Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 30 90 PC MinutesJANUARY 30, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 30, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. tither officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of January 16, 1990 were approved as submitted. CPA 89-04 LewisMountain/University Heights Aroa B Neighborhood Study - Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include the recommendations of the Lewis Mountain -University Heights "Area B" Neighborhood Study. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report explained: "The Land Use Map changes are recommended iin order to accurately reflect the intended land use for areas presently shown in the Plan as University property. All land use changes are located in Neighborhood 6. ... The Land Use Map changes are as follows: Change the land use designation from public/semi-public (University) to low density residential for the property known as Midmont, located at the end of Midmont Lane; ...to low density residential for an area located west of University Heights apartment complex, and south of University property on 250 west; ...(and) to medium density residential west of University Heights apartment complex and Ivy Gardens Commercial Area." The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Julia Campbell, an adjacent property owner (property shown in yellow on the map), addressed the Commission. She expressed opposition to "restricting" the use of her property because she felt it would devaluate her property. (Note: Mr. Benish explained that a previous mistake in the land use map had shown Ms. Campbell's property as belonging to the University. He stated that error has been corrected to show the property as being privately owned. He added that this area is now being recommended as low density, which would permit 1-4 units per acre, in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated further: "This is not an attempt to limit development, but rather show a residential land use designation on land that previously had no residential designation.") Mr. Venable Minor, an adjacent property addressed the Commission. He presented the positions of various properties in questioned the use of the term "buffer owner, below Ms. Ca.mbell, a. hand -drawn outline of the subject area. He zone," because he felt the _ip2 January 30, 1990 Page 2 buffer was already in existence He asked that the Commission take into consideration the existing privately -owned properties before making a decision. Mr. Benish explained one of the reasons for recommending medium density for one area was that it would serve as a transitional area between the other uses in the area and another reason was the size of the site and its limitations due to an access by perscriptive easement may create traffic concerns for a high density designation. Mr. Minor disagreed with Mr. Benish's statements about the access issue, Mr. Cilimberg expanded on the reasoning behind the designation in relation to the idea of it serving as a transition between uses. He pointed out that the report reflected that a thorough analysis had been made of the ability of these properties to handle new development. Mr. Minor noted that none of the owners of the parcels involved had been asked to.serve on the Committee which had taken part in the study. He also suggested that he had not been able determine who had served on the Committee.. (Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the study was a matter of public record and the names were printed on the document. He explained how the members had been selected and then read the names of those who had served on the Committee.) Hearing that Mr. Heishmann was a member of the Committee, Ms. Campbell suggested that he had been looking out for his own interests to the detriment of his neighbors. (Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the makeup of the committee was not a matter before the Commission, but rather the results of the study.) Ms. Campbell approached the issue of legal recourse if the County should "down -zone" her property. Mr. Rittenhouse advised her that this was an issue which could be pursued privately if she so desired. He also explained the matter before the Commission was not an attempt to restrict anyone's property rights, but rather simply to determine if approval of what is believed to be appropriate zoning designations for the property is in order. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson asked if the concerns raised by the public had been taken into consideration by the Committee. Mr. Cilimberg explained how the process had been conducted -- through work sessions and public meetings. He did not recall there having been any input as to changes in the land use Aar January 30, 1990 Page 3 recommendations though there had been a number of people present at the public meeting. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he felt the contents of the study had been the result of a thorough planning process involving the City, the County and the University. He stated he would be very reluctant to modify those recommendations at this point, particularly in view of the fact that the public had been included in the process. Mr. Grimm moved that CPA-89-04 regarding the Lewis Mountain/University Heights Area B Neighborhood Study be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. Six -Year Secondary Road Plan - Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the 1990-1996 Six Year Secondary Road Plan. A total of 67 projects have been identified. The total funds estimated to be available for the six --year period are approximately $7,000,000. Mr. Benish presented the staff report assisted by Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Benish summarized that the basic issue before the Commission was whether or not to recommend the new projects which are suggested for the new plan, i.e. projects 30 through 34 (or projects 31, 35, 36 and 37 as recommended by the Highway Department). (Note. The Highway Department placed bridge projects at a higher priority than did staff, i.e. they placed projects 35, 36, and 37 before projects 30, 32, 33 and 34 which included Old Ivy Road, Avon Street/Rt. 20 Connector, Jarmans Gap and Georgetown Roads.) Mr. Benish noted that the other decision before the Commission was whether to support staff's recommendation that unpaved road projects be based on the rating system criteria, i.e. perceived need, or to support the Highway Department's policy of rating them based on available right-of- way, The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Jeff Douglas, representing several property owners on Rt. 610, addressed the Commission. He asked only that that project (project 59) remain as listed on the list and that it not be given a lower priority. He pointed out the poor condition of the road since it is no longer being maintained as a result of being on the list for paving. 49" January 30, 1990 Page 4 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson spoke at length about his strong feeling that the criteria used to rank unpaved road projects was deficient because, in his opinion, that criteria gave little, if any consideration to the safety of the road. He felt this should be the main factor in assessing need for a project. He referred several times to a document, dated April 6, 1988, which set forth the policy of the Board of Supervisors for unpaved roads. He questioned whether staff's procedure for evaluating unpaved road projects was compatible with this policy. He stated: "I submit that highway safety is not a factor in anything I've heard so far and nothing I see on the Board of Supervisor's policy. I submit that this is a fatal defect." He did not feel that traffic count, in and of itself, was an indication of a road's safety. He noted that Police Department accident records do not give any information about roads. He felt the procedure was "fatally defective," and as a result of this defect the state was being placed in a position of liability, Mr. Johnson also indicated that he found the priority list deseript.ion�,sTdi fiult to understand. Mr. Johnson recommended that He'1/,g L1hYib� ects among the members of the Commission, with each Commissioner being assigned projects that were outside their district, for an "objective" review of, particularly, the safety aspects, devoid of any "parochial" interest. He also suggested that all projects considered "have individual statements recorded reflecting the consideration and evaluation given to their highway safety characteristics." (See Attachment, Part A) Mr. Rittenhouse invited staff comment. Mr. Benish began by stating that it would be impossible for staff to give any more complete review than that which has been given these projects given the available staff. He stressed that "it is not intended that this priority system be the end result of what the recommendations are." He explained that the Six -Year Plan goes through a public hearing process each year where public comment is received and, in addition, staff solicits comments from the school bus section of the Department of Education and the Fire Department for subjective comments about projects. He stated that the system cannot possibly do everything and it is not intended to --"it is not cast in stone" --but rather provides a "'rational, objective start." He stated he would need at least three additional staff members to be able to keep accurate records of accident reports in relation to roads. He stated the staff would continue to try to improve the system. Mr. Benish also explained how the scoring system works in ranking the projects. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized Mr. Benish's comments: "Staff has taken direction from the Board on what sort of criteria should be applied in ordering these projects and has attempted to apply January 30,1990 Page 5 criteria to come up with a rating. That rating is being presented to the public for an additional factor that would be input and staff has indicated that they would welcome, ask for, solicit, additional input from the public that would relate to factors that are not included in their criteria -based rating system ... that would include things such as safety from personal experience and other factors that could then be plugged in and evaluated by staff, by the Commission, and reviewed by the public and if modifications were indicated, then those modifications could be made and reflected in our recommendations to the Board who will make the ultimate decision on whether this is the ultimate rating of projects. I think that uniformity in applying this criteria is very important and my view is that that can only be accomplished