Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 21 1997 PC Minutes10-21-97 OCTOBER 21, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission and the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, held a joint work session on Tuesday, October 21, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those present were - County Commissioners and Staff: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. William Finley; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. JuanDiego Wade, Transportation Planner. (Absent: Commissioner Tice) City_Commissioners and Staff: - Mr. Eldon Wood, Mr. Ken Schwartz; Ms. Kathy Johnson Harris; Ms. Nancy Damon (Chairwoman); Ms. Susan Cabell; Mr. Herman Key; Mr. Ron Higgins, Planner, and Mr. Huja, Director of Planning. (Note: Mr. Huja left the meeting almost immediately after it began.) Others: Ms. Hannah Twaddell, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Planner; Mr. Wayne Woodcock, Virginia Department of Transportation; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. NOTE: There is no tape recording of this meeting. The topic of the work session was the Final Draft of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) - 2015. Comments were being sought from the two Commissions, to be passed on to the MPO. The work session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Loewenstein. He welcomed those present with the following statement: "We will be looking tonight at the Final Draft of the CATS 2015 document, which we have all received and studied. After our meeting this evening, the comments we have made will be taken to the MPO for consideration as part of its review of this Final Draft on 10 November. Depending upon how much additional input is solicited or received by the MPO, its vote to adopt CATS 2015 will occur on that date, or by its December meeting. Both jurisdictions are currently favoring a mix of land uses, many of which emphasize greater development densities. I think the County has become increasingly sensitive over the past few years to the need to direct growth away from the watershed and to place it within currently designated development areas. Careful application of the best practices available to manage growth wisely and effectively has become an even greater component of County planning, and transportation issues have played a significant part in that planning process. The CATS 2015 document reflects much of that overall philosophy in many of its pages. One result of this planning strategy is today an important perspective held by the County, and one which has been supported by various planning studies: that is, growth should be close to the more urban areas in order to protect the rural 2 10-21-97 countryside, and in order to provide urban dwellers with needed services nearby. As we have all seen, however, transportation problems continue to exist in any scenario, and unfortunately we are not yet a large enough community to be able to take best advantage of some large-scale solutions, such as mass transit (although that should be encouraged on a community -scale level). With those remarks, I would like to invite your close attention to the presentation this evening, and I will ask Nancy Damon if she wishes to comment before we begin. I look forward to an informative and constructive evening!' Ms. Twaddell led the discussion. She gave an overview of the CATS Plan, including the process followed in its development, the time frame, etc. The three focus areas of the plan are: --Traffic calming; --The establishment of a foundation for a combination of infrastructure, plus programs and policies; and --The beginning of a long-term trend towards decreased dependency on the automobile. She explained this plan includes more modes of transportation than previous plans and is more traditional in its approach. The five geographic areas of focus in the plan are: Northern Albemarle County; Eastern Albemarle County (250E corridor); the 250 Bypass in the City; the southern part of the City; and the University of Virginia. Commissioner questions and concerns: --(Damon and Nitchmann) Both Commissioners asked if other areas were studied and if there is a location which seems to be handling traffic problems well. (ANSWER: In the development of the plan, staff did consider ideas which are in place in other areas and appear to be working. However, there is not a "real model city where it is all working. The VDOT computer model is "limited" and makes assumptions. Alternatives to modeling are being looked at.) --(Nitchmann) This document does not address a link between the city and county urban rings and the University. (ANSWER: The document does address that issue 'overall', but it is not in one particular section.) --(Finley) With the goal of not putting everyone on the roads at the same peak times, was consideration given to the fact that more and more people are working at home? (This is addressed somewhat in the Telecommunications" section. However, different work schedules do not necessarily mean fewer traffic trips, it just means trips at different times and may actually mean more trips. It does however, reduce peak hour trips.) --(Wood) Where major area employers consulted in terms of what type of plan might benefit everyone? (ANSWER: In 1990 the MPO and the TJPDC kicked off an effort with most major companies to come up with a traffic reduction strategy. Ten or twelve employers and the two Planning Commissions were also involved. Some of that study worked its way into Comp Plans. A committee which was formed --the Commuter Opportunities Group --still meets. A lot of individual work is being done, and some joint work. It has had mixed success because there are not always a lot of incentives for employers. Service -based industries are very interested.) 