Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 26 1996 PC Minutes11-26-96 NOVEMBER 26, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 26, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson,Vice Chairman; and Mr. David Tice. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner. Absent: Commissioners Loewenstein, Washington and Finley and Assistant County Attorney Greg Kamptner. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of November 12,1996, were unanimously approved as amended. WORK SESSION - Six -Year Secondary Road Plan Mr. Benish briefly described the list of projects and the process which is followed in the prioritization of the projects. Commission comments about specific projects were as follows: —#4 (Rt. 29 to Rt. 743 at the Rock Store) - Ms. Huckle hoped this project could be scheduled for completion before March 1999. She was concerned about the fact that the improvements to Hydraulic Road from Lamb's Rd to the Rock Store will be complete soon and the improvements from Rt. 29 to Berkmar Drive have already been completed, which means these two widened sections will feed into a narrower 2-lane section for quite a while, until project #4 is complete. She felt strongly that this is a safety issue. Mr. Benish said he would make this concern known to VDOT and would try to encourage the advancement of this project. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this is one of the next projects scheduled for completion, but, given the funding process which VDOT must work with, he questioned whether it would be possible to move it up in the process. Because of the public concern expressed at the previous work session about the impact of project #6 (Greenbrier Drive Extension) on Whitewood Park, Mr. Benish went into considerable detail about the history of this project, the proposed alignment of the road, and the traffic counts on existing roads in this area. Mr. Benish said the traffic modeling system used by staff is not sensitive enough to accurately predict the possible efficiency of the proposed road in moving traffic. Mr. Benish said staff hopes the issue of whether or not this should be a 4-lane roadway will be considered at the time discussions take place about its design. Staff feels it could possibly be a 2 or 3 lane road, which would reduce the impact to the park. VDOT's design public hearings are scheduled for early '97 and it is at that time that questions about number of lanes and right-of-way acquisition will be addressed. It is also at that time the question of whether or not the project should proceed at all will be answered. Staff stressed that OR 11-26-96 2 the public's focus should be on the VDOT public hearing which is to take place in early '97. This project is in the current Six -Year plan to allow the design study to take place. This project generated a significant amount of discussion by the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the most recent traffic counts presented by staff were done in 1994 prior to the completion of the improvements to Rt. 29, when many people were using these roads to avoid Rt. 29. He thought counts taken today might be less. Ms. Huckle pointed out that the proposed road will terminate at the same point as Whitewood Road. She said she would much prefer to travel on the recently widened Hydraulic Road to Whitewood, and then straight to Rt. 29, than to go almost through someone's front yard just to save .4 of a mile. She concluded she hoped this road would not be built and the money could be used for something else. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Commission were to recommend that the project be removed from the Six -Year Plan, would it be deleted? Mr. Cilimberg said the Six -Year Plan which is currently before the Commission becomes effective in July, 1997. A Commission recommendation to delete the Greenbrier Extension project would be taken into consideration by the Board. He noted, however, that it would not remove the project from the existing Six -Year Plan, i.e. the design study which has already begun would not be effected. Mr. Cilimberg said even if the Board were to agree with the Commission's recommendation and advise VDOT that the County did not want any further money to be spent on this project, it will still be VDOT's decision as to whether or not this is a project they feel is necessary for the secondary road system. Mr. Cilimberg stressed that the fact that this project is included in the existing Six -Year Plan does not mean definitively that the road will be built. Mr. Nitchmann questioned the traffic numbers given the fact that they were done before Rt. 29 was improved. He said if the main reason for the road is to allow people to get to Rt. 29 a little quicker, then it is not a safety issue. He pointed out that if this road is built, it will potentially result in the loss of something which there already is a shortage of --open space and parks in the inner city. He concluded he could not support this Six - Year Plan if this project remains in the Plan. He indicated he felt no further monies should be spent on the project. Mr. Tice said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. He said one of the original reasons for the road may have been to better handle traffic from the Earlysville Village, but with the removal of Earlysville as a designated growth area, much of that justification is no longer valid. He felt to continue supporting this project would send the wrong message, i.e. "that we want to funnel traffic to and from the area west of Rio Road out towards Earlysville." He concluded: "While there may have been a case made for this road at one time in the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan has changed and it sends the wrong message if we send this on with such a high priority in the Six -Year Plan. I think in 40 or 50 years people are going to be glad that we protected this open /07 11-26-96 3 space in the urban area. We are already losing 13 acres from McIntire Park due to the Meadow Creek Parkway (and) we have lost trees a few years back with the expansion of the parking lot at Albemarle High School. I think this 1.7 million dollars could be better spent elsewhere." Mr. Dotson said he felt the many questions which still exist about the road should be answered before a decision is made to remove it from the Six -Year Plan. He pointed out that those questions will have been answered in a few months. He concluded: "My position would be to do nothing. Leave it where it is until we have those answers." MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the VDOT Six -Year Secondary Road Plan be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, with the exception that project #6 (Greenbrier Drive Extension) be removed from the Plan. The motion passed (3:1) with Commissioner Dotson casting the dissenting vote. WORK SESSION - Capital Improvements Plan Staff answered Commission questions about various aspects of the CIP. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the fact that printing projected high costs of projects in the CIP may effect the bidding process. Mr. Nitchmann hoped it is clear to the public that the Education Department's 70 million dollar Operating Budget does not include those projects which are in the County's Capital Improvements Program budget. Those Education CIP projects total an additional 18 million dollars (including the new high school). Mr. Dotson said he receives many questions from members of the public about how education planning takes place in relation to projected growth increases. He asked staff to comment. Mr. Cilimberg said staff works, each year, with the Education Department on enrollment projections. (He explained briefly how those projections are made.) Staff shares any knowledge of development projects which are in the making which may impact the school enrollments. Education CIP requests are based on enrollment projections. After hearing Mr. Cilimberg's explanation for how the planning staff works with the Education Department in the planning for new schools, Mr. Dotson concluded: "As we get into talking about in -fill and the growth area initiatives, etc., to many people's minds new development equates to overcrowded schools. I think people are going to require reassurance that we have a good system in place and we are matching things that are coming along at about the same pace-- that we don't have a new school on the radar that's five years out there but the new development is happening in the next year and what are we going to do with the four years in between. That may be something we need to work on in future CIP's--how do we match those up 09 11-26-96 4 a little better." Mr. Cilimberg said he feels the School's CIP "is done well in that regard." Staff called attention to the walkway/bikeway project in the Greenbrier Drive area. It was the consensus of the Commission that this project should be retained in the CIP even if the Greenbrier Extension project in the Six -Year Road Plan is deleted. No other concerns about any CIP projects were identified by the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that the Capital Improvements Program, as presented by staff, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with the recommendation that the Greenbrier Drive walkway/bikeway project be retained even if the Greenbrier Extension project is dropped from VDOT's Six -Year Secondary Road Plan. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Nitchmann asked when discussions will begin as to finding a new landfill site (in anticipation of the closing of the Ivy Landfill). Mr. Cilimberg said he does not think a new landfill is one of the options being considered, but a "transfer" site may need to be determined. He said he believes the City Council and Board of Supervisors will be having a joint session to discuss this issue sometime after the first of the year. He said he will try to arrange for both the City and County Planning Commissions to be present at that joint session. Mr. Nitchmann felt this was a question that should be answered before final recommendations are made about the the Rural Areas. -------------------------------------- A joint meeting with the City Planning Commission will be held January 14,1997. A joint University/City and County Planning Commission meeting will be held after the first of the year to discuss the University's Master Plan. Also to be discussed will be consolidated water regulations for the City, County and University. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. M OR V. Way Cilim erg, tary /0 9