HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 16 88 PC MinutesFebruary 16, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 16, 1988. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms.
Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present
were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. John Pullen, Planner;
and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of February 2, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
University Village Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 45 dwelling
units in one mid -rise condominium building on a 33-acre site. This site
developed to its ultimate capacity would include 260 dwelling units (230
condominium units and 30 townhomes). The current phase will be served by
96 parking spaces, while the ultimate design will provide 320 parking
spaces. The property is located on the Old Ivy Road (Route 601) adjacent
to and north of Huntington Village Apartment Complex. Tax Map 60,
Parcel 53. Zoned R-10, with proffers. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Bowerman excused himself from hearing this petition due to a possible
conflict of interests.
Mr. Stark explained that he held membership in the Colonnades, an activity
similar to the one proposed in this petition, and also that he was
employed by the University of Virginia which was also indirectly connected
to this petition. For those reasons he had sought the advice of the
County Attorney as to whether or not a conflict of interest existed.
He stated that both he and counsel did not feel there was a conflict of
interests. Mr. St. John asked that the record show that he had consulted
with Mr. Stark on this issue, but Mr. Stark had not consulted the 'Official"
counsel which is the Commonwealth's Attorney. Mr. St. John stressed that
his opinion was not official.
Mr. Gould, acting as Vice Chairman, conducted the meeting in Mr. Bowerman's
absence.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The primary issue of discussion for this
petition dealt with access. The staff report explained:
"Previously, the applicant had submitted a site plan which proposed
an entrance to be located along the eastern property line of this
development (PLAN A). This entrance would have encompassed a twenty foot
wide, partially paved road, which also serves University of Virgnia property,
Ivy Gardens Apartments, and a single family dwelling. It was the
applicants' intent that the proposed Crestwood Drive serve as an altered
or realigned access to all properties presently using the existing
right-of-way. When the applicant failed to reach an agreement as to
access consolidation the applicant submitted a site plan showing separate
entrance (PLAN B). The entrance location as indicated on Plan A is
acceptable to the Virginia Department of Transportation and staff,
17-S
February 16, 1988 Page 2
and is considered the most desirable in terms of providing safe and
convenient access to these properties, and minimizing conflict on the
public street.
The modified plan (Plan B) proposes to locate an entrance approximately
sixty feet west of the existing right-of-way. This places the entrance
of the existing right-of-way within the turn and taper lane required for
the University Village entrance. The applicant, which is also a general
partner of the Ivy Gardens Apartment Limited Partnership, proposes to
install signage which would restrict usage of the right-of-way by
Ivy Garden residents. Also the applicant proposes to construct
travelways extending to Crestwood Drive from the apartment complex, in an
effort to encourage residents of the apartments to use Crestwood Drive.
The Virginia Department .of Transportation has commented that it would
issue a commercial entrance permit for the modified entrance, but has stated
that this is not a preferred situation. Staff is of the opinion that the
modified entrance presents increased conflicts at the public road and
increased hazard for users of the existing right-of-way, as well as
for vehicles entering the University Village development."
The staff report pointed out the following physical and legal constraints on this
property:
"(a) The applicant has stated that "Plan A" is not feasible due to
the legal complexities involved to realign or alter the existing
right-of-way.
(b) Staff is of the opinion that "Plan B" presents a more hazardous
situation for users of the right-of-way, and vehicles entering
the proposed development.
(c) The applicant cannot locate the proposed entrance on the western
property line because of inadequate sight distance."
The staff report explained further that "the entrance location onto Old Ivy Road,
and the type of entrance (separate as opposed to joint) are not strictly
consistent with the Land Use Schematic drawing submitted to the Board of
Supervisors as part of the proffer. ... The exact location of the entrance
was not a matter of significant discussion at the Board of Supervisors
meeting. The joint nature of the entrance roadway was."
