HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700053 Correspondence 2008-07-09 Page 1 of 2
Judith Wiegand
From: Judith Wiegand
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:10 AM
To: Juandiego Wade; 'Joel Denunzio (Joel denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov)'
Cc: Glenn Brooks; Wayne Cilimberg; Elaine Echols
Subject: Report on PC PH for St.Anne's-Belfield
Juan and Joel,
Here's an update on the Commission's actions last night regarding the SP for St. Anne's. At the end, I'll tell you
what I think we need to be prepared for at the BOS PH on Wednesday, August 13.
First, as I was sitting in the auditorium waiting for the meeting to begin, Greg Kamptner sat down next to me and
told me that he was concerned about requiring the applicant to construct the two offsite improvements. As Greg
explained it, in order to require that the applicant construct the improvements, rather than simply make a
contribution toward them, the need for the improvements must be "substantially generated" by the increase in
traffic due to the expansion He was not sure that 13.5% and 9%would pass this test. Neither percentage, of
course, includes the amount of existing traffic that is due to St. Anne's.
After my presentation, the Commssion asked questions and discussed some of the material. Then, they heard
from the applicant. Of the ten conditions staff recommended, the applicants were okay with eight, but had
problems with the one requiring LEED design and, as you know, with the condition that would require the
applicant to construct the two intersection improvements.
The Commission debated whether to ask for one improvement or both of them versus asking for a contribution
either toward two of the intersection improvements or a proportional share of all five They wanted to know what
the proportional share of all five would be. I did not have that figure and told them so We also didn't know
whether the school or VDOT owned enough of the ROW next to the ramp and taper areas to be able to construct
the improvements without having to purchase ROW or ask the County to condemn property.
The Commission also wanted to know if it was an option to close that offramp from the 250 Bypass. Bill Edgerton
pointed out that the ramp is redundant; the cloverleaf ramp is just a few hundred feet further along the Bypass.
Glenn pointed out that that wasn't something we could make as a condition, and that it would probably be very
unpopular with the public.
The Commission voted (5—2)to recommend approval of the SP with changes to the LEED condition, a minor
one to Condition 9, and the"first half'of the transportation condition. In other words, the Commission
recommended that the applicant be required to construct only the southbound right turn lane off of the US 29
ramp onto Faulconer Drive(and not the right turn taper). The reason Commissioner Strucko gave for making the
motion to include only the turn lane extension is that he feels nearly all of the traffic turning right from the ramp
onto Faulconer is going to St. Anne's. The two Commissioners who voted against the motion did so because they
wanted the condition to require a proportional share of the traffic improvements rather than construction of the
actual turn lane
Glenn prepared a series of aerials with lines drawn in showing the traffic flow to the campus from each direction
Before we go to the Board on August 13, I will need the following information.
1. The estimated cost and proportional share of improvements at all five of the intersections.
2. Whether there is enough ROW next to the ramp that's owned by either the school or VDOT to
accommodate the turn lane extension without having to purchase or condemn any more property.
In the next few days, I will be sending around revised conditions for everyone's review.
Thanks for your help with this.
Judy
Judith C. Wiegand, AICP
Community Development& Planning
7/9/2008
Page 2 of 2
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 29902
434-296-5832,x. 3438
jwiegand@albemarle.org
7/9/2008