HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 07 1999 PC Minutes0M
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 7,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
December 7, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development;
Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner; Ms. Steven
Waller, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Bill Wahner from the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr.
Dennis Rooker.
��
rd
The minutes of the November 16th meeting were approved as presented; the minutes of the
November 23rd meeting were approved as amended.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — December 1, 1999
Mr. Benish presented a review of the Board meeting; no items were considered at their meeting that
the Commission had previously reviewed. He said that the Board held a work -session on the
acquisition of a conservation easement program, and are planning to set a public hearing on January
before moving forward on an ordinance.
Other matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
SDP 99-093 Crozet Park Overflow Parking
Request for preliminary site plan approval to allow for an expansion of the park, which includes a
request for overflow parking. The property, described as Tax Map 65A2, Parcels 72 and 72A, is
located at the end of Hilltop Street, within the Claudius Crozet Park.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the Consent Agenda as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA 99-01 Pantops Place
Request to rezone 12.3 acres from R-1, R-6, and R-10 Residential to PRD Planned Residential
District to allow up to 130 dwelling units in retirement village. The property, described as Tax Map
78 Parcels 55 A-1 and 55 A-5 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Route 250 East,
adjacent to Westminster Canterbury, approximately 1.13 miles from Free Bridge and the
Charlottesville City limits. The density of the development is 10.5 dwelling units per acre. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01 — 34
dwelling units per acre in Urban Neighborhood 3, Pantops.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 263
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting that the application is a rezoning request from R-1, R-6,
and R-10 to PRD to allow for a senior living village on Route 250 next to Westminster Canterbury.
The density of the development proposed is approximately 10.6 dwelling units per acre, greater than
the 6.5 dwelling units per acre that could be approved by -right with existing zoning. She added that
if there were density bonuses on a by -right development, it would be about the same as what is
requested with this proposal. Ms. Echols noted that the use is different than the uses allowed by -
right in R-1, R-6, and R-10, as this is a planned development with intended uses.
Ms. Echols said that the proposal is slightly different than what was reviewed in July; the major
facilities proposed are the same, with an assisted living center, independent living apartments, and
cottages. However, the office proposed along Route 250 has now been changed for cottages; the
only special use permit included with this proposal is for institutional use — the convalescent care
facility of the assisted living center. She added that staff feels some changes to the plan are very
positive, such as the change from a stairway down a 2 to slope between the cottages and the
assisted living center to a sidewalk coming around the side on a less steep slope.
Fences have been added behind those units for safety, and paths around the open space have been
modified in keeping with what staff had originally recommended. The applicant has tied down the
commitments to the paths to adjoin with Westminster Canterbury, if Westminster will give that
permission. The applicant has committed to having a community association for the development to
maintain the open space, and have committed to leave undisturbed a buffer hedgerow between this
development and Glenn Orkey.
Ms. Echols explained that staff s main concerns with this project have been with the reconstruction
of slopes; county regulations allow 25% slopes to be re -graded to create steeper 50% slopes. The
reason for the creation of the critical slopes occurs because of the large building and parking paths
for the facilities; at this time, there are no regulations that would prevent the creation of 2 to 1
slopes. The ARB believes that the site can be developed architecturally in keeping with Entrance
Corridor guidelines.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning with the application plan and the proffers
included, with a critical slopes waiver and approval of the institutional use of the convalescent care
facility by special use permit. The last proffer will be re -worded to clarify that people in the
community would be part of the community association, and the property owners would be members
of the association.
Mr. Finley asked if the private road would be maintained by the homeowners' association. Ms.
Echols replied that the applicant is committing to having the community association maintain all of
the areas outside the building envelopes. Pantops Mountain Road is owned by Westminster
Canterbury, and the applicant has obtained permission to use that road, and any maintenance
agreements will be worked out privately.
The applicant's representative, Mark Keller of McKee Carson, addressed the Commission. Mr.
