Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 18 86 PC MinutesFebruary 18, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 18, 1986, County Office Building, Meeting Room 7, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the February 4, 1986 meeting were approved as written. SP-85-97 John Kluge - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a radio tower for farm employee use on a 144.27 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property has access via private driveway on the west side of St. Rt. 627, approximately 2,000 feet north of its intersection with St. Rt. 727. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the tower being a "harmonious color" and asked if this was covered under 5.1.12. Mr. Keeler responded that this was not covered under 5.1.12; however, past experience has shown that a natural steel color is preferable. Mr. Cogan expressed concern about means of access and what impact this would have, i.e. how will power be brought to the tower. Mr. Keeler indicated the applicant could address that question. Responding to Mr. Stark's question about building approval, Mr. Keeler explained that the radio tower will require issuance of a building permit and there are special provisions in the BOCA Code which specifically address the tower construction. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. February 18, 1986 February 18, 1986 Page 2 Page 6 WORK SESSION Six -Year Road Plan for Secondary Routes, 1986-1992 - This session will focus on the following project types: hazard elimination, unpaved roads, major improvement/construction of secondary routes, and miscellaneous countywide items. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Mr. Stark asked Mr. Roosevelt why his list of Hazard Elimination Projects had not included the intersection at Rt. 657 (Lambs Rd.) and Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Rd) since this was listed first on staff's list. Mr. Roosevelt explained that he and staff had some difference of opinion on this project though he could support a right turn lane. Mr. Cogan indicated he had a problem with this project since that entire intersection was recently restructured. He felt some of the other projects deserved more immediate attention. Mr. Michel agreed. Mr. Horne stated he felt the Lambs Road project should be given a higher priority than a left turn lane at Greenbrier Drive because of its proximity to the high school and the higher traffic volumes. He felt the Greenbrier Drive situation was more of an inconvenience than a hazard. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the suggested improvements for Lambs Road were more for convenience than safety, particularly since there is now a traffic light at the intersection. Mr. Michel pointed out that the addition of a right turn lane on Lambs Road would not address the issue of pedestrian safety at the intersection. Mr. Horne suggested that staff could study the pedestrian aspect of the project and report to the Commission at a later time. The following was determined to be the Commission's priority list for Hazard Elimination Projects: 1. Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) at 659 (SPCA) - Improve sight distance 2. Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) at Agnese St. (City) - Improve sight distance 3. Rt. 654 (Barracks Rd.) at Rt. 656 (Georgetown Rd.) - Construct right turn lane 4. Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) at Greenbrier Dr. (City)- Construct left turn lane 5. Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) at Rt. 768 (Pen Park Rd.) - Construct left and right turn lanes 6. Rt. 601 (Old Ivy Rd.) at Rt. 250 (City limits) - Construct raised concrete channelization island and install appropriate signage 7. Rt. 656 (Georgetown Rd.), entire length - Construct various right and left turn lanes Ms. Davenport continued with the staff report and presented the section on Unpaved Road Projects. February 18, 1986 Page 7 The staff report aEked that the Commission consider what is the desired level of spending for unpaved road projects, given the variety and volume of other projects. The report stated that "if the Commission recommends spending only the minimum amount for unpaved road projects required by the State, then over the six year term of the plan, only VDH&T recommended projects listed (1 through 9) are likely to be funded. If additional funding is allocated to unpaved roads, that funding would be drawn away from the funding available for other improvement projects. This would delay construction of those other projects." In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Davenport stated that funds would be taken away from all other projects. Mr. Horne explained that the Board has been quite adamant in the past about not spending more than the minimum, but it is possible to address this as presented by staff, i.e. with a basic policy decision. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it would be difficult to defend that type of argument without specifics, i.e. the reason for allocating more funds other than the minimum. In response to Mr. Stark's question, it was determined no bridges are involved in any of the Unpaved Road Projects, 1 through 9. 