if a central organization --in this case our planning staff --is responsible for applying this criteria to all these projects and therefore they can be applied uniformly. The question of whether or not we agree if the criteria is correct is an important item, but it is a somewhat separate item. The question of the validity of the criteria and how the criteria are applied, and by whom, are both important to us. At this point, we have a list of projects before us and we know what the basis of•that ordering is, generically we do. We have invited public comment and we have really heard no public comment that suggests that these priorities are out of order. So it's before us to determine whether we agree if they're in order and whether we agree on the basis for ranking the unpaved road projects by staff and we agree or don't agree with VDOT's recommendations on some reordering of projects to raise the priority of certain bridge projects." Ms. Andersen asked for an explanation of the rating system for the bridges. Mr. Roosevelt responded to this request and explained the sufficiency rating system. (Mr. Benish pointed out that the staff's criteria -based rating system uses VDOT's sufficiency rating system as one of their criteria for evaluating bridge projects, i.e. staff's system includes VDOT's "plus" other factors.) There was a brief discussion about the Rt. 660 bridge project. Ms. Huckle stated she would be very upset if the work on this bridge were to be slowed down. She asked if a sign might be placed on the bridge which would limit the bridge to only one vehicle at a time. Mr. Roosevelt felt the "3 Tons" sign should serve that purpose. Ms. Huokle stated that personal experience shows that the existing sign is not an effective deterrent. In response to Ms. Andersen's request, Mr. Roosevelt reviewed the sufficiency ratings for several bridges.*Referring to the long process involved in getting funds together for these projects, he stated that if they were not placed in the plan at this time, there was a possibility that the bridges would have to be closed. *(See Attachment, Part B) January 30, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Roosevelt also explained that the ranking of projects 27 through 37 was especially important because whether or not those projects go forward will depend on the availability of revenue - sharing funds. (He stated that projects 1 through 26 could go forward without revenue -sharing.) Mr. Johnson expressed a lack of understanding as to how projects could be placed in the plan without any suggested funding. Mr. Benish explained the process and Mr. Rittenhouse summarized: "But if we were to endorse this ordering of projects, between the time that we leave here tonight and the time the Board looks at this it can be filled in to reflect funding." There was a brief discussion about the funding process, including the funds available for the existing plan and its relation to this proposed plan. Mr. Rittenhouse clarified that an adoption of funding was not an issue before the Commission but rather the adoption of a priority list. Mr. Roosevelt again explained the difference in staff's ranking and VDOT's ranking, i.e. staff is recommending projects 30 (Old Ivy 250/29-250 BYP); 31 (Airport, 606/240); 32 (Avon Street/Rt. 20 Connector); 33 (Georgetown Rd. 743/654); and 34 (Jarman's Gap 240-684) and VDOT is recommending projects 30 (Airport, 606/240); 31 (Proffit RR Bridge); 32 (Advance Mills Bridge);and 33 (Old Ballard RR Bridge). Mr. Rittenhouse again restated the two main decisions to be made by the Commission. He added that in terms of ranking of unpaved roads he felt staff's approach was correct, i.e. priority based on need rather than availability of right-of-way. He asked if there were compelling reasons why staff feels the three road projects should be ahead of the bridge projects. Mr. Benish stated he did not feel there was a "compelling" reason and pointed out that the projects are ranked "together," which indicates there is a similarity. He stated that the road projects tended to get ranked higher because they are in growth areas and support the growth management policy. He also noted that the Board has stated that before the Rt. 743 and Rt. 649 bridge projects are put in the plan an impact analysis should be done. He stated staff would like to have a least a year to study these projects in order to more fully understand what the impact of these projects will be. He pointed out that if the bridge projects keep the ranking proposed by staff, it was possible that they could receive some of the revenue -sharing funds. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there is no question about the fact that the future of the bridges is limited, but the question is at 497 January 30. 