Keller said that the proposed facility helps meet the housing needs of an aging community, it's
adjacent to a similar facility, it's convenient to goods and services, has excellent access, there is
infrastructure in place, provides low fiscal impact to the community, and is in keeping with the
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 264
Comprehensive Plan's urban density guidelines and infill policies. He mentioned that over the last
**Aw,, 18 months, the applicant has worked with neighbors in the vicinity, especially Martha Jefferson
Hospital and Westminster Canterbury. Mr. Keller added that they have met with the Architectural
Review Board and have begun incorporating their suggestions into the current plan.
Mr. Thomas asked to what extent the area would be re -vegetated.
Mr. Keller replied that the pond located behind the facility would be both an amenity and a
stormwater facility; currently, the vegetative quality of the growth in the area of the small cottages
which parallel the creek is mostly secondary growth and a few large specimen trees. He said that the
area north of the pond has been denuded for the construction of a sediment basin related to the
development of Westminster Canterbury; most of the dam developed for that still exists. Mr. Keller
said that they plan to undertake significant landscaping on the entire site, and mentioned that the area
on the right-hand property line contains a mature hedgerow of deciduous and evergreen trees and a
low free-standing stone wall which straddles the property line. He added that the applicant's intent
is to refrain from grading or altering within the first 15 feet on their side of the property line, except
for removing dead material. Mr. Keller noted that the paved service drive, which is the least
attractive part of the property will be buffered by medium and small shade trees along that area. He
mentioned that they have laid out their buildings so that the rooflines are roughly the same elevation
as the finished floor of the Westminster Canterbury units.
Mr. Thomas asked about the appearance of the buildings in the Monticello viewshed.
Mr. Keller responded that they attempted to put smaller units in the area near Route 250, and they
will receive more input at the site plan level and future ARB meetings.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Keller about ARB concerns regarding the three-story facility, noting a
letter from Monticello expressing concern about the large building.
Mr. Keller responded that when they met with the ARB, they presented sketches and elevations of
what the property would look like when developed, before the cottages were planned to be located
along the front of the parcel. He said that the reason for the placement of the large building is that
the structure requires the broadest, flattest topographical area; the building needs to be as far away as
possible from the peak of the property, so that Westminster Canterbury views are not obstructed;
and, the desire not to disturb a stand of mature/nearly mature trees that could screen the large
building.
Mr. Rieley asked about the offer of a connection to Westminster Canterbury, and asked what
possible objection they could have to the connection. Mr. Keller suggested that the Westminster
representative address that issue.
Mr. Rieley mentioned the cottages backing onto Route 250, and asked if the ARB had given any
feedback on their placement.
Mr. Keller responded that the ARB has not seen the change which places the cottages there, but said
that the applicant has had ongoing conversations with staff about the orientation of the facility if it is
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 265
going to be a true PRD. He said that if the Pantops Place development is all residential, functioning
as a comprehensive community, it ought to be oriented inward on the site. Mr. Keller added that if
heavy landscaping is to be done, then it is more appropriate to install it to the back of the facility,
rather than create a barrier between a parking lot and the unit itself. He said that if there is a private
and public side to the units, it would be desirable to have the front yards be the more public
community -oriented side, and have the more private areas in the back yards of the units.
Mr. Thomas asked how high the cottages are elevated.
Mr. Keller replied that the finished floor of the main level is approximately 10 feet higher than Route
250.
Mr. Thomas asked if they would be excavating and lowering the hill to accommodate the
construction of the buildings.
Mr. Keller responded that they would be cutting where the front edge of the building is adjacent to
the parking lot, and carrying the dirt to the back of the buildings. He added that the cottages will
contain basements for storage of items from the occupants' previous residences.
Mr. Thomas suggested vegetation along Route 250 that would be fairly dense and tall to shield the
buildings.
Mr. Keller said that their intent was to not totally screen the buildings from Route 250, so that the
occupants would have views also. He added that they are hoping to conceal the basement level.
Mr. Finley asked about the term "preserve hardwood forests."
Mr. Keller said that it is their intent not to cut any of those trees; there is a small area that requires
some additional cutting to restore the original grades where the sedimentation dam had been
constructed.