The staff report concluded: "Staff is of the opinion that this proposal is
in compliance with ZMA-87-08, including all proffers. Staff reconmends
denial of this proposal based on the safety issues which surround the location
of the proposed entrance. Staff will not support any increase in usage of
the existing right -of --way by properties which presently use it."
Referring to staff's statement that. "staff will not support any increase in usage
of the existing right-of-way by properties which presently use it," Mr.
Michel asked if staff was referring to the University, the McGavocks, and the apts.
Mr. Pullen replied affirmatively.
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Pullen to explain which characteristics of the plan were
consistent with the intent of the proffer. Mr. Pullen stated that staff
felt that the site plan, in general, was in compliance with the schematic
proffer in relation to the areas that are denoted for natural areas, landscaped
areas, transportation, etc. However, staff felt it was important for the
J7-
February.16, 1988
Page 3
Commission to determine whether or not the entrance was consistent with the
proffer.
Ms. Diehl asked ffhere was a proffered statement in addition to the proffered
schematic. Mr. Horne replied that there was, but much of the proffer was
done after the Commission hearing. He added, however, that the text of the
proffer does not explicitly address the type of entrance, i.e. a joint
entrance vs. a separate entrance from the existing right-of-way.
He added that drawings shown by the applicant, as illustrations of the intent
of what the applicant wanted.to build, all showed the joint entrance.
He stated further that all discussions at the Board, while it was not
directly stated that the Board recognized the entrance as a joint one,
was surrounding illustrations all of which showed a joint access.
Mr. Horne confirmed that no information was given at the time of the proffer
to indicate that the entrance was not to be a joint access. He added that
he felt that at that time the applicant intended for it to be a joint access.
It was determined that the applicant would insure ample water supply and
pressure by means of the pumping system.
Mr. Pullen confirmed that staff felt Plan B was hazardous because it would
place the entrance of the existing right-of-way within the turn and taper
lane for this proposal.
Mr. Horne confirmed that when this was presented before the Board there was
no indication that the entrance would not be a joint one as illustrated.
He emphasized, however, that there was not a direct discussion about this
issue.
It was confirmed that the Highway Department has stated they would issue
a commercial entrance permit for the modified entrance, though it is not
a preferred situation.
In response to Mr. Jenkins question about the undeveloped property on the
private road, Mr. Horne stated he was not certain but the McGavock property
was approximately 6 acres and the University owned property there also.
The chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Tom Wyant represented the applicant. His comments included the following:
--University Village is a privately financed, residential community for
retired or elderly persons.
--In planning this type of project there are four major areas of concern:
(1) Impact on traffic both on site and in surrounding areas; (2) Impact
on adjoining properties; (3) Impact on the environment; and (4) Quality
of life both within the site and in the surrounding community.
--The Village will provide a shuttle service for residents to cultural
activities, medical facilities, etc.
--Impact on adjoining properties will be minimal.
--Traffic levels will be low.
--Landscaping or screening will be provided on the property lines.
--Most mature trees on the site will be saved.
--The first phase of development will consist of administrative offices,
45 residential units and various activities for the residents.
i74
February 16, 1988
Page 4
--A maintenance building will also be included in the first phase which would
house repair shops and store vehicles, and also include a hobby
shop for residents.
---The maintenance building has its primary entrance and exit within the
project, via a "little" road that connects to the easement which this
property has rights to. fir. Wyant stated "There is a question in my
mind whether that connection iouli ever be used, or even be built."
--The second phase will probably be built concurrently with the first
phase and will include a residential wing of 45 units and dining
facilities.
--A permit for a Public Health Care Facility will be sought at a later
time after a ".Certificate of Public Need" has been secured.
--Sixty-nine percent of the traffic on the private driveway is generated
by Ivy Garden Apartments.
--Thewater proposal is a three-part. project involving the applicant,
the Service Authority and the City of Charlottesville. An agreement
in principle has been reached by the three parties and the developer
of University Village will donate the necessary land, at the proper
elevation, on another of his properties, on which the water storage
tanks can be placed.
Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
His comments related to the access issue and some of the legal issues
involved. Lasing visual aids, he explained that an entrance could not
be located on the western property line because of inadequate sight
distance (Plan Q . Regarding the possibility of a joint entrance (Plan A),
he stated there were two legal problems: (1) To get the proper turn lanes,
it would require that land from the adjoining property be conveyed,
transferred, or easement given to University Village from Ivy Gardens,
and e v e n if Ivy Gardens was agreeable to conveying the property, it
would not be possible because the pool for Ivy Gardens is in this area;
and (2) The right-of-way in existence, which serves four property
owners (UVA, University Village, Ivy Gardens and the McGavocks), is
on Ivy Gardens property, but all four properties have the right to use
it, and the applicant has attempted, but been unable, to reach an
agreement concerning the realignment of the right-of-way. Regarding
the access road being submitted (Plan B), he stated the applicant feels
this is the best possible plan and the issue before the Commission should
be whether or not this road will work well for this project. He stated
Plan B does not interfere with the rights of the other owners. He stated
that Plan B meets VDOT standards for sight distance and taper and decel
distance and they have stated they would issue a commercial entrance permit
for this entrance. He pointed out that the existing right-of-way entrance
(which would fall within the turn and taper lane for University Village
if Plan B is approved) is used very little, only by the McGavocks, Ivy
Gardens and a very insignificant number of university vehicles.
He stated that only a small amount of Ivy Garden traffic uses the road.
He indicated that, as a practical matter, the McGavocks will use the
new road and the applicant is willing to grant a right -a -way over Crestwood
Drive for that purpose. Mr. Landess stressed that at the Board hearing
there had been no discussion about the entrance whatsoever. He stressed
that the schematic was just thatT"'was not intended to be a binding site
plan. He stated that the applicant had hoped a joint entrance would be
possible, but legal problems make that impossible. He stated the applicant
feels that the present proposal will create a safer situation than currently
exists•
/7,5
February 16, 1988 Page S
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Landess to explain why he felt that either Plan A or B
was consistent with the applicant's proffer. Mr. L dess replied that
"This is purely a schematic...we always knew it hadRe at that eastern end
of the property because of sight distance. The Board wasn't concerned at
that time about whether it was a joint entrance or not. That was not an
issue before them." He indicated that the Board had made it clear that
this would not be a binding type of site plan. He felt that the plans
were consistent with the proffer because the concept was to simply show
that the entrance road would be at the eastern end of the property.
Mr. Landess confirmed that Plan B had not been discussed by the Board and
they were not aware of it.
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Landess why he felt two entrances were safer than one.
Mr. Landess stated that he had not made this statement, but rather he
felt that the proposal (Plan B) was safer than any other way that two
entrances might be -designed. He stated that, legally, the applicant has
been put in a position requiring two entrances.
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Gould had stated that Plan B was not consistent
with the proffer. Mr. St. John stated he did not interpret the staff report
in that way. (Mr. Horne confirmed that staff was not saying that the plan
was not consistent.) Mr. St. John indicated it was his interpretation that
though the plan might not be consistent with the schematic drawing, staff
feels the proposal is in compliance with ZMA-87-08 including the proffers.
Mr. Horne added: "That's correct." He added however, "We do feel the
Commission needs to be aware of this issue. It is the Commission's
determination as to whether it is consistent with the proffer, with the
intent of the overall proffer, meaning the drawing, the presentation to
the Board, and the text of the proffer."
It was determined the Commission had not seen the text of the proffer.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the proffer did not reference the type of entrance.
Mr. Landess confirmed Mr. Horne's statement.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the Board had not discussed it because they were not
aware of its existence. Mr. Landess felt this was not the case and it had
not been discussed because the Board did not think it was an issue.
