in reference to accident comparison figures provided by Mr. Lantz in showing fewer projected accidents on the Western Bypass than on Route 29 with eight lanes, whether he could provide any information on the seriousness of the accidents. Mr. Lantz replied that he would have to do some further research, but with limited access highways obviously you were going to have higher -speed accidents with people running off the road and with eight -lanes you would have accidents such as rear -end collisions, cars cutting in front of each other, etc. He offered to look into this issue further, when Mrs. Diehl asked about the incidence of serious injuries in the different types of accidents. Ms. Nash asked what the traffic pattern would be or what would be gained with the Western Bypass in place, whether it was to give the trucks a free sweep through. Mr. Lantz replied that the purpose would be to move heavy trucks,that had no desire to go through Charlottesville,around the City. Ms. Nash suggested then that all the money would be spent for the benefit of the truckers. Mr. Lantz added that there was a lot of other traffic wanting to bypass Charlottesville, en route to other destinations. Ms. Nash said that the tourism industry did not want this. Mr. Lantz said that this restaurants, service concern was r Anted out in his comments; he said that hotels, industries such as gas stations and motels, would be quite concerned with the construction of the bypass because potential customers would no longer be traveling right by their front door, causing a loss in business. Mr. Tucker remarked that creation of the bypass would in turn prompt pressure for the development of these services. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was really that much truck traffic through Charlottesville at this point. She su ggested 95. Mr.theLantdz saidady tthabteen a shift of truck he did not have Route any comparisons over to R or numbers on these different routes. Mr. Skove questioned Mr. Lantz's point four concerning regional accessibility. He said that he doubted this would make much difference since there were three regional shopping malls already in existence, in Harrisonburg, Fredericksburg and Lynchburg. He doubted that there would be a significant geographical pull from these other areas regardless. Mr. Lantz responded that he was basing his comments on past Highway Department experience, that improvements prompted increased shopping trips. Mrs. Diehl asked with reference to Mr. Lantz's remarks, whether it was true that work and shopping trips actually_ decreased when there was extreme congestion, even when it was such a centrally -located area. Mr. Lantz replied that he believed so but that he could not give estimates of substantial decreases. Mrs. Diehl also asked on point six, whether the Highway Department was responsible for enforcing air quality standards. Mr. Lantz replied that one of the items examined in an environmental analysis of any new roadway was whether or not such a roadway would violate air quality standards. Mr. Lantz said that he could not speak as an engineer, but a possible hot -spot condition could exist on Route 29 with eight lanes, due to the stop -and -start traffic pattern, with the possible problem with air Pollution. He explained that on the Western Bypass there would be more of a flow of traffic. Mrs. Diehl asked whether any highways had ever been not built due to air control or quality standards. Mr. Roosevelt mentioned that he knew that Route 66 had been delayed due to �;ir quality concerns. Mr. Lantz added that citizens had protested car emissions on the highway near to a school, citing as evidence from actual studies. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the only way Route 66 was approved was with a ban on truck traffic. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Lantz to define the word encroachment. Mr. Lantz replied displacement meant that the Highway Department had to force you to leave your home or office due to property taken for a ramp or right-of-way. He said that the term encroachment means that the road or property claimed by the Highway Department made an impact perhaps on air and with noise level, due to close proximity to your home or business. Mr. Bowerman observed that the issue was obviously no easy one to resolve. He said it appeared that during the study period the Western Bypass could be eliminated and Route 29 upgraded to eight lanes and the Eastern Bypass constructed and an acceptable level of service be maintained. His concern, he added, was what might occur in fifteen or twenty years. Mr. Bowerman stated that everyone was concerned about the reservoir area and the impact the Western Bypass would have on it. He said that for the present the area could manage without it, but he really wondered whether in the long - run the area could function without some other, method for getting around the City. Mr. Bowerman said, as objectionable as it was to him and he was sure it was to others, the Western Bypass might be the only practical way to deal with the entire problem. He said that maybe the only way was to bite the bullet and just be very careful in how the project was built, through the watershed, and live with it