Mr. Henry Hennett, President and CEO of Westminster Canterbury, addressed the Commission. He
said they have enjoyed working with Tom Franks and American Senior Living on the proposal for
Pantops Place. Mr. Hennett said that he was surprised at the change which puts cottages on Route
250, as he thought it was going to be an office building. He said that his concern is not what is to be
placed along Route 250, but the property adjacent to the cottage area, which neither facility owns.
Mr. Hennett said that he does not feel obligated to provide access to that third party. He added that
they do not have any concerns about the overall project, and feel it is the best use for the property.
Mr. Rieley asked what objection Westminster Canterbury has to adjoining the two like facilities with
a sidewalk.
Mr. Hennett responded that WC is a licensed health-care facility, and is a private property. "We do
not feel that we can assume either the security, the safety, or the liability interest for outside parties."
He said that is inclusive of Ashcroft and other neighboring properties, adding that their attorneys
have advised them not to take the risk of having other elderly people on private property. Mr.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 266
Hennett noted that Westminster Canterbury welcomes residents, staff, professionals or guest through
the front gate of the community.
Mr. Rieley expressed concern about the location of the cottages with their backs to Route 250, and
asked if the ARB had the authority to change the orientation.
Ms. Echols replied, "I would think so. They are going to have to review what's facing 250, and this
will be on a site plan. So they would have the ability to review that ... they would have the ability to
look at those issues.. -there's a real struggle in terms of having the orientation of those units - what
is most appropriate for the particular community." She added that the ARB needs to review the
development for what is seen along the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Rieley noted that turning your back on major thoroughfares is not a polite way to build in an
urban setting.
Mr. Finley asked if there were limitations to the number of outlets onto a private road.
Ms. Echols replied that when Pantops Mountain Road was put in, it was intended to provide access
to the adjacent property, but this had to be worked out privately in terms of the maintenance
agreements. She noted that the previous zoning for this particular property had a proffer that would
provide access to the adjoining property, which is what staff was concentrating on. Ms. Echols said
she did not recollect the exact agreement for access from Pantops Mountain Road.
Mr. Rieley complimented staff and the designers for the clarity of the material presented. He
concurred with Mr. Keller that one of the best reasons for locating the facility on this site is its
adjacency to a similar facility, and added that the advantage would be heightened if there were easy
pedestrian access from one to the other. He said that the lower elevation and the ARB's review of
the site allays his concern about the Monticello viewshed.
Mr. Rieley said that he would like to "leave the door open" for the ARB to influence which way the
cottages are facing, whether the parking or the cottages are in front. He stated that a pond that older
people can be walking around should have a safety ledge.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of ZMA 99-01 with conditions as
presented and additional recommendations that the ARB examine the orientation of the cottages
along Route 250 with an eye between improving the relationship between the cottages and the EC.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval a special use permit in
association with ZMA 99-01 for the facility to be used as a "rest home, nursing home, convalescent
home, orphanage or similar institution" pursuant to Section 19.3.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, with
the condition that there be a safety ledge around the pond similar in design to those required around
stormwater detention facilities. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of a critical slopes waiver
associated with ZMA 99-01. The motion passed unanimously.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 267
SP 99-66 Monticello High School
Request for special use permit to allow temporary leasing for office usage in accordance with
Section [18.2.2.111 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for professional offices. The property,
described as Tax Map 91 Parcel 2, is the Monticello High School, and is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District on Mill Creek Drive [Route #1150]. The property consists of 65.972 acres and
is zoned R-15 Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional use in
Urban Neighborhood Four.
Mr. Keller presented the staff report, stating that the request is for the Association of Investment
Management & Research to lease Monticello High School during the six weeks of summer when
school is not in session. He explained that this is an annual grading of financial advisors' texts. The
six -week program would be in three phases, initially with 60-80 personnel there to set up equipment
for the graders. The graders would come in for a period of three weeks; the initial week, there would
be as many as 1100 graders, with 700-800 graders and support personnel during the second two
weeks. The final phase would be the knock -down phase, when the equipment is removed.
