HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 28 1994 PC Minutes6-28-94
June 28, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 28, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Tom
Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Ciiimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Planner; Mr. Juan Diego Wade,
Planner; Mr. Tom Leback, UVA representative; and Mr. Larry Davis,
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Huckle and Dotson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was
established.
SOB 94-048 Milton T. Jr. and Patricia Edgerton Waiver Request -
Proposal to create one two -acre lot leaving a 4 acre residue.
The applicant has requested a modification of Section 18-36F of
the Subdivision Ordinance to allow separate entrances on a state
road. Property, described as Tax Map 43, parcel 22, is located
on the south side of Rt. 676 (Barracks Road) approximately 0.6
miles west of the Route 610/Route 676 intersection in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Ms. Sprinkle presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that the applicant has demonstrated this
request will alleviate environmental degradation that may occur
if required to close the existing driveway_" Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Ray. He commented:
"If we are granted the variance, we will have the full
implications of the Subdivision Ordinance for this easement and
for this parcel of land, which gives you much more control later
on about what happens along the driveway and the parcel of land.
If we use the alternate approach, we think that you would not
have as much control."
Referring to condition No. 3--Revise plat to meet technical
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance --Mr. Blue asked what
revisions were needed. Mr. Ray responded: "I thought we had
taken care of those." Ms. Sprinkle:"You probably have, I
probably just haven't revised the staff report." Ms. Sprinkle
agreed that No. 3 would not be needed because she believed
everything had been taken care of."
Ms. Imhoff commented: "When everyone is talking about the
ultimate use, what you're talking about is by having_250 feet of
frontage on Rt. 676, and basically creating a long pipestem, you
a
6-28--94 2
could do this just by regular subdivision, with the alternative
being granting the waiver and using the easement instead." Mr.
Ray responded: "we think that's a better way." Ms. Imhoff
indicated agreement.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Imhoff stated that though in most cases shared entrances are
preferred, because these are both existing entrances and the
situation will not be worsened by the applicant's proposal, she
did not think there would be a problem with granting this waiver.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Milton J., Jr., and Patrician J. Edgerton Waiver Request be
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Trim trees and brush to the west of the easement as
recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
2. Show easements to allow the existing well and septic system
to continue serving the dwelling on Lot A.
The motion passed unanimously.
Ivy Road Design Plan
Mr. Cilimberg presented the results of a study conducted by the
City, County and the University, over the past several months,
related to the design and conceptual plan of the ultimate future
improvements to Rt. 250 west from Emmett Street to the Bypass.
The intent of the study had been to identify those elements of
the Ivy Road Corridor related to amenities and design features,
e.g. landscaping, bike lanes, sidewalks, streetlights, median
treatment, crossover location identification, etc. The study was
not related to engineering but was intended to ultimately
supplement the 4-laning project which is called for in the CAT
Study. This project is not currently funded, but it is hoped
that it may be undertaken after the turn of the century.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if streetlights were planned in the
beginning. Mr. Cilimberg explained that they were not planned
for the first phase but they may be part of an interim phase.
Ms. Imhoff expressed the opinion that the style of street,light.a
was "not very urban scale, (rather it is) a large road, suburban
kind of light." She suggested that consideration should be given
to "shorter, historic, or community -sized lights." Mr. Leback
explained the reasoning behind the choice of streetlights.
,9.6_0
6-28-94 3
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the possible use of underground utilities
had been considered. Mr. Cilimberg responded that underground
utilities had been considered but the main issue is one of cost.
Ms. Imhoff asked how this plan would be used; "Will it be
adopted by the County? Will it be advisory when we get a site
plan or rezoning in that areal" Mr. Cilimberg responded that he
envisioned the plan would be "adopted, much as some of the
pedestrian plans of the mid- to late--80's were ... for reference
in planning --future CIP as well as in site planning."
Mr. Blue explained that he had found the report interesting in
terms of the detailed landscaping aspect, but very little
technical, engineering issues were addressed. He pointed out
that the letter from VDOT had said "this is great but you still
have to comply with our design specifications."