10-21-97 3 --(Cabell) How does this plan address alternatives for people who work in this area but live elsewhere? (ANSWER: The Ride -Share Program.) --(Nitchmann) What does the term committed mean? (ANSWER: Funds have been agreed to and are actually in the budget. But nothing is "set in stone." A project may be on the books for a long time, but it can still be changed. Local governments and VDOT are in charge of whether a project actually happens.) --(Finley) How were the boundaries on the map decided? (ANSWER: The area was adopted by the MPO around 1986 or 1987, and was amended to include more area to the south in 1993.) Ms. Huckle said the boundaries represent such a "wide net," it would have been beneficial to have included rural area representatives when those boundaries were being decided. --(Huckle) She was very concerned that issues which she has identified in the past do not seem to be reflected in this document. She read the following statement: "Although I have written two times before on this subject, my concerns are not reflected in this draft document. The Thomas Jefferson Planning Program clearly states under Program Plan Objective: Strategy 2: 'Build a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities among and within URBAN COMMUNITIES.' Nevertheless, this plan seeks to alter rural roads, which are not in the growth area. Instead, changes are planned such as paved shoulders, climbing lanes and altered grades which will destroy the rural ambiance of our roads forever. Those of us who live on Garth, Woodlands, and Hydraulic Roads would live in the suburbs if we wished to do so. To improve these roads by removing trees, moving fences, taking out curves and hills will not only change the rural character of the roads, but the sight of a straighter, open road will encourage drivers to speed up, thus endangering the local residents and the bikers as well. It is ironic that this plan suggests removing our natural traffic calmers--narrow roads, hills, and curves --but at the same time the plan wants to build traffic calmers into city and suburban streets with too fast traffic. The local (rural) residents are the folks who pay the taxes, clip the fields, provide the cattle and horses that the tourists like to see in the pastures. Their wishes should be paramount in this matter. We do not want our roads --Garth, Woodlands, Hydraulic (from the Rock Store) and Rea's Ford altered. Mention was made in this document that there had been strong growth in the Earlysville area. The village designation has been removed from Earlysville, and growth has slowed. In the Jack Jouett district a total of seven single family homes were built in 1996. Money for these planned improvements should be spent someplace where it is really needed, where growth IS occurring, not in our area where it is not. To widen and straighten our roads will encourage growth to occur here." Ms. Huckle said it is unreasonable to build bicycle lanes, for the benefit of a very small minority of cyclists, on rural roads, and thus destroy the character of the rural roads forever. She identified particularly dangerous situations which presently exist at the intersection of Routes 676 and 743, including sight distance problems on Rea's Ford Road. Ms. Huckle strongly felt "Bicycle Projects" (page 17, third bullet from the bottom) should removed from this plan. She felt that E9 through 11 (page 44) which deals with spot improvements, should also be deleted. (ANSWER: Ms. Twaddell said the Committee discussed this concern and what is in the plan now is the "remains" of a County study of particular intersections which might need some "spot improvements," but those improvements are not necessarily related to bicycle usage. 10-21-97 4 Mr. Cilimberg summarized what he believed Ms. Huckle's concerns to be: "It is recognized we have TSM safety projects in rural areas, but in doing those improvements, Ms. Huckle feels we should not be trying to accommodate bicycles. Only those improvements related to existing safety concerns should be done." He said he felt deleting the bullet on page 17 would address her concerns; but the items on page 44 should not be deleted. ) Ms. Huckle said she might agree with Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion for page 44, if she knew what the projects were. --(Loewenstein) He suggested it would be helpful, where TSM's are mentioned, to include some of the concerns which have been expressed by area residents. --(Dotson) He suggested a reference should be included, in the Land Use Section, which would look at a buildout scenario and a successful growth management scenario. --(Nitchmann) Referring to "bicycle paths," he said he did not think the Bicentennial definition should be used. He did not think it was a "serious designation," and is irrelevant to us. On the issue of changes to rural roads to accommodate bikes, he said he did not think it is fair to spend all these funds and to change the look of the County to accommodate a very few people. He also was skeptical that biking will ever be a significant alternative means of transportation in the County. He said he does not support the bike paths, as identified at this time. (Ms. Twaddell said more study is needed.) --(Damon) Referring to bike projects in the City and around the University, she pointed out that the City Bike Committee has been reconvened and is currently working to update the plan. --(Cabell) She pointed out that biking in the City and at the University is a very different issue than it is in the County. This plan should clearly reflect those differences. Those areas which overlap should be looked at specifically where planning can be coordinated. Other areas should be dealt with individually. --(Damon) She said that bicyclists who participated in the Fontaine Study say that the pike paths in the City (which are planned to the County line) are not compatible with those which are in the County (off -road asphalt paths). --(Harris) She suggested consideration be given to studying