Mr. Keller said that staff reviewed the special use permit, comparing it to the normal operation of a
school; basically, staff feels the hours of operation are relatively consistent, and would be seven days
a week during the grading period. He noted that the traffic generation would be minimal because
most of the graders would be transported to and from the facility by bus, not unlike a school
operation. Staff is recommending approval of this with three conditions: (1) granting 60
consecutive days annually for operation; (2) hours of operation would be from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00
p.m.; (3) the graders would be transported to and from the facility by bus.
Mr. Keller explained that staff modified the second condition to allow additional hours of operation
in the event it is necessary, and suggested modifying condition #3 to accommodate local graders
who will be arriving by automobile. He added that staff is attempting to ensure that the traffic
patterns and hours of operation are relatively consistent with the school, noting that the distance
from the bus parking area to the closest residential area — Willow Lake — is about 500 feet to the
nearest unit.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how many students and teachers are normally in attendance at Monticello
High School.
Mr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent of City Schools, said there are approximately 1100
students and 100+ instructional staff normally at Monticello. He added that there are 30 local
graders who would be driving.
Mr. Keller noted that the front office of the school would remain in operation, and the custodial and
food services would be provided by the school. He said that the food service would provide extra
income for the school.
Public comment was invited.
None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 268
En
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-66 with conditions as
presented, and Condition #2 modified to allow hours of operation for the graders from 6:30 a.m. to
8:00 p.m., and Condition #3 modified to state that graders (except local graders) shall be transported
to and from the site by bus. The motion passed unanimously.
Regular Item:
SP 99-128 Shadwell Antiquaries Major Amendment
Request for approval to amend site plan allowing the change in use of a 2,112 square foot building,
approved as a repair shop, to a restaurant. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 19 is
located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at the intersection of Route 20 East and Route 22 North at
Shadwell. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 2.
Mr. Benish introduced Mr. Steven Waller, a new county planner who previously worked in the
Zoning Department.
Mr. Waller presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is seeking amendment of a final site
plan, approved in June 1999, to allow a change in use of one of two buildings approved from a repair
shop to a restaurant. He said that both the antique shop and the restaurant are by -right uses in the
C-1 Zoning District. Mr. Waller said that this site is located in a graded and cleared lot, and both
structures are nearly completed. The applicant is seeking approval to use the smaller building as a
restaurant; in accordance with site plan regulations, a nearby property owner is requesting that the
Planning Commission review the request.
The site review committee has reviewed the request. Staff has recognized the concerns raised by a
nearby property owner including screening of her property from the proposed restaurant; the
landscaping plan has been reviewed by the Planning Department and the Design Planner. Her
concerns were that the building would be visible from her property, but staff feels that the
landscaping planned around the perimeter of the property and the building provides adequate
screening. Additionally, the property owned by the neighbor requesting the review is separated from
the restaurant by a railroad and a Wilco Service Station; site plan regulations do not require
screening between two commercial uses.
Mr. Rieley asked which direction the person who raised the concern lives.
Mr. Waller said that she lives to the east of the railroad tracks.
Mr. Rieley said that the open space caused by the septic field would be a concern for her, and there
would potential for additional screening on that side of the building were it not for the septic field.
Mr. Waller replied that additional screening along the railroad tracks might cause some interference
with the septic and reserve drain fields.
Public comment was invited.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 269
The applicant's representative, Kurt Gloeckner of Gloeckner Engineering addressed the
Commission. He said that the restaurant will be just a small tea room, with no food prepared on site
except tea and coffee; pastries, etc. will be brought in. The hours of operation will be from 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. six days a week, with no loud noises, and very few lights. Mr. Gloeckner said that
the screening from the concerned neighbors property will cover the building and most of the parking
visible. He added that the restaurant will be served by a well and septic system as approved by the
Health Department.