1990 Page 7 what point they should be placed in a position to receive funding. There was a brief discussion about the results of an impact study on a bridge project and also about how the process proceeds once funds have been committed for a project Mr. Jenkins moved that staff's priority list for the Six -Year Secondary Road plan be adopted, Ms. Andersen seconded the motion Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated: "I submit, and may it be recorded.. , this plan as it stands is fatally defective and, thus, ultimately, extends the exposure of liability on the part of the Commonwealth on the basis that highway safety has been essentially completely ignored. No identifying factor or combination of factors reflecting highway safety has been mentioned, discussed or evaluated. In my way of thinking, based on what I ve seen here tonight, the Planning Commission has abdicated its responsibility to the Community with respect to highway safety." Mr. Grimm disagreed and stated he felt the functional analysis performed by staff did included an element of safety. Mr. Johnson challenged staff to identify that element. Mr. Benish stated: "These are the best measures that we have available to us that we can handle to imply what the safety is, i.e. traffic counts on a roadway indicating tendencies, the number of vehicles and the chances of accidents." Mr. Grimm also pointed out that staff consults with the Education Department (school buses) and Fire Department for their input on projects which are of concern. Ms. Andersen added that the Commission and staff must also depend on the public to make their concerns about a particular safety situation known. She stated: "We are not all knowing." Mr. Benish concluded: "This criteria -based rating system is not intended to indicate finally what projects we are to rate. It is an objective starting point that we can (use) to review all projects equally as best we can and, from that point, given subjective information, the infinite wisdom of the public, the Commission and the Board of Supervisors, we hope that we can address all the concerns. But, I don't think that any system that we can do could be any better..,,." 4298 January 30, 1990 Page 8 Referring to the bridge projects, Mr Rittenhouse stated that though he was sensitive to staff's desire to include the public in the process, he was also sensitive to the urgency of the bridge projects. He felt the public meetings associated with these projects would provide the opportunity for public input. He stated he would like to see the bridge projects "accelerated, and for that reason he would not support the motion to approve staff's priority list. The previously stated motion for approval failed (3:4) with Commissioners Andersen, Jenkins and Wilkerson voting in favor, and Commissioners Rittenhouse, Grimm, Johnson, and Huckle voting against. The Chairman called for an alternative motion. Ms. Huckle moved that VDOT's recommended priority list for the Six Year Secondary Road plan be adopted which includes the following changes in ranking: NEW RANK PROJECT (Previously) 30 Airport Rd.- Rt. 649 31 31 Proffit RR Bridge 35 32 Advance Mills Bridge 36 33 Old Ballard RR Bridge 37 34 Avon St./Rt. 20 Connector 32 35 Old Ivy 250/29-250BYP 30 36 Georgetown Rd. 743/654 33 37 Jarman's Gap 240-684 34 Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed (6:0:1), with Mr. Johnson abstaining. VDOT Subdivision Street ReaUirements - Revisions to Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements. For information only. Mr. Cilimberg briefly highlighted the report which had been received by the Commission. He stated: "What essentially has resulted here is the potential for higher design speeds on subdivision streets and, as part of that, what you might envision is straighter and flater roads which entail not only higher speeds but also more potential cut and fill. The repercussions of the Commission are the possibility of more appeals asking for ev-19 January 30, 1990 Wage 9 waivers to allow a private road ...... He explained the Board has asked staff for a procedure whereby the Board can ask the state to reconsider some of these changes. There was a brief discussion about the reasons for the changes. No action was required of the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. , ' �l/`�'W— Mayne ilimberg, Sec-r9kary DS ATTACHMENT to these minutes on the back of this page. EQ ATTACHMENT to Minutes of January 30, 1990. PART A: Mr. Johnson quoted several passages from Special Report 214 "Designing Safer Roads" prepared by the National Transportation Research Board and published in 1987. This report identified certain factors which Mr. Johnson felt should be given consideration during road improvement project selection deliberations in order to avoid Court judgments against a public agency. He noted that the report also identified some considerations thathave been rejected by Courts when proposed as defenses to claims of negligent performance relevant to highway conditions. He felt that, "notwithstanding the current condition of Rts. 711, 712, and 760, it should be recognized that these more or less all connect to same two geographical points (and) these points are also connected by paved roads essentially parallel to and adjacent to Rts. 711, 712 and 760." He felt that "because of this, at least no more than one of these should be considered for improvements at this time." PART B : Mr. Roosevelt explained the following ratings: (1) The bridge over Southern RR on Rt. 649: Rating 11.7. (2) The bridge on Rt. 677 over the C & 0 RR: Rating 10.5 (He noted that this rating may go up as a result of recent improvements by the railroad.) (3) The North Fork --of the Rivanna on Rt. 743: Rating 14.2. He explained that when the sufficiency rating is below 20, VDOT recommends replacement or reconstruction. He pointed out that the rating on the bridge on Rt. 660, which is scheduled for reconstruction this summer has a rating of 4. .So /