HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 16 1997 PC Minutes12-16-97
DECEMBER 16, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December
16, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr.
William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development, Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Susan
Thomas, Planner; Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of
December 2, 1997, were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed actions taken at the December 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
SUB 97-078 Western Ridge Phase 4B Waiver Reguest - Request for a waiver to allow
grading on critical slopes [4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance] in Phase 4B of Western Ridge
Subdivision, to create an additional residential lot.
Mr. Dotson asked staff for clarification of the statement in the staff report which said that at
one point this was designated as open space. Ms. Thomas said the lot had been shown as
a lot originally, but because there was no adequate building site without a waiver of the
critical slopes provisions, staff had suggested it be shown, temporarily, as "open space"
while the proposal went through the process. She said it was never intended to be open
space. The project has not yet received final approval so lots have not been sold on the
basis of a plat showing this lot as open space.
Ms. Huckle asked staff to explain the applicant's request to FEMA to "officially reduce the
limits of the floodplain in this area." Ms. Thomas said the floodplain delineation in this area
is an approximation, so the applicant has applied to FEMA for a clarification of the
floodplain limits. She said this determination does not effect this particular lot, but it will
effect Phase 4A of Western Ridge. Mr. Cilimberg added: "What we're dealing with here is
a critical slopes waiver on one lot that is part of a section that is being platted that is out of
the floodplain in question. So the floodplain question really doesn't apply to this lot or any
part of this section that is up for approval. What you are speaking to is a section that we
are yet to take action on, a pending section which has nothing to do with this particular
section."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2, to
allow grading on critical slopes, be approved for Western Ridge Phase 4B. The motion
passed unanimously.
31
12-16-97 2
SUB 97-044 Rivancrest Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Request for preliminary plat approval
to create five lots and use a private road on 26.42 acres of land along the south side of
Woodlands Road [Route 676]. The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 5, is located
in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This property is located approximately 250 feet from
the intersection of Route 676 and Route 1050, It is zoned RA and is designated as a rural
area in the Comprehensive Plan. This plan has been modified from the version previously
reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Modifications reflect
recommendations made by the Planning Commission and Board_
The applicant was requesting deferral to January 20, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Rivancrest Preliminary
Subdivisinn Plat be deferred to _lanuary 2n, 19M. Thin motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION - Secondary Roads
Mr. Benish and Mr. Wade presented the staff report. Mr. Benish called the Commission's
attention to additional information on the following items.
--Priority #48 - Rt. 712, North Garden Road ( 2nd highest priority of unpaved road
projects); He said VDOT is recommending deletion of this nrniect due to the inability to
obtain the necessary right-of-way over the last several years. He said the Commission may
want to discuss whether it feels the project should be deleted or should just be dropped
lower in the priorities_
--Priority #55 (previously #56) - Rt. 667, Catertin Road: (Mr. Finley had previously
asked why "the other segment" is not included.) VDOT has not been able to get all the
right-of-way on that segment and rather than postpone the whole project has chosen to
include only that section for which right-of-way is available. Staff said the segment in
question could be included, but it would be better to include it as a separate project. Mr.
Finley said it was his understanding that right-of-way is available and all issues have been
resolved. Ms. Angela Tucker, representing VDOT, said Rt. 667 has reached a point in the
Six -Year Plan where it may be possible, next year, to acquire the right-of-way for that
section which is in the plan. All the right-of-way for that section is available. Mr. Finley
again said he believes all the right-of-way for the additional section is available. Ms. Tucker
said: "Our last dealings with landowners along that piece was that we did not aet complete
dedication." She said those dealings took place seven or eight years ago. Mr. Finley said
things have changed a lot since that time and though dedication may not be official; he
believes it is available. Ms. Tucker said if it is found the right-of-way is available, "an
adjustment to the termini" could be included in next year's plan. Mr. Benish said a second
option is to create a separate project for the additional segment. Ms, Tucker said she
would prefer that it not be listed as two projects because that would involve two contracts
U
12-16-97
3
N411"11111", and two bids. She said if it is a separate project it should be placed at the bottom of the
Ii.0. Shim. rPnPatP(J thp.. nitP.rrlative ontinn, i.e. that right-of-way be nurse lad and if acquired an
adjustment to the termini be made in next year's plan. A third option is to change the
termini now with the possibility of changing it back if the right-of-way cannot be obtained. A
member of the public, Mr. John C. Martin (5115 Catertin Road). was allowed to address the
Commission. Mr. Martin said his property is on the additional segment of Catertin Road
which is under discussion_ He expressed his strong opposition to the pavina of the road.
He said there is no compelling reason to pave the road and paving will cause substantial
detriment to the beauty of the area. Mr. Martin said he has approximately 400-500 feet of
road frontage_ Mr_ Martin ronfirmPd that his nronP.rt_y is apart of the R��rk Mountain
Subdivision. Mr. Finley y pointed out that right -of --way was already dedicated in the Buck
Mountain plat.