Mr. Nitchmann said that what was on the site previously was very unattractive, and noted that this
would be an improvement. He expressed concern that the intersection there (which has no light) is
dangerous, and if the restaurant began serving alcohol, with more patrons, there may be opportunity
for more accidents.
Mr. Kamptner confirmed that the Commission cannot prohibit alcohol service.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern that in the future, the restaurant could serve alcohol, and patrons
would leave and enter Route 22, which is already dangerous.
Mr. Gloeckner said that his understanding is that VDOT is going to continue improvements the
intersection because of Luck Stone backing out of the three-way agreement for improvements. He
added that his client is putting in a deceleration lane in front of the adjacent property.
Mr. Benish said that he is not sure what the status is on signalization, and VDOT has expressed
w, interest in improving the intersection. He said that during the work on the primary road plan, VDOT
may encourage the county to upgrade the road if VDOT has not already decided to make it a public
project.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that it is a terrible intersection. "I think anything that
happens that's likely to make the situation worse is something we have to look at pretty carefully, in
the absence of any scheduled improvements any time soon now, because of this change."
Mr. Keller clarified that Luck Stone did not back out of the agreement, but there was a situation
where another neighbor would not grant the right-of-way needed for improvements.
Mr. Gloeckner added Health Department approval stipulates the restaurant can only operate 8 hours
a day, with a 40-seat capacity.
Mr. Greg Graham of Edgehill Farm addressed the Commission. He stated that he is not in favor of
the restaurant, as it is just one more "roadside attraction" to get people from Manassas in the area to
look at Shadwell.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley commented that once an item gets to the site plan and ARB levels, there is virtually
nothing the Commission can do. "I am not in favor of the restaurant either for the same reasons for
the same reasons you all have enumerated, but I don't believe it's within our authority to control it."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 270
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 99-128 with
conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Work Session: Rural Area Transportation Study
The Commission held a worksession on the Rural Area Transportation Study. Mr. Benish
introduced Bill Wahner from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, who is the lead
on the project.
Mr. Wahner introduced Bob Ball and Jennifer DeBruehl of VDOT.
Ms. DeBruehel addressed the Commission, giving an overview of VDOT's Rural Transportation
Planning program, which originated in 1993.
Referencing the handout presented to the Commission, Mr. Wahner explained that the enclosed map
intends to show higher density development areas in the county against the existing transportation
elements and needs. He noted that they have mapped VDOT's six -year improvement projects slated
for the county and identified orders of need from the 2015 inventory, as well as JAUNT and park &
ride lots, and other non-traditional means of moving people, and added that the secondary roads that
show up on the inventory are those that are acting more like arterial and collector roads, and less like
typical secondary roads. Mr. Wanner emphasized that the RATS team is trying to ensure that
transportation investments are made in areas of greatest need and in relation to the development
areas identified for the county.
Mr. Wahner stated that there is a Route 29 North access management study on the books from the
six -year improvement program to cover from Airport Road to the Greene County line. He said that
some of the goals for an access management plan are: to avoid piecemeal decisions on new
driveways or curve cuts, especially on major thoroughfares; to reduce accidents; to maintain traffic
flow; and to keep current roadways viable without major improvements to them.
Mr. Wanner noted that the growth in southern Greene County and UVa's North Fork Research Park
are fueling major changes on Route 29 and on the secondary roads. He mentioned that Route 616,
which originates in Fluvanna County is becoming a commuter route for Lake Monticello residents
coming into town for employment. He said that Fluvanna County has asked VDOT to study the
feasibility of upgrading Route 616 to a primary road; that study would not make the designation, but
would provide information on whether it merits a formal resolution of support. Mr. Wahner added
that Route 151 in Western Albemarle, which runs into Nelson, is being used as a shortcut for
through truck traffic from Route 64 headed south on 29, as it is much quicker than staying on 64 to
29. He said that Nelson County has asked VDOT to monitor that truck traffic, and truckers have
become aware of this, which has prompted them to use Route 692 through Batesville. Mr. Wahner
said that there is a 151 corridor study currently underway with VDOT.