Mr. St. John stated he felt the reason for this was because this was an
amendment to a zoning proffer and the Board thought the entrance design was
a part of site plan approval. He explained the reason this matter was
before the Board, with the proffer, was because the applicant wanted to
add a story to the building, thereby amending a previous approval. He
stated the only issue which concerned the Board was whether or not there
would be a trade-off, i.e. if the extra story was approved, how much more
open space would be possible. He recalled that an adjoining property
owner had expressed concern about the entrance, but the Board had left
this for the site plan process.
Ms. Diehl recalled that at the time of a previous site plan, for the
Marketing. Center, the entrance had been an issue. Mr. Horne recalled
that the same discussions had taken place and a joint entrance was
shown at that time. He stated that basic instructions to the staff
174
February 16, 1988 Page 6
were "These people are to work this out before they come back before us
again." He explained that the rezoning, as referred to by Mr. St. John,
was actually a request to amend the proffer. He further explained
that at the original rezoning, the entrance on Old Ivy Road was shown
at the western end edge of the property, in a completely different
location. He was unfamiliar with the discussion that had taken place at
that time, but stated that clearly the entrance cannot be placed at
that end of the property at this time. He further explained that subsequent
to the original rezoning staff had discussed with the applicant, prior to
an amended proffer or a site plan, the possibility of moving the entrance
to the eastern side of the property. At that time staff felt .that
moving the entrance to the eastern side was consistent with the proffer,
given certain conditions. After that the Marketing site plan showed the
joint entrance on the eastern side property and after that the applicant
had decided to build a higher building than was allowed by the original
proffer and subsequently discussions about amended proffers and the
schematic plan took place. He explained that the last proffer change was
what had generated the schematic plan and the current wording of the proffer.
Mr. Landess confirmed fir. Horne's statements.
The Chairman.invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
Mr. Richard Milner, attorney for Mrs. McGavock: Mr. Milner gave a very lengthy
presentation. He suggested that the applicant had not attempted to
to work with his client to arrive at a solution to the entrance
problem. He indicated his client was in favor of Plan A, i.e. a
joint entrance. He suggested that the applicant get together with
all surrounding property owners in order to arrive at a solution
"with Plan A, where you remove this existing right-of-way and
substitute a joint access into the development...." ?fir. Milner felt
this proposal was fundamentally inconsistent with the proffer.
Mr. Landess responded to one of fir. Milner's comments and stated
that the applicant has always been willing to grant a right-of-way
to the McGavocks so long as it is single-family property. He
stated that the applicant does not want commercial development.
of the McGavock property to come over the retirement village road.
He indicated this is the reason that negotiations have been
stalled.
Mr. Landess also asked the Commission if they wanted this applicant
to create a public road that would allow the 100 acres behind this
property to empty onto Old Ivy Road.
Mr. Theodore Louden: He stated the adjacent property owners have tried tc
negotiate with Mr. Heischman, the developer, from the beginning,
but he is unwilling to negotiate. He stated the quality of his
life is being impaired and "we ask to be compensated."
Mr. Sensebach, as an unofficial representative of the University of Virginia:
He stated he felt the land owned by the University which lies
behind this property will be "landlocked" by this development.
He felt the issue should be re -negotiated.
February 16, 1988
Wage 7
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Horne to clarify an earlier statement which he had
understood to be that staff had suggested to the applicant that he not submit
another application until the entrance issue had been settled. Mr.
Horne stated that was not correct, that it had been the Commission,
at the time the Market Center site plan was submitted, which had
advised the applicant not to present another application until the legal
complexities of accomplishing the entrance had been worked out.
It was determined the Market Center application had been submitted
in the late summer or early fall of 1987.
Mr. Stark recalled that an issue of concern had been that the road
"coming dorm the hill from the main site" was pointed directly at the
McGavock front yard and the Commission asked that some type of screening
be installed. Mr. Stark noted that the position of the road had not
been changed with this application.