as the only practical solution to a long-term problem, even though it might not be needed for the next twenty years. Mr. Bowerman said that he just did not see where another highway could be built. Mr. Skove remarked that if the bypass were placed any farther west, it would o through Stanardsville. Mr. Bowerman responded that this would encourage development even farther out where it was not wanted. Mr. Lantz said that if it were too far west, lr.r it would not effectively pull traffic from Route 29, although it would avoid the reservoir. Mrs. Diehl observed that in fifteen or twenty years it might not too far west because that land between Route 29 and the currently -proposed location of thebe Westernoo Btoass the would be developed and opinion would be that a bypass urban area. At that time, Mrs. Diehl remarked, it might seem quite feasible to place the bypass farther out, away from the reservoir. She added that she detested dealing with such a nebulous situation. Mr. Bowerman asked whether it was true that if the bypass were placed too far out, that people would choose Route 29 for better travel time. Mr. Lantz replied that this was true; he gave an example of 295 around Richmond, saying that a lotpeople still go through Richmond to go to Virginia Beach rather than using the bypass. Ms. Nash reminded the Commissioners that when the 250 Bypass was first proposed it caused quite an outcry, but had turned out to be a godsend to the community. Mr. Bowerman asked whether 250 Bypass had impacted any development or whether it had been pretty much countryside. Mr. Roosevelt responded that really the only thing that existed was on Locust and Park. Ms. Nash said that the 250 Bypass took part of a park but there had been almost no development in existence, and the school was not there. Mr. Bowerman said that the argument against having it too far out was a pretty strong argument for having it in the first place. Mr. Tucker said that it would involve a major policy change as far as development in that area was concerned. Mrs. Diehl stated that she was not in favor of development there, but believed that if the County waited there would eventually be pressure to locate the bypass farther west. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the decision had to be made immed.ately to either put it on the map or forget it. He explained that even if it were not needed for twenty years the bypass would have to be on the map in order to take steps such as providing by ordinance to protect that land. He said that it might already be too late to find an inexpensive connection off of Route 29 because where it was currently beanreadyposed was at the site of Wendell Wood's hotel. He said that the opportunity been lost to reserve that area and the County would have to purchase some very expensive land. Ms. Nash asked where .the proposed route of the bypass went, south of the connection ic d rock store and at 29. Mr. Roosevelt said shad it crosst it es Hywestlof thehbgh school, west of Montvae the reservoir. Mr. Tucker and east of Colthurst , tieing in at the ivy interchange. Mr. Bowerman said that his question was not the problem of having it run through the urban area, but about where it should start off Route 29. Hetsaidit hat might it wesshort- planned now to be just north of the hotel site; he suggested sighted to put the entrance of the bypass at the South Fork and better in the long run to put it further north at Proffit Road. Otherwise he observed that there might be congestion between Proffit Road and the South Fork. Mr. oerman exampledded ,ifit proper planning a lot of traffic could be handled on the bypass, were built with four lanes to start but with a six -lane capacity, acquiring the necessary right-of-way initially. Mrs. Diehl asked whether an alternative entrance had been considered. Mr. Roosevelt indicated that he did not believe so and said that he believed it still possible to go behind the hotel site where there was high -density zoning but no site plan filed. There was some general discussion about where the proposed ramps would tie in at the South Fork. Mr. Lantz showed that the location had been shifted farther north from the initial Route 29 corridor study of some years ago. Mr. Skove asked what would happen if a site plan came in for a proposed subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt said that was precisely why the bypass had to be on the map, why the County had to have an adopted plan. He cited the problem previously concerning Wendell Wood's property, that the County could not make a decision to purchase the land from him because there was no adopted plan in place. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that with an adopted plan, the County would be in the position of choosing to either purchase the land at this time or allow someone to develop it and later pay a higher price to acquire it. He stressed that having an adopted plan gave the County the option of reserving land for right-of-way it might need in twenty years. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Lantz if he had understood correctly that Mr. Lantz believed the Route 20 connector could be eliminated. Mr. Lantz replied that this was the next item to discuss, and that yes, he had so indicated. Mr. Lantz went on to explain that based on his analysis, when the Route 20 Connector was not in place, all the traffic would just come down McIntire and go around t:he 250 Bypass. He said that the Department's analysis had shown that with or without that connector, a grade separated .interchange was needed at McIntire Extended and the Bypass. Mr. Bowerman asked whether a grade separated interchange would be placed at Free Bridge and four lanes run out to I-64. Mr. Lantz replied that no grade separated interchange was proposed at Long and High, but probably a six -lane bridge would be recommended over the Rivanna and an at -grade separation interchange at Free Bridge. Mr. Lantz indicated that there would then probably be four lanes on 250 East from its intersection with Route 20 out to I-64. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there would be a traffic signal as well. He added that he had not meant to jump from the Western Bypass discussion into the Route 20 Connector issue. Mrs. Diehl said that she had only one other question, but since an analysis had not been run on a six -lane Route 29 without the Western Bypass in place, she did not believe Mr. Lantz would hazard a guess on an estimated level of service. Mr. Lantz indicated that six lanes on 29 without the Western Bypass and with the Eastern Bypass, levels of service would be E to F right around Greenbrier Drive south. He predicted north of there between Greenbrier and Rio Road there would be a level D and north of Rio about C. Mr. Skove wondered what level of service there might be on Emmet around Barracks Road. Mr. Tucker determined that Mr. Skove was specifically asking about the segment from Barracks Road to the Bypass. Mr. Lantz said that it was probably a level of service D or E. Ms. Nash asked whether there had ever been an instance of constructing overpasses of some length over a congested area. Mr. Lantz determined that Ms. Nash was referring to stacking one road over another. He said that this concept had been looked into along with the frontage road approach, but would entail taking as much right-of-way as an eight -lane highway. Mr. Bowerman mentioned the high cost of skyways or piggy- back highways. Mr. Tucker said that was why it: was discarded as a choice. Mr. Lantz said that it was usually done in an urban area where no other alternative existed. Mr. Lantz mentioned that the only instance of such a roadway in Virginia to his knowledge was in Richmond. ta ned Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Lan tz hay250rBypassther athat owould noelonger omake that the vehicle trips down McIntire onto the cross -over to go through Key West had been calculated or forecast to be 8,000. This number could be pretty well accommodated, he added. Mr. Lantz also saidtthat in talking over this Route 20 Connector segment with Mr. Tucker, it appeared this alignment had been carried over into the CATS study from earlier, previous transportation studies, such as the 1967 plan. Mr. Lantz said tfromthisRoulink doted back to an early proposal for an east -west route going y Route 29. Mr. Tucker said that the City continuously eliminated various routes that would have cut through Greenbrier and this County route was simply carried forward. Mrs. Diehl said that it did not appear vital. Mr. Lantz said that he would have to concur that it would be difficult to justify. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether there were any more questions. There was a concensus that Mr. Lantz had assisted very much by this follow=up analysis. Mr. Lantz remarked that he did not know that he had made the Commission's decision any easier, but perhaps some thought could be given to asphbackgtthe Planlater moving some improvement projects up and moving the Western Byp He suggested that an alternative might be that improvements to 29 North remain in Phase I but place the ncIntire Extended irprovements north of Rio at an earlier phase than its current Phase IV position. He explained that it had a late phasing now due to the desire to have developers assist in its construction cost at a later date. mmission that with the establishment of the MPO, Metropolitan Mr. Lantz told the Co Planning Organization, there will be additional opportunities to review and evaluate transportation plans for the area. He added that the community was not bound necessarily for the next twenty years to a decision made today. Mr. Lantz said that transportation planning would be a continuing process with regularly scheduled re-evaluation of alternatives. Ms. Nash asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Board had not directed that the McIntire Extended project be included in the six -Year Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said this was correct, even though the City portion had been dropped from the City budget. Mr. Lantz said that the City has shown interest in moving the McIntire Extended project from Phase IV upward, even though it is a County project. Ms. Nash said that one other aspect of the Western Bypass would be its impact on the City of Charlottesville, moving people away from the City which would not be good. Mrs. Diehl agreed. When there were no further questions, she