Mr. Cilimberg explained the biggest issue which will have to
ultimately be addressed is the location of crossovers. Mr. Blue
had attended one of the meetings and asked about the possibility
of a pedestrian crossover at Alderman Road, which he felt would
eliminate a "terrible conflict." He had been told that it wasn't
feasible. [Mr. Leback later explained that the funding had been
insufficient to cover an engineering study. He also was of the
opinion that VDOT was in agreement with everything in the study,
"on a conceptual basis."]
Ms. Imhoff asked if a copy of this. plan (once endorsed by the
Board) would be provided to each of the landowners along the road
so "they know the plan they are supposed to be following." Mr.
Cilimberg was uncertain as to how the plan would be distributed.
Mr. Blue recalled that all the landowners had been involved in
the study process.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the University Shopping Center and
Foods of All Nations are already designing changes to their
properties based on this plan. Mr. Blue cautioned that "when
VDOT gets in there and starts making the improvements to do the
4-lane, there will almost definitely be changes in grade which
will effect this."
Where was determined to be no public comment.
Mr. Cilimberg felt it would be helpful for the Commission to pass
its comments and recommendation on to the Board.
MOTION. Ms. Imhoff moved that the Ivy Road Design Flan be passed
on to the Board of Supervisors with the Commission's
recommendation it be adopted as a planning tool, and with the
further recommendation that additional consideration be given to
a�i
G-28-94 4
streetlight style and to the possible undergrounding of
utilities.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District - Discussion of CATS Study and
Rura Transportation Plan
Ms. fancy O'Brien addressed the Commission to seek input as to
what it feels the main transportation issues are, both rural and
urban.
She briefly described the following studies .in which TJPDC is
taking part:
--Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) which is
funded by the MPO and is the basis for: the bypass study,
improvements to the 29 corridor., improvements on Free Bridge,
some transit improvements, and some of the City's improvements.
This study covers a 20-year time frame. She emphasized that the
focus of this study is "multi -modal" transportation systems, not
just roads. (To be completed, "on a qualitative level" by the
end of October; thereafter, the cost of the projects will be
studied.)
--Rural Area Transportation Study (RATS) which is funded by
VDOT. (Probably will require 2 more years for completion.)
--Intelligent Transit System (being studied by the MPO)
Commission comments included the following:
Imhoff - Though she iinnderst.00d the urgen!c;y. of the Rt. 29
situation, she stated she: was more interested in having somebody
think strategically, in the rural areas about (1) the role of the
Virginia Byways; (2) those areas where citizens do not want
improvements; and (3) more ways to get out of the urban areas
and into the rural areas by bike and by walking. She referenced
the Rails -to -Trails concept which has been used in some areas and
wondered about the use of old railroad beds for the creation of
trails.
Nitchmann - He expressed an interest in knowing if there
have been any areas, similar to Albemarle County, which have had
success in "getting us out of our cars." [Ms. O'Brien described
briefly a program adopted by a similar community in California.
She could not recall the name.] Ms. Imhoff suggested that it
would be helpful to learn what factors had made the program work,
e.g. "what is the minimum density needed to make mass transit
work, what is the land use pattern needed, do you need a number
of large employers or can it be done with a variety oy small
businesses?" From Ms. O'Brien's response, Ms. Imhoff concluded
that "apparently you do need a couple of large employers if at
least carpooling is one of the steps you are going to take." (Mr.
Leback reported that the University is currently having
6-28-94 5
discussions about traffic reduction programs, but he was not
familiar with the progress of the discussions..)
Jenkins - He asked about "park and ride" programs. Ms.
O'Brien explained that Mr. Wade (County planning staff) was
looking into this possibilty, as a part of the on --going traffic
reduction study. Mr. Jenkins suggested that it would be helpful
to make ideas such as carpooling one day per week "more visible."
Mr. Wade noted that he is Currently negotiating for a park and
ride lot at Rio Hills Shopping Center.
Nitchmann - He asked if any study was being done of
"cultural shifts," such as flex -hours, more persons working at
home, etc.