Mr. Michel asked if it would be feasible to develop the McGavock or UVA property
with a 20-foot wide easement. Mr. Horne responded that it would not be
feasible. Mr. Horne further explained that the easement referred to by
Mr. Michel was a "right-of-way granted over the Ivy Gardens property to
these other properties" and was not a public roadway and was not an access
point to a highway that has ever obtained a commercial entrance permit and
therefore, under its current conditions, "it is not adequate for any
additional intensification of the traffic usage of it, certainly not to
a level of rezoning any adjoining property or development of an institutional
use that uses that as the access."
Mr. Horne confirmed that the right-of-way was established prior to the
installation of the Ivy Gardens pool.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Landess confirmed that the applicant
had not made any inquiries of the University of Virginia. Regarding the right -
of way, Mr. Landess added that the right-of-way had been in existence since
around 1880.
Mr. St. John made the following comments: "I'm not advocating what you should
do with this but you have to remember that this was a specific rezoning. This
land has been recently rezoned for this specific density and purpose, with
proffers and so forth. So I think the effect of the density on Old Ivy
Road in general is no longer a consideration. That ought to have been
considered before it was rezoned. If that was going to make it more in-
tolerable, then it should never have been rezoned to handle this use.
... About this right-of-way, I think there are some legal rules here that
are directly in point. When you are subdividing land, you can require
the owner of the land to provide.joint entrances to various lots that he's
creating because you're dealing with one owner. But when land already
exists in separate parcels, I don't think in site plan approval that you
have any power to require one owner to give other adjoining owners access
over his land. If he wants to do it and they can agree, that's fine. If
they don't want to do it because the adjoining land is zoned for high
density and you have a volume of traffic over this developer's land
i-/g
February 16, 1988 Page 8
that he doesn't want --if you require that--I'ri not speaking about the
old right-of-way now, I'll get to that in a minute --right now I'm saying
I don't think you have any power to require that that right-of-way
be closed and that the university and the yMcGavocks be mandated a
legal right over the road that Heischmann is going to build. That would
amount, in my :Hind, to a taking of Heischmann's property for the benefit
of the University and the McGavocks and it would be unlawful, you could
not do it. With respect to the old right-of-way, I don't think we have
the power to te11.a developer that before he develops his land', he's got
to come back to you with an agreement with an adjoining landowner. ...
If they were told 'Don't come back here until you've got an agreement
with your adjoining landowner ;we didn't have the power to put that to
him in the first place. And if he tells you he is unable to agree
with the adjoining landowner and he's therefore gone to his fallback
position of building his own road totally on his own land --I feel like
under the law, if this thing complies with the Zoning Ordinance, the
Subdivision Ordinance, with all the ordinances, then approval of it is
mandated by law and, in fact, is a ministerial act before you to
approve it, and the only ground on which you.can disapprove it, as it's
offered here, is the second paragraph in the Site Plan which says
'Nothing herein shall require the approval of anything that is clearly
a danger to public safety' --you don't.have to do that. ... The only
thing before you is whether this plan is a clear danger to public safety.
Since it is recently zoned for this, I think anybody that asserts thip has
a heavy burden to prove that it is a clear danger to public safety, and
if you find that,you are going to have to recite into the record factual
findings as to why you feel it's a danger to public safety and if it is
later litigated you are going to have to support that position, or the
Supervisors,if they are the defendants, would have the burden of proving
with clear and convincing evidence that this entrance is of danger to
public safety with expert testimony."
yMr. Horne recalled a recent application for Jefferson Square where "we
specifically determined that an entrance in the turn lane --a very
similar situation --was not approvable." He stated that was the position
of staff for the University Village application.
Regarding the issue of requiring an agreement, Mr. Horne stated: "The
approved site plan on this site, for the Marketing Center, shows an
access that requires an agreement, and that was voluntarily brought in
by the applicant. Staff didn't tell them to do that. They were instructed,
after long discussion as to whether this was legal, ...'If you intend
to bring this site plan back in, you get your legal ducks in a row,' and
that was the instruction from.the Commission. 'If you want to voluntarily
come in here with a joint access that requires this, we don't want to argue
about legal aspects of that when we've got a site plan in front of us."'
Mr. Horne confirmed that the plan for the Marketing Center had been a
preliminary one, though it was before there was a formal preliminary process.
Referring to staff's statement that "Staff will not support any increase in
the use of the existing right-of-way...", Mr. ?Michel asked if this included
that the utility building would not have any use also. Mr. Horne stated
staff had not thought of the utility use as being as significant as the
property owners have mentioned, though the utility building, as set up,
does have access and would increase the traffic.
/'74
February 16, 1988 Page 9
Mr. Horne added that perhaps that issue should be addressed if the plan
is approved.
Mr. Pullen added that the applicant had stated that the "vehicles that
would exit here" would come down the right-of-way and would get back on
Crestwood Drive, at least that would be their instructions.
Mr. Pullen added that if Plan A were to be constructed, the users of
the right-of-way, because of curb and gutter which would obstruct the
right-of-way, would have to use Crestwood Drive, thus, in effect, closing
or altering the right-of-way. Mr. Stark commented: "And I just heard
a statement saying we couldn't do that."
Ms. Diehl stated she was still trying to understand the Marketing Center
site plan. She asked if it had been represented that an agreement had
been made. Mr. Horne responded: "No; it was represented essentially that
they felt they could agree and that was the solution proposed and that's
why you instructed them 'if you're going to come in with this, have it
straight before you show up here; we don't want to negotiate legal agree-
ments while we are dealing with site plans."'
Mr. St. John stated that the site plan for the Marketing Center must then
be "dead" because of a condition (referring to the agreement) which could
not be fulfilled. (The applicant indicated this was correct.) Mr.
Horne added, "It was voluntarily drawn that way by the applicant. If
they say it's dead, it's dead."
Mr. Jenkins moved that the University Village Preliminary Site Plan be
approved subject to the conditions presented by staff.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
The motion failed to pass (2:4) with Commissioners Wilkerson and Jenkins
voting in favor and Commissioners Michel, Diehl, Stark and Gould voting
against.
Mr. Michel stated this was a difficult decision. He felt it was totally
a safety issue because of the extensive use of the road by Ivy Gardens.
He also stated he was sorry to see the maintenance vehicles using the road
as well. He stated he could support approval if all traffic for this
development could be restricted to Crestwood Drive. He stressed staff's
position that they could not support any increase in usage of the right-of-way
by properties that presently use it.
Mr. Jenkins indicated he would not oppose such an approach. However, he
stated "The applicant feels constrained to present that to us; that's a
better way to handle it than it is for us to sit here and try to dictate
what he shall or shall not do with his land and his right-of-way. I
have a conflict with that. I'd just rather see it come the other
direction."
Mr. Pullen stated that Mr. Michel's suggestion could be accomplished if
the applicant was to physically obstruct or close some driveways (he pointed those
out on the map). He stated that would not obstruct the right-of-way but
would close the traffic off to using that right-of-way. Mr. St. John
stated there was nothing illegal in such an approach, i.e. to put all traffic to
everything on Crestwood Drive, with no connection between Crestwood and the
/YO
February 16, 1988
Page 10
old right-of-way.
Mr. Horne stated he did not think that was physically possible. However,
he suggested that it might be possible to require that no connection
be made from University Village to the existing right-of-way. Then, clearly
the maintenance area would have to go out Crestwood Drive.
There was some confusion as to what was being suggested. There was some
discussion as to what was being proposed with Mr. Horne pointing to various
locations on the map.
Mr. Landess stated the applicant would not be opposed to separating the
maintenance building from the right-of-way.
Mr. Michel suggested the addition of condition 1(k) as follows: "This
site plan will not increase the users of the existing right-of-way in
any manner." However, Mr. "Horne suggested the following alternative
language which was acceptable to the Commission: "No access from Univer-
sity Village to the existing access right-of-way."
Mr. Michel moved that the University Village Preliminary Site flan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A final site development plan will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans;
b) County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and cal-
culations; .
c) County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
d) The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
e) Approval of an erosion control plan;
f) County Engineer approval of master drainage plan for parcels 24
and 53;
g) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
h) Fire -Official approval;
i) Signage located to restrict usage of the right-of-way by residents
of Ivy Garden Apartments and construction of travelway to Crestwood
Drive;
j) Planning staff approval of landscape plans;
k) No access from University Village to the existing access right-of-way.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a) Final Fire Official approval.
3. The final site plan may be administratively approved.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
/ g/
February 16, 1988
Page 11
Mr. Stark stressed that he felt safety was a main concern and also
the fact that the University had not been consulted.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 9:40 to 9:50 - Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.
WORK SESSION
Six -Year Secondary Road Plan, 1988-1994 - Discussion of consolidated
priority list of projects.
The Chairman first invited public comment.
Mr. Johnson addressed the Commission. He felt that the three criteria used
to determine road improvements (right-of-way, growth area, and traffic
count) had no relation to public safety or need. He felt State liability
was the "botton line" in the evaluation of road projects. He felt the
safety of a road should be the determining factor for road improvements.
He specifically asked that (1) The Commission solicit an opinion as to
what is the State's exposure if nothing is done after being appraised
of the existence of a dangerous public situation; and (2) The Commission
request that the Department of Transportation stake an 1.8-foot wide
pavement for State Route 682 to determine problem areas.
Mr. St. John responded to Mr. Johnson's comments and explained that
it is not a function, at the County level, to seek an opinion from the
Attorney General about state liability. He stated the County would
seek an opinion if our liability was in question, but the County is immune
from liability. He explained that the Commission's and Board's role in
determining priority of road projects was a legislative function and not
an administrative or executive function. He stated Mr. Johnson's questions
should be directed to the State attorneys. Mr. St. John stated also that
the establishment of criteria used is a legislative function and not a
legal matter.
Ms. Lynn Tillack, a resident of Rt. 682, also addressed the Commission.
She pointed out that three subdivisions have been approved in the area
in 10 years and at no time has there been an attempt to address the road
problem. She asked that the Commission consider changing the requirement
for 100% donated right-of-way before road improvements can be made.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out to Ms. Tillack that the Commission has placed
right-of-way acquisition as the third item of importance in the three
criteria, though the Board's past policy has been to place primary emphasis
on right-of-way acquisition. He stated the Commission has recommended
that the Board change that policy. He stated the Commission agreed
with her in terms of right-of-way acquisition, if the Commission feels
the road should be improved.
The Commission later asked that a statement be included in the annual
report to the Board that the Commission has recommended that the priority
be changed regarding the requirement for 100% right-of-way acquisition.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt that if 90% of the landowners on a specific
right-of-way were willing to donate right-of-way, then it would be
reasonable for the County to pursue the matter, provided the road meets
the other criteria. Mr. Horfte pointed out this could lead to
using Secondary Road funds to acquire property.
/J�7
February 16, 1988 Page 12
fir. Cilimberg then presented the staff report and went over, briefly,
the entire list of projects along with their estimated costs. Mr.
Roosevelt pointed out the location of each project on the county map.
The Commission made some minor changes in the listing and.finally approved
the following priority list for the 1988-1994 Six Year Secondary Road Plan:
P.C. B.O.S.