thanked Mr. Lantz very much for his helpful and informative comments. Mr. Lantz indicated that he would be happy to return if there was a need for further session. Mr. Lantz told the Commissioners that their counterparts in the City were about ready to adopt the CATS Plan; he said that he had been at a meeting with the City in early June. He said that the City had beSinceready thetPlantake wouldaction becomewhen an element question of the Cut igal ty`s advertising had come up, Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the City was contemplating any major changes. Mr. Lantz replied that overall the City was satisfied with the Plan, about the only major concern being Ridge Street. Mr. Lantz said the City wanted to point out that due to the historic nature of this area, any improvements planned from West Main to Cherry Avenue should be done within the existing right-of-way. Mr. Lantz said this would prevent four lanes, such as planned for south of Cherry Avenue to Interstate 64, but the biggest problem was the bridge which required a certain minimum clearance. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this project had an early phasing. Mr. Lantz replied he believed Phase one or two, but doubted that any work would actually begin until there was some structural damage or weakening of the bridge. He said this could happen at any time, since it was such a heavily -used north -south route with trucks and buses using the bridge constantly. Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Lantz once again for his help. Mr. Tucker stated that he had passed out a cover letter from Mr. Roosevelt and the Six Year Plan being proposed for Secondary Road Improvements. He explained that no action was needed today, having been scheduled for July 6. Mr. Tucker said that this was a follow-up to a meeting at couple of months ago. He said that Mr. Roosevelt would explain a little further. Mr. Roosevelt said that he had indicated at the earlier meeting that there were a number of criteria the Highway Department had, to meet, one major one being that about one third of the secondary road projects had to meet Federal aid requirements. Another requirement, he continued, was that a certain percentage of this funding had to be used for gravel road improvements; he said that this was a rather complicated formular. He said that for the County it was a minimum of a,906,000 over the six years. Mr. Roosevelt described the three sheets he had distributed, one listing the projects and the amount allocated, one explaining the ;secondary road improvement plan and its criteria, and one showing how the money would be spent over the six years. He said that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there had been any changes since the earlier meeting. Mr. Roosevelt said that the letter was pretty self-explanatory. He named some of the projects qualifying for Federal aid, if the Meadow Creek Parkway were converted to a Federally -aided project fulfilling the requirement that one third of the locality's funds go to such projects. Mr. Roosevelt said that the additional projects to receive Federal funding in this event would be McIntire, Park Street bridge and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Roosevelt said that his list of gravel roads included all with right-of-way and the required 50 car trips minimum. He mentioned that for the last plan five of six being that such treatment would encourage development within gravel roads located within village areas were included for hard -surfacing, the idea Mr. Roosevelt said he had been unable to acquire right-of-way on four es these roads village designations. of but was able to on Route 702. Route 600 was the last road and it had been caught by the Highway Department's funding problems but could now be investigated for right-of- way availability. Mr. Tucker remarked that Mr. Roosevelt should :be informed that one of the issues being examined by the Commission during its review and update of the Comprehensive Plan was the possibility of dropping Stony Point as a village. Mr. Tucker said that no official action had been taken on this matter yet and he noticed that Mr. Roosevelt had included it at the bottom of the Six Year Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said that if Route 600 were dropped, there were still more projects, eleven gravel roads in fact, than there was funding. Ms. Nash pointed out that it was hoped also that $20,000 would not be needed each year for the Hatton Ferry. Mr. Roosevelt said that this was true and the $20,000 could then be used for another project. Mr. Roosevelt explained that the undesignated funds could be useful during a six year period because unless a project was actually included in the official Plan, it could not have funds allocated to it during a budget year without revising the entire Six Year Plan. The undesignated funds, however, he explained acted as a buffer and could be used for such a project. Mr. Skove asked whether there was a City segment to the Meadow Creek Parkway project. Mr. Roosevelt replied that it was and that originally this had been a project solely State -funded because having it Federally funded would have involved an environmental statements that