Imhoff - She asked if TJRDC might be able to look at VDOT
standards in relation to standards which may make it difficult to
achieve ""more ,livable communities (because) they stand in the way
of having good road design." She gave as examples communities
which have "more streets which are set in blocks, more right
angles and fewer cul-de-sacs, narrower roads but with back
alleyways." Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff had had a meeting
with VDOT recently on that topic, i.e. "design standards of VDOT
and how they effect the environment and historical areas." He
explained that the General Assembly has directed the "residencies
to re -study and make recommendations to change some of the design
standards."
Nitchmann - He expressed concern about the Louisa Rd. (Rt.
22) at its intersection with Rt. 250. He felt the traffic
situation will get continually worse as the developement of
Glenmore continues and 250 will eventually have to be 4-laned.
[Ms. Imhoff later expressed the strong feeling that some roads,
including Rt. 250 east, should not be widened. She stated she
had a lot of concerns about expanding growth in the 250 East
Corridor.] Mr. Nitchmann asked if TJPDC will have the opportunity
to have input into the consideration of a "true bypass around the
City." He stated he was very interested in a "bypass that
completely goes around the City of Charlottesville, that hooks in
north of the airport, moves around to the east and west ---a
complete circle around the City --with limited access into the
City off of that." He also expressed interest in the Rt. 20
south area. He felt there would be continued pressure on growth
in that area, including the possible location of a new high
school. He expressed concern about the .lack of transition in
speed limit as you come into the City from Avon Street, extended,
i.e. "immediately you are in a residential area with a lot of
children playing and the speed limit changes suddenly to 35 mph."
Jenkins - He asked if any consideration had been given to
the possible use of the train between Charlottesville and Crozet.
He felt this was a perfect candidate to transport people into the
area. [Ms. Imhoff suggested that train service between
Gordonsville and Richmond also be studied.]
Vaughan - She expressed concerns about Rt. 29 North and
Hydraulic Road.
,253
6-20-94 6
There was a brief discussion about the bus system. Mr. Nitchmann
suggested the possibility of funding a larger JAUNT bus which
would serve Buckingham and Scottsville. He felt there was a
demand for such service and suggested that it be tried for a year
or two. Mr. Cilimberg later reported that staff has identified
where logical extensions of bus routes could go, but presently no
decision has been made to extend routes or increase frequency.
He stated that a study is also being completed on transportation
needs in the southern part of the County.
Ms. O'Brien reported there has been a lot of interest, as part of
the 29 North Study, in the development of a major bikeway along
Rt. 29 that would link up with those which are coming across the
northern part of the state, and there is the potential for a
tourist bikeway from Maryland to North Carolina. Ms. Nitchmann
was skeptical that bikes would ever become a major form of
transportation. He questioned the wisdom of spending.a lot of
money on .05% of the population and asked if that .05% would
result in a considerable descrease in the use of energy, less
pollution, and less traffic. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that those
areas which are providing more bike facilities are finding that
more and more people are biking.
Ms. Imhoff asked if TJPDC has maps showing projected land use for
surrounding counties. Ms. O'Brien explained that such a maps are
currently being developed showing regional land use, current land
use and Future land use. Maps are also available showing the
major employers and the locations of the major concentrations of
population. She stated most any statistic from the census can be
mapped. TJPDC has also just, completed the development of a
"common language" for the future land use maps. Mr. Blue
suggested that the maps be understandable by the general public.
Mr. Blue pointed out that Jack Hodge will be present at the July
6 Board of Supervisors meeting and there will be a discussion of
the Meadowcreek Parkway and the Western Bypass. He felt this
meeting might be of interest to other Commissioners. He recalled
that the Commission had taken a position on this issue last year.
Mr. Blue noted the 4-party agreement, in which the timing of
various improvements was approved, seems to be a point of
contention and he hoped that would be a part of the discussion.
There was no public comment on Ms. O'Brien's presentation.
MISCELLA24EOUS
Commissioner Visit to Fa uier County - Mr. Cilimberg asked that
Commissioners let him know by TuesaFay, July 5 which of the
following days best suited them for the overnight visit to
Faquier County: July 21/22 or July 28/29 (first preference).
M
6-28-94
There bung no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8.44
p.m.
P56-