Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 18 86 PC MinutesMarch 18, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the March 4, 1986 meeting were approved as written. SP-86-05 Alvin E. Breeden - Request for a special use permit in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 19, parcel 44, White Hall Magisterial District. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 604, ±1/2 mile northwest of its intersection with Rt. 814. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. One objection to the appli- cation had been received. It was later determined the person who had objected lives in Alabama but owns adjoining property. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Breeden addressed the Commission. He indicated it was his impression that Ms. McGovern (the objector), after conferring with her father, no longer objects to the application. Mr. Breeden confirmed that he understood the conditions of approval. Mr. Breeden also indicated it was his daughter's intent to eventually build a conventional dwelling on the property in 4-5 years, at which time the mobile home will be removed. Mr. Breeden explained that it was his hope that he could eventually purchase the entire parcel (17.5 acres). It was ascertained the property is currently owned by the entire Breeden family and is in an estate. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined Mr. Breeden resides in the existing mobile home on the property with the proposed mobile home intended for his daughter's use. An existing dwelling on the property is uninhabitable. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on the Ordinance statement regarding the number of dwellings that are permitted on a single parcel. March 18, 1986 Page 2 Mr.Payne explained that the RA district allows five by right and more by special permit depending on the acreage. He clarified this meant 5 dwelling units of any type. Mr. Benish added, "It the Zoning Department had determined the house was feasibly habitable, they would have had to go through a site plan waiver request, for the third dwelling unit on a property." It was determined if a third dwelling unit were built, or the existing structure were renovated, a site plan would be required. Ms. Diehl asked how that would be "flagged" by the other agencies. It was determined this would be picked up when a building permit is applied for. It was noted, however, that if one trailer is removed when another dwelling unit is built, then "everything would remain the same," i.e. no site plan would be required. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-05 for Alvin E. Breeden be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Placement and/or maintenance of screening materials to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board. on March 19, 1986. WORK SESSION Meadowcreek Parkway - A brief work session to solicit commis- sion comments on the design of the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation will be conducting a location public hearing at Charlottesville High School on March 25, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Horne gave the staff report. He explained that the staff was seeking a recommendation from the Commission to take to the Board. The Board will then endorse one of the proposed alignments and that will be the County's position. Mr. Horne explained the location of the proposed alignments. The staff report stated that staff favored alignment D, without the grade -separated interchange at the Rt. 250 By -Pass, for the following reasons: 1. There would be no disruption of existing tennis and rescue squad facilities on McIntire Road. (Note: Later in the meeting Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, stated that this statement was incorrect. Mr. Payne explained this was staff's understanding and he felt it was also the City's March 18, 1986 Page 3 understanding. Mr. Roosevelt disagreed.) 2. There would be wider separations of the north bound and south bound lanes in the County portion which would minimize the visual impact of the roadway as that area develops. 3. There would be less disruption of McIntire Park as compared to a design using an interchange at Rt. 250. Staff opinion was that the cost of the interchange (monetary, visual, and physical) would far outweigh the benefits (smoother traffic flow through that intersection). The report also stated that this alignment (D) is consistent with the design favored by the City. The following points were discussed: --For a portion of alignment D (approximately 1/2 mile), the lanes would be widely "split." This would necessitate the acquisition of more right-of-way than would alignment A. --Though constructions costs for A & D would be similar, Mr. Roosevelt stated right-of-way costs for D would be approximately $2,000,000 (two million dollars) greater, not including the interchange. The reason for the greater cost being that more land must be acquired for a separated roadway. Staff felt this figure was excessive. --All the proposed alignments were developed by the Highway Department. --The map and the "Blue Book" (for distribution at the Highway Department's public hearing) were not in agreement. --The primary purpose of the roadway is to get people from the north of town to the center of town more efficiently. --The final decision will made by the Highway Department after considering the Board's recommendation, the City's recommendation and public comment. Though the Board's recommendation will "carry a lot of weight," it is not as influential as the City's recommendation since without the City's 5% contribution, the High- way Department will not build the road. --The only advantage of D over A is a visual one. The Commission noted concern about disagreement between the staff and the Highway Department on the following issues: --The right-of-way costs for alignment D. --Whether or not alignment D would disrupt the tennis and rescue squad facilities. --Disagreement between the information in the Blue Book and that presented by staff. March 18, 1986 Page 4 