In response to some of Mr. Martin's statements, Ms. Tucker clarified the public hearing
process for gravel road improvements_ She said there is no public hearing process other
than the VDOT Six -Year Plan hearing. It was noted that though there will be a public
,
hearing before the Board of Supervisors, but it is not the type of pubic hearing that VDOT
holds for regular secondary projects," Mr. BP_nish stressed that the commission is not
approving any projects with this plan. He said: "You are giving us a list of projects that
you want us to evaluate for improvements, but you are not approving any improvements
with this plan. You are approving staff to move forward and design it, and then all the other
regular projects--non-road paving projects --go through location and design public hearings
and then you decide at that point, once you know what the scope of the improvements are,
whether you want to pursue that project or not. You have rejected a number of projects
that have moved through the Six -Year Plan when it gets to that point. The exception is
unpaved roads."
--Mr. Benish noted that of the four criteria used in evaluating unpaved road projects,
traffic volume is the primary consideration. He noted however, that the list may not seem to
reflect this because roads with lower volumes are ranked higher than ones with higher
volumes. He explained: "That happens because there is an end to the list every time we
do this and then we get new projects. In every case we don't push projects all the way to
the end. Once they have had some planning period and people have an expectation that a
project is going to be improved, we allow that project to go ahead and move forward even
though there may be a new one that has a higher traffic volume."
--Staff proposes to include the Traffic Calming project as priority #2 (behind the
county -wide projects). $50,000/year for the six -year period will be taken from the 1.2
million for county -wide projects to fund this project.
Commission comments, questions and suggestions included the following:
--Mr. Loewenstein asked how changes to the funding of the Meadowcreek Parkway
might impact this list. Mr. Cilimberg said the first two projects related to the Parkway (Rt.
250 to Rio Road and the bridge over CSX Railroad) are well along in the design process.
(These two are essentially the same project and are combined with the City which will be
responsible for the section of Rt. 250 to Melbourne Road. The County will pick up the
r.r project at Melbourne.) A completion date of May, 2000, is projected; and it is anticipated
construction will begin by the end of 1998. Mr. Cilimberg said the 9.5 is just the county
Ify
12-16-97 4
portion. The other Meadowcreek Parkway project is a "way out" project and at this point
does not have a meaningful effect on the Plan. There is some money, this year, to try to
do some of the early environmental work, but that is presently being evaluated because
environmental work cannot be done too early if the project is going to be done 10-15 years
out. The Meadowcreek Parkway is in the CATS. The MPO has not yet acted on CATS.
There is both support for and opposition to the Parkway. The City has asked that the
original finding for the environmental work, which did not require a full 4F review; be
revisited by State and Federal officials. The response to that request will effect the timing
of the start of this project. The most recent response was that the project is no longer
scheduled for any Federal. funding. The only other issue is that the County continues to ask
for consideration of the north section (from Rio to Rt. 29) to be considered for eligibility in
the Primary Road Plan and potentially funding through that process. Regarding funding
impacts to the County's Secondary Plan, " there is over ten million dollars, minus whatever
gets spent on the design work and any money remaining would be available for other
projects in the Six -Year Plan list."
--Project #20 (formerly #21) Profitt Road (Rt. 20 to Rt. 819) - Mr. Loewenstein
assumed the bridge is not a part of this project. Staff confirmed the bridge is not a part of
the project. The project would primarily be cutting back some curves and making it safer.
--Project #25 (formerly #26) Polo Grounds Road (Rt. 29 to Rt. 649) - Mr.
Loewenstein assumed this did not include any change to the existing railroad underpass.
Mr. Wade said this will be the same type of improvements as with the Profitt Road project.
--As he has done several times in the past, Mr. Nitchmann voiced his concern about
the intersection of Rt. 729 and Rt. 250 at Shadwell. Ms. Tucker said there are plans to
install a series of traffic signals along the 250 East corridor. 729 and 250 is the top priority.
Signals will be installed there at approximately the same time signals will be installed at 164
and Rt. 250 at Shadwell, where both off ramps will be signalized. Luck Stone and S, L
Williamson have made a request to relocate their commercial entrances into one
commercial entrance, to be located where Rt. 22 meets Rt. 250 at the Shadwell Store.
VDOT is presently considering allowing that relocation if appropriate turn lanes intn their
entrances can be provided and a signal which will work incoordination with the signal at Rt.
729. Rt. 22 may require some realignment where it meets Rt. 250. Mr. Nitchmann said
such a change is going to require a great deal of careful attention to detail. Federal safety
funds are being sought for the 22/250 intersection, but funding will not be available for 4-5
years, and this does not work with Luck Stone's time schedule: The signal should be fully
functional by this time next year. The 729 and 250 intersection was reconstructed about
five years ago so current plans do not include any additional reconstruction at this time.