CATEGORY
PRIORITY PRIORITY
SPOT
*
( 1) ( )
SPOT
*
( 2) { }
SPOT
*
( 3) { }
SPOT
*
{ 4) { }
SPOT
*
( 5) { }
SPOT
*
[ 6) ( }
COUNTYWIDE
*
{ 7) { }
OTHER
MAJOR,BRIDGE
BRIDGE
MAJOR
MAJOR
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
MAJOR
MAJOR
SPOT
SPOT
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
SPOT
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
SPOT
MAJOR
SPOT
SPOT
MAJOR
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
MAJOR
MAJOR
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
MAJOR
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
TOTAL
* { 8}
* { 9)
* {10}
* {11}
* (12)
* (13)
* {14)
* (15)
(16)
(17)
;18}
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(2G)
(27)
(28)
( 29 )
{30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38}
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43}
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
PROJECT DESCRIPTXON
Rt. 631 at Rt. 659
Rt. 631 at Agnese Street
Rt. 654 at Rt. 656
Rt. 631' at Rt. 768
Rt. 656 turn lanes
Rt. 631 (Rt. 781 to Rt. 708 bridges)
Pape installation, signs, prel. eng..,
rural additions, etc.
Hatton Ferry operation
..Mcadowcreek Parkway (NCL to RR & bridge)
Rt. 671 bridge & approaches
Rt. 631 Widen along new alignmcnt
Rt. 631 Widen to 5 lanes
Rt. 601 Buck Mountain Creek
Rt. 660 S.F. Rivanna
Rt. 678 Reconstruct .2 mi to Rt. 250
Unpaved Roads (minimum allocation)
Plant Mix
Peyton Drive
Rt.••'729 (intersection at Rt. 250E)
Rt. 810 (North of Rt. 240)•
Rt. 743 (Whitewood to Rt. 631)
Rt. 631 (Rt. 743 to Rt. 29N)
Bcrkmar Drive Extended (800 ft. N Rt. 631)
Rt. 708/Rt. 631 intersection
Barracks_Road (WCL to Rt. 656)
Park Road Extension to Rt. 240
Rt. 649 (Rt. 29N to Rt. 606)
Rt. 743 (intersection at Rt. 606)
Greenbrier Drive Extension to Rt. 743
Old Ivy Road (spot .improvements)
Rt. 743 (Commonwealth Drive turn lanes)
Rt. 691 (Rt. 240 to Rt. 684)
Rt. 810 Moorman's River'.
Rt. 677 (RR at Old Ballard Road)
Rt. 620 Buck Island Crack
Rt. 743 (intersection at Rt. 663)
Rt. 726 (Rt. 795 to Rt. 1302)
Rt. 631 (growth area boundary to park)
Rt. 708 (Rt. 20 to Rt. 29S)
Rt. 692 .(Rt. 29S to Rt. 712)
Rt. 631 (South of improvements,to growth
area boundary)
Rt. 712 (Ammonett Branch)
Rt. 637 (Ivy Creek) .
Rt. 781 (Sunset -Avenue)
Rt. 656 (Georgetown Road)
Unpaved Roads (other)
Gates at Rt. 744 .02 mi S Rt. 22
Flashing lights & gates Rt. 679 .24 mi S Rt. 738
rlash;ng lights & gates Rt. 627 .74 mi S Rt. 726
Gates at Rt. 611 .23 mi W Rt. 691
Gates at Rt. 642 .28 mi NE Rt. 708
Flashing lights & gates Rt. 625 .75 mi SE Rt. 812
Gates at Rt. 1310 .04 mi S Rt. 6
Flashing lights & gates Rt. 602 .01 mi S Rt. 626N
ESTIMATED
COST
6 114,000
81,600
64,900
205,100
105,000
148,500
.780,000
60,000
4,656,982
594,792
4,204,920
333,355
350,000
860,000
85,900
4,462,528
1,000,000
210,000
Study
90,000
1,700,000
2,200,000
300,000.
100,000
300,000
150,000
850,000
75,000
600,000
Study
20,000
750,000
350,000
275,000
219,000
Study
Study
Study
Study
500,000
600,000
180,000
215,000
185,000
600,000
6,219,755
35,000
65,000
65,000
35,000-
35,000
65,000
35,00(
65,000
$ 35,196,.332
f '
February 16, 1988
Page 13
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
DS
k