might have delayed the project. Mr. Roosevelt said that at this point funds had to be matched. Mr. Skove asked when any of these three major projects would start. Mr. Roosevelt said that the Park Street bridge should be started by September. He said that he expected Hydraulic Road to go to advertisement in August. Mr. Skove asked where on Hydraulic the project would begin. Mr. Roosevelt said that he did not know where the contractor would start but that the project covered Hydraulic from the High School to Route 29, plus the intersection of Rio and Hydraulic. Mr. Tucker asked about the City's segment between Route 29 and the Bypass. Mr. Roosevelt said that it was scheduled for advertisement late next year. Mr. Tucker told the Commissioners that the Board would like a recommendation on this Six Year P1an,but that no public hearing was required, before the Board took action. Mr. Tucker explained that the summer schedule would have to remain subject to written mobile home complaints. He said that one such letter had been received and would mean that a meeting would be held on July 20 unless the Commission wished to place this item on its scheduled July 27 meeting. Mr. Tucker said that the petition would be readvertised in this event. Mrs. Diehl asked about the Board's date. Mr. Tucker said that the Board would hear it on August 3, if the Commission reviewed it on July 27. There was a concensus to readvertise for July 27. Mr. Tucker distributed copies of all the correspondence received to date on the CATS proposal to each of the Commissioners. He remarked that most of the letters referred to the Route 20 Connector and that each of the letters had been answered. Mr. Mabe said that the last few elements of the Comprehensive Plan would be ready for the July sixth meeting, with the exception of the transportation element. He suggested that the Commission might be ready to go to public hearing by the first of August without the transportation element or might want to wait until it was adopted. Mr. Mabe explained that this element would primarily include the CATS proposal. Mrs. Diehl asked about how the sequence of recommendations should proceed with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the CATS proposal, and the including of the CATS proposal with whatever amendments, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker stated that he had envisioned the CATS study as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, even if a review and update had not been underway on the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Diehl remarked, then, that there was really no value in waiting to incorporate it. Mr. Mabe concurred. Mr. Tucker said that it might be better to have separate public hearings. Mr. Skove asked when the City's public hearing was scheduled. It was apparently not known, although Mr. Tucker said that the City had been having work sessions. Mr. Tucker said that some dates could be suggested for the Commission to consider on July 6. He asked whether the Commission wished to discuss CATS on July 6 or what should be done further with the CATS proposal. Mr. Bowerman said that the other four Commissioners should be brought up-to-date after this work session. Mrs. Diehl asked what further discussion might be helpful. Ms. Nash said that the legal ads were so hard to read and she hoped the County would advertise well on the CATS proposal. Mr. Tucker said that display ads would be used and the media would probably give the County a lot of coverage. Ms. Nash said that she had brought up a matter with the Board the other day concerning rezonings with proffers. She expressed concern that the maps in the Comprehensive Plan were not accurately reflecting the conditions of proffers. Mr. Tucker explained to Ms. Nash that he believed she might be referring to the Minor Townhouses, where the Comprehensive Plan had shown high -density, but Dr. Hurt had developed it as medium -density. Mr. Tucker explained that an attempt had been made to bring the Comprehensive Plan maps up-to-date to reflect actual development that had already taken place. Ms. Nash reiterated that the proffers worried. her. Mr. Tucker ascertained that she was concerned, for example, if the Comprehensive Plan reflected industrial zoning in an area when in fact it was industrial with a. proffer that severely limited uses in the zoning. Mr. Tucker said that the proffer, went with the land so there was a. safe- guard. Ms. Nash asked how the proffers were recorded. Mr. Tucker explained that any application would be in order to amend the proffer or remove the proffer and Staff would investigate the history of the parcel as a matter of routine in composing a Staff Report. Mr. Tucker said that he did not believe this represented any problem and proffers would be very difficult to show on the Comprehensive Plan illustrations, every time there was a proffer. when the issue of the Calico House rezoning was brought up, Mr. Tucker pointed out that this rezoning with proffer entailed three acres, so small an area on a map that it would not even show. He stressed that the Zoning Map reflected every single rezoning petition with proffer, plus files and records. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.