--Ms. Huckle asked if there are any plans to improve the sight distance. on Rt. 743,
adjacent to Jacob's Run. She explained a driveway has been installed along Jacob's Run
to the east which has resulted in a dangerous situation. Ms. Tucker said she is not away of
any plan to improve sight distance at the new entrance location described by Ms. Huckle.
She said VDOT would consider it if the County prioritizes it. She added that for private
entrances VDOT does not have the same obligations as for commercial entrances. VDOT
cannot deny access for private parcels. Access must be provided "in the safest location
available within the property's owner's frontage." Mr. Benish pointed out that priority #37 (at
Jacob's Run) includes the approaches on either side of the bridge. Ms. Huckle said her
concern is with a different location.
0
12-16-97 5
--Mr. Tice questioned how the priorities are set for unpaved roads. He said the
vehicle trips/day raise some real questions when you divide the cost by the vtpd figure. He
noted that one project (new #49) is almost a million dollars for 132 vtpd, which is almost
$7,000/vehicle, #56 (Mountain Vista Road) is $650,000 for a road that only has 37 vtpd,
which equals $18,000/vehicle. Mr. Benish said the criteria are relationship to growth area,
traffic volume, roadway width, shoulder width and available right-of-way. Projects are
placed on the list in most cases because of public requests, Some projects are initiated by
the School Division or Fire and Rescue organizations. Items which get pushed to the top
are often those which have available right-of-way. He said unless the Commission or Board
expresses a concern about a particular project, such as cost in relation to actual usage,
then staff will continue to move the project forward on the list. The Commission and Board
can make a decision not to do a project if it is felt the benefit does not justify the cost.
Public comment was invited.
--Mr. Paul St. Pierre (resident of Walnut Level Road, project # 69) - He said he
hopes this project includes Rt. 765 as well as Rt. 810, "to at least get up to Innisfree." (Staff
confirmed that it is intended that Rt. 765 is a part of this project). He pointed out there are
10 houses; in addition to Innisfree, on the road.
--Ms. Pamela Gould (representing her son who is a resident of Catertin Road, #55) -
She expressed her son's opposition to paving Catertin Road.
Mr. Benish summarized the following changes on the priority list, which the Commission
should address specifically in any action it might take:
--VDOT's recommendation to remove Rt. 712 (based on the inability to acquire the
necessary right-of-way over the past several years). Should it be deleted or just made a
lower priority? Out of consideration for those property owners who have made dedications,
Ms. Tucker said she would like to see every possibility exhausted before the item is
completely taken off the list. It was the consensus of the Commission that the item remain
on the list, but be placed at a lower priority.
--Add as Item # 2 the Traffic Calming project.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Six -Year Secondary Road
Plan to forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as presented by staff with the following
comments and recommendations:
--Add the Traffic Calming project as priority #2.
--Retain project #48 (Rt. 712), but move it to a lower priority.
--Make no change to the Catertin Rd. (Rt. 667) project at this time. A change can be
made later if it is determined right-of-way is available for the additional portion. {NOTE:
Mr. Finley pointed out that right-of-way has already been dedicated for the properties which
are owned by the two people who spoke in opposition to this project.)
--Concerns were voiced about the high cost of some of the unpaved road projects in
relation to the benefit. There should be further study of the criteria used in setting the
priorities for unpaved road projects.
,,, The motion passed unanimously.
12-16-97
Reco-gnition of Retiring Planning Commissioners
Mr. Loewenstein read the following tribute to Commissioners Dotson and Huckle.-
Before l adjourn this evening's meeting, l would like to pay tribute
to our two retiring Commissioners, Mrs. Huckle and Mr. Dotson. l know
that / speak for all Commissioners and for County staff, as well as for the
citizens of Albemarle County whom these two members have served so
expertly and for so long, when l say that this community will remain in
their debt for that service.
On a personal level, I have as Chairman come to expect from
Babs and Bruce their full commitment to and participation in the work of
this Commission, and / have never been disappointed. Their energies
and their experience, both applied in such significant measure, have
greatly facilitated the business of the Commission in all its aspects. l am
grateful, as I am sure we all are, for their significant contributions to our
efforts and for the wisdom they have brought to this forum.
Thank you, Commissioners Huckle and Dotson, for your dedicated
support and your hard work. You both have made a genuine difference
to our community, and for this you will long be remembered with
fondness and respect.
MISCELLANEOUS
A
Mr. Cilimberg called attention to a forum on the Meadowcreek Parkway to be held
January 12, 7:00 to 9:00. The forum will be a presentation of information about the
Parkway. A separate forum will be sponsored later in February which will include a
discussion of alternative transportation and traffic calming. All Commissioners are
invited.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
me.
09
V. Waynf Cilimberg,