He said that the Planning District Commission and the RATS study are watching Route 250 East,
Route 22, Route 231, Route 20 South, and Route 240 most closely. Mr. Wahner explained that they
are exploring the use of paved shoulders in selected spots to improve bicycle safety, and JAUNT is
1*40w, trying to more formally coordinate expansion of the North Fork Research Park with expanded hours
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 271
On
and frequency of the "big blue run." He stated that it is important to tie the proposed greenway and
trail plans to other projects in the region so that there is a regional connection of coordinated trails as
a long-term goal.
Mr. Rieley asked if there would be a commitment on VDOT's part to expand the corridor of the
Meadowcreek Parkway so it can take full advantage of opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian
transportation as well as automobile connections.
Mr. Wahner replied that that is an MPO project, but it can be looked at more closely.
Mr. Benish added that the Route 29 South Corridor Study currently underway is looking at the
improvements in that area, and one concept on the table is a parkway concept for a limited access
roadway.
Mr. Rieley said that a lot of people view the improvements and initiatives for limited access on both
the northern and southern end of Route 29 with some skepticism and concern that it's an attempt to
make it a surrogate interstate highway.
Mr. Finley asked what happened to the paving of Route 667.
Ms. DeBruehel explained that the roads included in the 1994-2015 statewide inventory are only
those that are functionally classified as arterial or collectors; anything considered a local road will
not show up on the map or list. She said that those roads have no tie to the secondary road plan that
Albemarle County has.
Mr. Wahner said that their goal was to try to bring forth roads showing the most stress, but said that
Route 667 is worth noting.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for staff s feedback on merging the RATS study draft with the work being
done on the rural areas. "It seems to me that there needs to be a pretty significant connect here from
a planning perspective."
Mr. Benish said that staff is beginning to embark on a rural areas discussion, and early on will
articulate the specific things that the Commission wants to look at. He said that one thing mentioned
at the joint worksession with the Commission and Board was services in the rural areas, and
specifically transportation.
Mr. Loewenstein emphasized the importance of including the RATS study findings and
recommendations in their future rural areas discussions.
Mr. Wahner suggested looking at the roadway inventories against the conclusions drawn from the
rural areas planning.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how the definition of "documented need" is established, and the ways in
which that philosophy can parallel what is being done in the rural areas study.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 272
Mr. Wanner said that the tables in the 1994-2015 study examine the average daily traffic, the design
*VOW capacity of county roads, and measure them against each other, and project it out to 2015. He noted
that it provides a fairly significant inventory of data that would be quite helpful.
Mr. Rieley said it would be nice to see it graphed onto a map, so that the pattern and relationship
between the existing level of service and traffic volumes can be observed.
09
Mr. Nitchmann said that once the DISC Committee finishes its work, it could impact the map and
the future transportation needs as shown. He asked if the document would be revised to reflect that.
Mr. Wahner replied that the document would be revised when new development areas are adopted.
"We're really kind of anticipating that all of these would change."
Mr. Nitchmann described the document as reactionary instead of actionary, and asked Mr. Wahner
when and how the future planning is done.
Mr. Wanner responded that their intent in coming before the Commission is to seek guidance in
planning for the future. He said that efforts such as trying to formally tie secondary road funds to
areas that need them most, access management planning, and working to improve JAUNT, park &
ride, etc. are starting to emerge.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed his concern that there is no mention of winding Route 250 to Zions
Crossroads as a four -lane road in the plan, and no mention of the Southern Parkway. "It takes too
long for VDOT to do anything."
Regarding concerns about through truck -traffic, Mr. Nitchmann suggested placing signs that prohibit
large trucks from small roads. "As long as we let them keep using those shortcuts, they're going to
continue to use them." He mentioned the success of stopping a lot of truck traffic on Route 22 when
it was being built.
Mr. Wade said that the 250 East project is underway, with the next meeting scheduled for January
5"'. He added that there are too many MPO projects to do, and not enough money to go around. Mr.