the Old Lynchburg Road corridor (for bike paths?). --(Wood) He said he hopes the "Implement Bike Safety Programs" section will be retained in the plan. Commissioner concerns and questions about the Land Use and Environmental Planning Section included the following: --(Schwartz) There are few references to rail transportation. Is it a foregone conclusion that rail options are out of the questions? They are conspicuously absent from the 20-year planning period. (ANSWER: A way of getting at difficult problems of commuting would include something about rail as an option. Page 31 refers to a study about this topic.) Mr. Schwartz thought this was a "weak" reference. --(Loewenstein) He asked staff to add something about rail in the Land Use Nwr section. (ANSWER: Ms. Twadell said a reference could be added which says a key issue is light rail which is discussed further on page 31. She said it could be emphasized more than it currently is.) a _/10 10-21-97 5 --(Key) He said he feels it is very important to promote light rail transportation. --(Nitchmann) He said any study of the rail issue should include a discussion of how to keep government out of the funding. --(Loewenstein) He commended the section, on page 21, dealing with viewsheds and historic resources. He said he would like to see the historic resources component expanded. --(Loewenstein) He asked if there are any incentives for the provision of pedestrian connectors between residential areas (page 23). (ANSWER: Ms. Twaddell suggested that page numbers, referencing other sections of the document, could be added to the bulleted items.) --(Huckle) Referring to page 24, and the topic of sidewalks, she asked staff to explain. (ANSWER: Mr. Cilimberg explained that a main issue with sidewalks is that of maintenance. VDOT will not maintain sidewalks which are in their right-of-way.) --(Damon) She asked if sidewalks for Rt. 29 north are just being studied, or have they actually been funded? (ANSWER: The first step is to study the issue, but the plan is to ultimately construct them. A consultant is just beginning to study this issue.) --(Finley) On the topic of public transit and ride sharing, he asked if the private sector should get involved in parking lots (for park-n-ride). (ANSWER: Why build additional lots when there are already many available at existing uses? Churches, and businesses may volunteer the use of their lots, with the County accepting the liability.) --(Damon) She noted that most shopping centers do not have bike racks. --A suggestion was made that Rail and Transit projects A(3) on page 31, should be added to land use. Commissioner comments and questions about the Road Projects and Phase III Projects included the following: --(Nitchmann) He commented on the Southern Parkway. He wondered how much study had gone into this decision. He said this part of the County will grow significantly in the next few years because of the construction of the new high school. He felt an interchange at Avon Street would relieve a lot of city congestion. (ANSWER: Mr. Higgins said a study showed that an interchange would actually add traffic to the city. Mr. Benish said the new high school had not been a factor in the study --done in 92-93, but potential high -density residential development was considered and residential development would generate more traffic than the high school.) Mr. Nitchmann was skeptical and asked to be provided a copy of the consultant's study. Mr. Loewenstein and Ms. Damon asked if all Commissioners could receive the report. (ANSWER: The study will be available soon and both Commissions will receive copies. Also, a request to remove the Avon/5th Street Connector from the County's Comp Plan has been received. That request will be considered November 11th. The entire consultant's report may not be available by that time. --(Nitchmann) Referring to the Eastern Connector Corridor Study, he said he and Tom Blue (a County Commissioner at the time) had recommended an Eastern Bypass several years ago (92 or 93). (STAFF COMMENT: Depending on what the ,). 1// 10-21-97 6 '%M' major investment study shows, the connector may or may not be as suggested previously by Commissioners Blue and Nitchmann. It would be in addition to --not in place of --the Meadowcreek Parkway and Western Bypass.) --(Nitchmann) Re: Richmond Road/Rt. 250 East Improvements - He felt this study should be "moved up" in the process. He stressed there are significant traffic problems in this area. (ANSWER: VDOT is already beginning to study the problems. But even before the study is complete, there are improvements VDOT is currently working on to alleviate some of the existing problems.) --(Key) He cautioned that projects which the County sees as solutions can sometimes create problems for the City. He said there needs to be better coordination between the two governing bodies. Ms. Twaddell briefly described other studies and activities which are currently taking place in relation to CATS 2020. Mr. Cilimberg said there are "no surprises" among these projects, so he questioned the need for detailed discussion. Mr. Anderson gave a brief update of the status of the addition to the University's stadium. The size of the stadium will be increased from 43,000 seats to 60,000- 63,000 seats. The project will take place over a three-year period. It is planned for completion by September 2000. A lot of construction will be taking place during this project and the University will do everything possible to keep disruption to neighborhoods to a minimum. A newsletter about the progress of the project will be prepared regularly. He asked those present to let him know if they wish to receive the newsletter. Ms. Damon asked what had happened to the idea of quarterly meetings of the two Commissions, which has been suggested in the past. There being no further business, the work session adjourned at 9:55 p.m. V. V. Waynf Cilimberg retary F: