Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 14 82 PC MinutesOR September 14, 1982 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, September 14, 1982, 7:30 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Miss Ellen Nash and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., and Mr. Tim Michel were absent. Other officials present were Mr. Kenneth E. Lantz, Jr., Associate Transportation Planning Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; and Mr. R. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mrs. Diehl explained that the purpose of this public hearing was to receive public comment on the completed Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS). She asked Mr. Ken Lantz, Associate Transportation Planning Engineer with the Highway Department in Richmond, to review for the public the history and development of the CATS study. Mr. Lantz thanked Mrs. Diehl for the opportunity to speak to the Commission and the public attending regarding the findings and recommendations of the CATS study, which he stressed was a joint effort between the Highway Department, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. Mr. Lantz explained that the area covered by the study included the City of Charlottesville and that part of the County expected to experience growth by the year 2000. He said that the total area covered was approximately seventy square miles, with boundaries to the west being the Mechums River, to the north and east the Rivanna River, and to the south, I-64. Mr. Lantz stated that after considerable work and deliberation on the part of all participating representatives, a final document had been produced. He informed those gathered that copies were available for review at the podium. Mr. Lantz explained that transportation planning was an ongoing process and that the current CATS proposal was in fact an update of a previous plan prepared in 1967 entitled Charlottesville 1985 Major Arterial Street and Highway Plan. Mr. Lantz added that the present CATS study gave a projection of future travel needs of the area up to the year 2000. He reiterated that the CATS study represented a cooperative effort, involving committees made up of participants from the City, County, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the University and the Federal Highway Administration. He stated that the resulting recommendations had been developed after careful consideration and review. Mr. Lantz said that the final study was now ready for adoption by the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, to become the official document guiding development of the area's transportation facilities. Mr. Lantz stated that the goals and objectives of the study had been determined by the Policy and Technical Committees together with the Highway Department. He explained that traffic patterns are a direct result of the land use that develops in a given area. The purpose of transportation planning, Mr. Lantz added, is to convert forecasts of future land use into forecasts of future travel. Mr. Lantz followed his brief opening remarks with a thorough slide presentation and explanation of the 1,,,, transportation study, covering the initial collection of existing land use data, the methodology employed in projections, the range of levels of service considered, the .-arious alternative alignments reviewed, the phasing of projects and road improvements and the final recommendations of the CATS study. At the conclusion of Mr. Lantz's presentation, Mrs. Diehl thanked him and then asked Mr. Wally Reed, the last Chairman of the Policy Committee of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study, if he would care to speak. Mr. Reed responded that he was the last elected Chairman of the Policy Committee and he saw among those gathered in the Auditorium, Mrs. Joan Graves, the last elected Vice Chairman of the Policy Committee, as well as Ms. Wayne Harbaugh, a member of the Technical Committee and Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the local Highway Department. Mr. Reed remarked that the Commission could well question the wisdom of taking so long in coming to a decision and completing the CATS study, but he stated that this reflected the overall process which had been thorough and in-depth. He urged those present to remember that the final recommendations of the plan had been reached after a great amount of input, discussion, review and consideration. Mr. Reed stated that whatever one's perspective on growth might be, it was certain that this area was a rapidly growing one and several items emerged from this study. He said that there were over 60,000 people in the urban area and another forty thousand or more who commute to and from the metropolitan area. Mr. Reed stated that there was only one north -south corridor and only one east -west corridor through the metropolitan area, those being Route 29 and 250 through Free Bridge. Mr. Reed pointed out that these two corridors were heavily used, resulting naturally from the tendency to travel along established routes and to develop along established routes. Mr. Reed remarked that this continued practice eventually resulted in people getting in each other's way and affected levels of service, which was really what the CATS study was all about. Mr. Reed explained that the issue was how to cope with local traffic conditions and move people from one destination to another within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Reed commented that enough roadways existed in the area to accommodate local residents, if it were acceptable to everyone to restrict certain lanes, such as is done in northern Virginia, and to require a minimum of two passengers per car. However, Mr. Reed said that it was dubious that this alternative would prove acceptable. He went on to say that in looking over the State, he knew of very few areas where traffic was permitted to deadend. However, Mr. Reed pointed out that people coming to the Charlottesville area were locked into place on Route 29, for example, between Rio and Hydraulic, and not allowed free passage either around the urban area or able to move freely to a local destination. Mr. Reed mentioned that even Warrenton was succumbing to an eastern bypass. Mr. Reed said that there were two solutions to the problem of moving people through the metropolitan area, one being to increase the number of lanes on the existing corridors and the other being to look for new corridors. Mr. Reed said that the second solution ended up being recommended by the CATS study and was the most controversial aspect of the overall plan. Mr. Reed added that none of the proposed alignments could substitute for one another and the deletion of any one alignment could only result in greater congestion on either of the two established corridors, Route 29 and/or Long and High Streets. He stated that the tradeoffs provided earlier in a paper prepared by Mr. Lantz (copy attached) were indeed the issue and should be examined carefully when considering the alternatives to the recommendations contained in the CATS plan. Mr. Reed stressed to the Commission that whatever decision it made, that it should be a clear decision. He urged that any decision to move the Western Bypass back to a later phase, be a very clear decision of postponement and not appear to be an act of avoiding a decision on the bypass because such an action would result in many other things happening. Mr. Reed said that if the decision to move the Western Bypass to a later phase were made clearly with an indication that it was a definite viable alternative, related decisions could be made moving toward that ultimate phase and construction of the Western Bypass. If the Western Bypass were deleted altogether, it would be critical that the Highway Department make improvements and develop high capacity on Route 29, Mr. Reed stated. He added that similarly, if the Route 20 connector were dropped from the plan, it would be necessary to immediately work on improving the intersection of Long and High Streets, along with Route 250 East and Pantops. In concluding, Mr. Reed said that everyone must work together, no matter what decisions were made, to have the Highway Department develop high -capacity designs as soon as possible. Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Reed and asked Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department if he wished to speak at this time. Mr. Roosevelt indicated that he was present for the purpose of observing the proceedings and listening to the various remarks being made. Mrs. Diehl explained that over the past months the Planning Commission had held several work sessions on the CATS Study and explored various options and alternatives. She stated that the recommendations reached were contained in the Staff Report that would now be presented by Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. When Mr. Tucker completed giving the Staff Report (copy attached), Mrs. Diehl asked that the minutes of this public hearing be prepared for the Planning Commission prior to scheduling a meeting for action on the CATS plan, in order that public comment be considered before taking final action. At this time Mrs. Diehl opened the meeting to public comment, requesting that each person step forward to the podium and identify himself for the record. When there did not appear to be any public comment, Mrs. Diehl asked whether there might be any questions from the public. Mr. J. J. Murray asked that Mr. Lantz explain the term "partially controlled access." Mr. Lantz responded that he supposed Mr. Murray was referring to the McIntire Extended project, the only one carrying this partially controlled access Table. Mr. Lantz said that this concept was different from the existing Route 29 North design which contains commercial entrances and exits every one hundred feet or so. Mr. Lantz said that the McIntire extension would attempt to have limited numbers of driveways and street crossings in order to control better where traffic could enter the facility and thereby maintain better speeds and prevent accidents. Mr. Lantz said that reverse frontage would also be employed on this facility, meaning that developers would build homes backing up to the road and having another road parallel to it so that all driveways would not open up on the facility. Mrs. Diehl asked for further questions from the public. Mr. Jim Ketcham-Colwill, with The Daily Progress, asked the Commission to give some additional background on how the three changes given in the Staff Report were made and additionally how the McIntire Extension would affect McIntire Park. Mr. Tucker responded that the committed McIntire Road project would certainly impact the park, but that this problem belonged to the City. Mr. Tucker added that he believed for the very reason that it would affect the park, at one time the City had dropped this project from its top -priority ranking. Mr. Tucker said that he understood the project was being considered at this time as a high priority item by the City and suggested that Mr. Ketcham-Colwill contact Mr. Huja to answer the question. Mrs. Diehl explained with regard to the other two changes, the Route 20 - Rio Road Connector had been eliminated after Mr. Lantz reran additional computer models with various scenarios and further data. She added that as a result of this subsequent analysis, it had been determined that the connector was not necessary and would not carry as much traffic as had been anticipated originally. She explained that the shifting of the Western Bypass was recommended in order to allow more time to study the impact on the watershed area. Mrs. Diehl said that with the upgrading of Route 29 and by moving McIntire Extended into an earlier phase, the necessary time could be gained in order to obtain further environmental impact analysis. Mr. Skove added that another issue considered by the Commission in deleting the Rio Road - Route 20 Connector was that such a connector would encourage more traffic and development on Route 20, which would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that: in his opinion the connector might jeopardize the rural agricultural quality of this route. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any additional remarks. Mr. Bowerman stated with regard to the Route 20 Connector that the Commission had determined that with the improvements scheduled for Free Bridge, projected traffic for the time frame of the study could be more than adequately accommodated without the connector. Mr. Bowerman said this determination was based not only on traffic studies and the bridge improvements, but also to the planned upgrading of 250 East. Mrs. Diehl concluded by saying that multiple scenarios had been run and certain modes rerun and re -analyzed and that she was certain that most patterns had been thoroughly studied over a considerable length of time. Mr. L. Johnston asked whether the City had officially changed priorities with regard to the McIntire Road Extension project in the CATS study. Mr. Tucker replied that he was not certain that the City had taken official action on this matter, although he understood that it was being considered. When there was no further public comment, Mrs. Diehl declared that the public hearing was closed. She urged that those interested should pick up a copy of the Staff Report and encouraged written comment to be submitted to the Planning Department. Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Lantz for having come down for the meeting from Richmond. When there was no OLD or NEW BUSINESS, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.