Though it was determined a public hearing was not requirEd prior to the Commission making a recommendation, the majority of the Commission was uncomfortable with making a formal recommendation without having received public input. Therefore, even though a public hearing was to be held by the Highway Department on March 25, 1986, it was decided the Commission would hold a public hearing on the matter before making a recommendation, said hearing to be scheduled in April or May. (Mr. Roosevelt stated it was not necessary that the Board or the Commission have an official position by the March 25th hearing.) Though it was the consensus of the Commission that, at this point, alignment A was preferred (primarily because of excessive right -of -costs for D), no formal action was taken and no recommendation made. Six -Year Road Plan for Secondary State Routes - The work session will focus on establishing a single priority list which integrates various project types for future adoption as the Six Year Road Plan, 1986-1992. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report, assisted by Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department. The purpose of the work session was for the Commission to establish a priority list which, when adopted, will serve as the Six -Year Road Plan 1986-1992. Ms. Davenport emphasized that this was to be a priority list, not a funding plan. The staff report included the following: 1. A display matrix containing project lists from the seven funding and construction categories (Federal Aid Rural Secondary; Hazard Elimination; Bridge Replacement Rural Secondary; Bridge Replacement Secondary Off System; Railroad Highway Crossing; Countywide Items; and Unpaved Roads). 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommended priority list containing projects 1-39. 3. Descriptive information for each project by construction/ funding category. Discussion included the following major points: --No. 1 on the list (Hydraulic Road, Rt. 29 to Rt. 1455) was predetermined since it is already constructed. --The first nine projects listed in the Unpaved Roads category will be done regardless of their ranking on the list because there is a minimum amount ($406,900) which must be spent in this category. It was determined that, with the exception of two projects (Rt. 777, county - line to end and Rt. 693, Rt. 638 to Rt. 695)for which right-of-way has already been obtained under the old policy, it was the Commission's position that only the March 18, 1986 Page 5 OR minimum amount required should be allotted to the Unpaved Roads category. --It was agreed that New Plant Mix, listed under the "Other" category, would "come off the top" and therefore it was not assigned a specific priority. (Mr. Roosevelt indicated he would lump this with "signs, pipes, etc.) --There was a considerable amount of discussion and disagreement on the possible ranking of the Meadowcreek project as No. 2 on the list. Ms. Diehl was adamantly opposed to giving it such a high ranking since she felt it was wrong to commit the majority of the funds to a project that is several years "down the road" when there are many more immediate needs which are directly related to public safety and welfare. She felt that ranking Meadowcreek as No. 2 would essentially eliminate most all the other projects. Arguments for placing it as No. 2 included: high ranking in the current Six -Year Plan; high ranking on the City's priority list; funding levels might change; would relieve excessive traffic problems on Rio Road. In an effort to settle the issue, Mr. Stark made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, to make Meadowcreek Parkway No. 2 on the list. The motion failed due to a tie vote (3:3) with Commissioners Diehl, Cogan and Gould voting against and Commissioners Bowerman, Stark and Wilkerson voting in favor. Ms. Diehl again stated her reasons for opposition and Mr. Gould and Mr. Cogan indicated they agreed with her. Mr. Cogan then moved (seconded by Mr. Stark) that the previous motion to rank the project as No. 2 be reconsidered. A second vote was taken and defeated (5:1) with only Mr. Stark voting in favor of the motion. --Responding to the Commission's question as to the impact of the re -ranking on the Meadowcreek project (finally ranked as item 22a and 22b), Mr. Roosevelt stated it would probably delay the funding of the project by approximately six months. --The Commission ranked items 1-31, with the remainder of the projects to be ranked at the discretion of Mr. Roosevelt. The following was the final priority list recommended by the Commission (no formal vote was taken): 1. Hydraulic Road (29 to Rt. 1455) (Other) 2. Rio Rd. at SPCA Rd. (HES) 3. Rio Rd. at Agnese Rd. (HES) 4. Barracks Rd. at Georgetown Rd. (HES) 5. Rio Rd. at Greenbrier Dr. (HES) 6. Rio Rd. at Pen Park Rd. (HES) 7. Georgetown Rd. - turn lanes (HES) 8. Old Lynchburg Rd. - drainage (HES) .:� 7& March 18, 1986 Page 6 9. Rt. 729, Bridge over Buck Island Cr. (BR -SOS) 10. Rt. 678, Bridge over Mechum River (BR -SOS) 11. Rt. 671 (Rt. 609 - Rt. 668) (Unpaved) 12. Rt. 618 (Rt. 729 - Rt. 620 (Unpaved) 13. Rt. 640 (Rt. 20 - 1 mile east) (Unpaved) 14. Rt. 664 (Rt. 604 - Rt. 743) (Unpaved) 15. Rt. 622 (Rt. 618 - countyline) (Unpaved) 16. Rt. 643 (Rt. 649 - 1 mile west) (Unpaved) 17. Rt. 686 (Rt. 600 - countyline) (Unpaved) 18. Rt. 727 (Rt. 627 - Rt. 795) (Unpaved) 19. Rt. 652 (.2 miles) (Unpaved) 20. Install pipe, signage, etc. (Other) 21. Hatton Ferry (Other) 22a. Meadowcreek Parkway (FAS) 22b. Meadowcreek Parkway - Bridge (BR-RS) 23. Rt. 671, Bridge over Moormans River (BR -SOS) 24. Hydraulic Rd. (Whitewood to Rio) (FAS) 25. Stagecoach Rd./Old Lynchburg - Interchange to Rt. 780 (FAS) 26. Rio Rd. (Rt. 29 to Rt. 650) (FAS) 27. Rio Rd. (Rt. 29 to Hydraulic Rd.) (FAS) 28. Rt. 601, Bridge over Buck Mt. Cr. (BR-RS) 29. Rt. 777 (countyline - end) (Unpaved) *Right-of-way secured 30. Rt. 693 (Rt. 635 - Rt. 695) (Uppaved) *Right-of-way secured 31. Rt. 660, Bridge over S. Fork Rivanna (BR -SOS) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Horne, gecretary DS