Wade said that the Meadowcreek Parkway Phase I costs have increased about $6 million, which will
set the county back two years on other projects. "There's not a lot of sentiment at this point to raise
taxes."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "If we wouldn't take so long doing it, we wouldn't keep going up $6 million
each year."
Mr. Wade emphasized that there are projects previously planned that need to be executed. "We have
projects on our six -year list now that could easily take us to 2050 without adding any new project to
date." He added that the Board of Supervisors granted permission to pursue through -truck
restriction in Batesville, but it is a very long process to go through. Mr. Wade said that a public
hearing will be held on limiting trucks on 692, and businesses such as orchards have already
expressed concern about having their truck traffic limited.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999
273
Mr. Nitchmann said that he understood the need for local traffic to use the roads, but not out-of-state
truckers.
Mr. Wade said that the county has to send VDOT a resolution that county forces will be used to
enforce the restrictions. The officers would have to follow the trucks from start to end to make sure
that they were local.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "We need to change our policies here and in Richmond to address these
[issues] quicker." He stated that perhaps taxes needed to be raised to accommodate all of the
projects needed.
Mr. Benish mentioned that the Southern Parkway is in the MPO area, and would be covered in the
MPO plan.
Mr. Finley asked if out -of -county traffic was being considered in the prioritizing some of the
secondary road improvements. He mentioned that Route 601 near his home is a heavily -traveled
road for commuters from Greene County.
Mr. Wahner responded that commuter traffic is a significant part of the impact on some county
roads.
Mr. Finley stated that perhaps Albemarle shouldn't be improving roads just to allow out -of -county
commuters to "whiz on down here."
Mr. Wahner said, "There has to be a conclusion drawn in some instances where you see this road is
as good as it's ever going to be ... and you tailor your growth accordingly."
Mr. Thomas said that realistically, it is more important to direct that commuter traffic onto Route 29.
Mr. Wade noted that VDOT has presented an informal presentation on access management on Route
29, and will hold public hearings in mid-2000.
Mr. Benish added that comments about the 29 North corridor improvements date back to the 29
North corridor study process from Gainesville to Charlottesville; the ultimate recommendation of the
study emphasized access management over limited access/interstate concept. He said that that
general recommendation was forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, who did not
take action because they wanted the 29 South corridor study to be completed first.
Mr. Benish said that the stretch of Route 29 from the Rivanna River to Airport Road is part of the
county's widening project, and VDOT views that as an access management type of approach. He
stated that there has not been any formal or official access management or corridor planning from
Airport/Proffit Road to the Greene County line.
Mr. Rieley asked to what extent the study is a Planning District Commission work, and to what
extent the document is a VDOT work.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999
274
Mr. Wahner responded that the document is a Planning District and local document first, although
VDOT looks to see which items the county thinks are important, particularly in the 1994-2015
inventory.
Ms. DeBruehl said that VDOT at the state level provides the funding for the Rural Transportation
Planning Program, and develops the data for the 1994-2015 inventory. She added that they are
mandated to update the needs assessment every five years. Ms. DeBruehl said that VDOT
participates in the RATS process by attending the technical committee meetings. "What we
anticipate to get out of this is a document that we can then incorporate with our 1999 field data to
refine the needs assessment data for this planning district."
Mr. Rieley noted that there will be situations where the localities objectives and VDOT's objectives
are different. He said that he is glad the Planning District Commission serves an intermediary role.
Mr. Wahner said that the next incarnation of the RATS study document will incorporate the 250 East
and 250 West corridor studies, the Greene County access management plan, and more concrete
recommendations.
Ms. DeBruehl said that this needs assessment process in the future will be more proactive, more of a
planning document.
Mr. Wahner said the PDC would like to have the document formalized and adopted by the end of
June 2000.
Mr. Benish commended Ms. DeBruehl and other local VDOT residency office officials for their
work with the county.
Old Business
Noting poor attendance at previous budget town meetings, Mr. Thomas asked Commissioners to
encourage their constituents to attend such meetings.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
V. Wayne)Cilimberg
Secretary
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 7, 1999 275