11,40, It was determined the Commission did not wish to address the question of increasing the allocation to the Unpaved Road Projects category until such time as it can be determined what other categories money would be taken away from. It was determined both the Highway Department and staff agree that the first nine projects listed, which are already included in the current Six -Year Plan, should remain intact. It was determined to be the concensus of the commission that staff's recommended list of Unpaved Road Projects be accepted in total, "as a follow on to the first nine projects," i.e. staff's list 10 through 22. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that projects 10 and 11 on his list ( corresponding to 21 and 22 on staff's list) already have available right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman stated, however, that those projects do not serve as many people as compared to projects 10 through 15. Mr. Bowerman further explained that the Commission's acceptance of staff's items 10 through 22 does not mean that the Commission concurs with the priorities and criteria. He continued, "We are accepting the first nine as one card with 2.4 million dollars over six years. If we decide to put the tenth item as the number fourteenth item in our overall priority list, I think we have to look at the funding available at that point as we shuffle the cards together." February 18, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Bowerman explained, "If Road) should be included in increase the allocation." we decide that No. 10 (Free State the Six -Year Plan, we have to Ms. Diehl stated, "By putting 10 and 11, at the start, at the back of the staff's list,we have implicitly stated what our change in policy is going to be." Mr. Gould agreed and stated he felt the policy issue should be dealt with in terms of future planning. Mr. Horne indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl and stated, "By taking our list, because our list has no relation to that current policy, if you really feel that that list is a correct priority, to a certain extent you are telling us 'Go ahead and continue looking at it as a functional system and not just a system where if you get the right-of-way or are in a certain location, you automatically get on the list."' Ms. Diehl stated the Commission had two alternatives at this time: (1) To accept staff's recommendation for projects 10 through 22 and in doing so the Commission is implicitly stating that the policy is going to be changed; or (2) To accept the state roads 1 through 11 and then the staff list, with the policy being discussed at some later time. It was determined that none of the roads listed as 10 through 20 on staff's list has available right-of-way at this time. Mr. Cogan suggested that it might be possible for some of the projects (10 through 20) to "come on line" as projects 1 through 9 are completed and right-of-way is obtained. Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with Mr. Gould, i.e. that availability of right-of-way should not be the primary determining factor, but that consideration should be given to needs of the community, usage, etc. Ms. Diehl indicated she was not opposed to moving items 10 and 11 (on VDH&T list) to the bottom of staff's list as items 21 and 22. (Ms. Diehl had not realized those items were not already in the current Six -Year Plan.) Mr. Bowerman pointed out this would be a departure from established policy since the right-of-way exists for these two projects. Ms. Diehl stated that by doing this there would be no need to discuss policy because the policy would already be established. Mr. Roosevelt point out that he felt there had been good reason for establishment of the right-of-way availability policy. It was preferable to the old "squeaky wheel" method for determining which roads got improved. He indicated he felt the policy was a good one. He pointed out that gravel roads serve primarily the people who live on those roads almost without exception. n n /$ February 18, 1986 Page 9 Mr. Horne disagreed with Mr. Roosevelt and stated he felt there ,*NW was a functional system in the rural area though it may not be the same functional system as in the urban area. He stated he did not think it was a good idea to have priorities for over $400,000 minimum set by whoever "can sign up his neighbors best." He felt this could lead to extremely expensive roadways that go nowhere. The Chairman called for a motion to settle the issue. Mr. Stark moved that the Commission accept VDH&T's recommended priority list for Unpaved Road Projects, items 1 through 11, including continuation of the current policy of citizens obtaining necessary right-of-way in order to have their roads moved up in the Six -Year Plan. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl made an alternative motion and moved that the Commission accept VDH&T's recommended priority list for Unpaved Road Projects, items 1 through 9. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. It was determined that Mr. Stark's motion did not reflect a policy change; however, Mr. Horne pointed out that accepting ., 1 through 11 and staff's recommendations for the balance was a reflection of two policies, i.e. 1-11 is the old policy, but 12-22 would be a different policy because staff's list had not considered the right-of-way policy. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he could support acceptance of 10 and 11 because the citizens who had obtained the right-of-way had done so on the assumption that by doing so, they "were getting in line" and, consequently, they should have the right to stay where they are. There was some feeling that the "squeaky wheel method" referred to by Mr. Roosevelt was actually no different than the current right-of-way policy, the only difference being that instead of citizens "bugging" staff, they now "bug" their neighbors. Ms. Diehl withdrew her substitute motion. The Chairman called for a vote on Mr. Stark's motion, i.e. to accept VDH&T's recommended priority list for items 1 through 11, and to continue the current policy of citizens obtaining necessary right-of-way. The motion was defeated (5:2) with Messrs. Stark and Wilkerson voting in favor and Messrs. Cogan, Bowerman, Michel and Gould and Ms. Diehl voting against. February 18, 1986 Page 10 Ms. Diehl moved that the Commission accept VDH&T's recommended priority list for Unpaved Road Projects, items 1 through 9. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. It was determined that by omitting items 10 and 11 from the motion, the Commission was indicating a change in policy since the rights -of -way for these two projects have already been obtained. Both Mr. Gould and Ms. Diehl stated they did not think adopting items 1 through 9, and not commenting on items 10 and 11, reflected a change in policy. Ms. Diehl explained that 10 and 11 have not been voted on in either context. Ms. Diehl's motion to accept items 1 through 9 passed (5:2) with Messrs. Wilkerson and Stark casting the dissenting votes. The Chairman then called for discussion on the remaining items, 10 through 22. Mr. Horne suggested that it might be possible to treat items 10 and 11 as exceptions, but still go ahead and change the policy. He emphasized that he was not recommending this course of action, but merely suggesting it as a possibility. It was determined that the Commission's action would be a recommendation to the Board and would not actually change the policy. Mr. Bowerman indicated he would be satisfied with just moving items 10 and 11 to another position on the list. He pointed out that people have a choice of whether or not to live on a gravel road to begin with. Mr. Michel stated the Commission has made the decision to recommend that the policy be changed. He added that he was not concerned with how the Board chooses to treat those roads, but the Commission is attempting to end it here, rather than dragging it out several more years. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was not opposed to a policy change but he was in favor of leaving items 10 and 11 in that position since the rights -of -way have already been obtained. Mr. Michel stated he would favor those two items being treated as exceptions as opposed to continuing the present policy for another year. Mr. Cogan indicated he agreed with Mr. Wilkerson, i.e. in the interests of fairness, items 10 and 11 should remain as 10 and 11. E5 =;2/'7 February 18, 1986 Page 11 Mr. Cogan moved that items 10 through 20 on staff's recommended Unpaved Road Projects list be a secondary category to those projects listed as items 1 through 9, and that items 21 and 22 (Rt. 777 and Rt. 693) be considered a category in and of themselves with special consideration due to the fact that the rights -of -way for these two projects have been obtained in accordance with previous policy. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. No vote was taken on this motion, though no objection to the motion was noted. It was determined this was the recommendation of the Commission, though not a stated policy. The meeting recessed brieflv. Ms. Davenport continued with the Miscellaneous Road Improvement Project section of the staff report. Regarding two suggested minor projects (drainage problems on Rt. 631/01d Lynchburg Road and the intersection of Rts. 664 and 604), Mr. Roosevelt indicated these should be included under Hazard Elimination Projects. However, Mr. Horne suggested that staff study these further before they are added into the Hazard %,; Elimination list. Mr. Horne stated he felt it was desirable to identify specifically which culverts were involved on Rt. 631. M Mr. Stark moved that VDH&T's Miscellaneous Road Improvement Projects list, items 1 through 3, be accepted. There was no actual second to this motion and no vote was called for. However, it was determined that the Commission was in agreement with the motion and no objections were noted. Ms. Davenport continued with the Road Improvement/Construction Projects section of the staff report. She explained that staff was requesting that the Planning Commission suggest any projects within the County which they believe should be considered for improvement. The following projects were discussed briefly: Rt. 631/01d Lynchburg Road; Sunset Avenue. Mr. Roosevelt emphasized the importance of the Commission developing a "wish list" in the interests of future planning. There being no further business, meeting adjour at 10:15 �Yx John Horne, Secretary DS -2/9