Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-28 adjJanuar~ 27, 198~ _ 2 (Afternoon Meeting-~djourned from January 25, An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 27, 1982, at 3:0'0 P.M. in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from January 25, 1982. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: R. St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George The meeting was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, and Mrs. Cooke, MW. R~her, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened into open session at 5:30 P.M. and motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to January 28, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler,~ Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. ~ j~ ~~~~ CHAIBMAN January 28, 1982 (Night Meeting--Adjourned from January 27, 1982) An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on January 28, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Office Building Auditorium, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from January 27, 1982. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler (arrived at 7:50 P.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M., by Board of Supervisors Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Charlottesville-Albema that this was the first time in many years that visors, City and County planning Commissions an met together to discuss a mutual problem; trans is only a public presentation of the plan which Next to speak was Dr. Wallace Reed, Chairm ration Study Policy Committee. Dr. Reed review the many members who have served. Mr. Ken Lantz, Jr., Associate Transportati cie Transportation Study. Mr. Fisher noted the entire City Council, Board of Super- 1 Highway Department representatives have oortation. Mr. Fisher stressed that this has not been adopted. ~n of the Charlottesville Area Transpor- ~d the history of the CATS Committee and on Planning Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was uext to speak. Mr. Lantz presented through the use of slides the findings of the CATS stud~. (NOTE: Complete text of Mr. Lantz's presentation is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Lantz noted that the area covered by the study includes all of the City of Charlot- tesville and those portions of Albemarle that are expected to exhibit major growth in population, by the year 2000. The boundaries of~the area are the Mechum River to the west, the Rivanna River to the north and east and I-6~ to the south; an area of 70 square miles. Mr. Lantz said this plan updates and replaces the Charlottesville 1985 Major Arterial Street and Highway Plan completed in 1967. Mr. Lantz stated three goals and objectives for the CATS study; those being: 1) To develop a safe, efficient and balanced transportation system for the movement of people, goods and services. 2) To promote the social, economic, physical and environmental objectives of the area jurisdictions. 3) To promote interjurisdictional cooperation in order to achieve the study's objectives. Levels of service were calculated for roadways in this area. Service levels de- signated as levels A (highest quality) through F (lowest quality) were established. Roadways below the minimum specified levels, identified as deficient, include: 4O Januarv 28_~~' t_M_e ' ~,- ~[o -- 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Route 29 north of Charlottesville Route 250 east and west Rio Road (Route 631) West Main Street Portions of East High Street, Avon Street, Jefferson Park Avenue, Cherry Avenue, Park Street and Barracks Road. Following the identification of roads which needed improvements, methods were tested to get people into fewer cars and encourage the use of mass transit. Road improvements proposed include widening of existing roadways and the construction of new facilities. Roads proposed in this plan for widening are: 1) i Route 29 north between the South Fork of the Rivanna River and Hydraulic Road. This would be widened to six lanes divided. 2) Rio Road (East) between Route 29 north and the proposed extension of McIntire Road to the Vo-Tech Center, widened to four laneS divided. 3) Route 250 east between East High Street and 1-64, widened to four lanes divided with six lane divided cross section at East High Street. 4) Rio Road (West) between Hydraulic Road and Route 29 north, widened to four lanes undivided. 5) East High Street between 9th Street and the 250 Bypass, widened to three lanes with the center lane reserved for left turns. 6) Route 250 West between the 29/250 Bypass and Route 637, widened to four lanes divided between the bypass and Route 677 and four lanes un- divided between 677 and 637. 7) Ivy Road between Emmett Street and the 29/250 Bypass, Widened to four lanes with a flush median. 8) Ridge Street between West Main and Cherry Avenue, widened to four lanes divided. 9) Georgetown Road between Hydraulic Road and Barracks Road, reconstruct two lanes to improve alignment. 10) Fontaine Avenue between Jefferson Park Avenue and the 29/250 Bypass, widened to four lanes undivided. 11) Route 637 between 250 West and 1-64, reconstruct two lanes to improve alignment. Facilities that would be partially or completely built on new alignments include: 1) 9~h Street between Cherry Avenue and West Main Street would be recon- structed and aligned with 10th Street to improve north-south access and improve traffic flow on West Main Street. 2) Route 631 South would be reconstructed to four lanes divided to improve alignment. 3) A western bypass between Route 29 North at the South Fork o~ the Rivanna River and the 29/250 Bypass. This four lane divided limited access facility would have interchanges with Route 29 North, Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), Route 654 (Georgetown Road) and the 29/250 Bypass, and would sub- stantially relieve existing Route 29 North of through traffic. 4) A two lane extension of Greeflbrier Drive between Whitewood Road and Hydraulic Road to improve access to growth areas and the proposed Western Bypass. 5) A four lane divided connector between Route 20 North and Rio Road to facilitate east-west movement and provide access to growth areas. 6) A two lane extension of Madison Avenue to Preston Avenue to improve neighborhood access. 7) Grade-separated interchanges at Route 29 North and Rio Road (Route 631) and Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and at Hydraulic Road and the 250 Bypass to eliminate bottlenecks at these intersections. 8) A four lane, partially controlled access extension of McInti. re Road between Rio Road (Route 631) and Route 29 North to be built largely in conjunction with and to provide access to planned residential growth. The above listed improvements were grouped into four possible construction phases based on the immediacy of need. In addition to major highway projects, a number of trans- portation system management projects, which consist of improved signalization, improved geometrics, and other measures; were approved by the committee, y. In studying the area of mass transit, the following recommendations were reached to alleviate existing problems: 1) Extend transit routes into areas not presently served as demand warrants. January 28, 1982 (Night Meeting-- Adjourned from January 27, 1982.) 2) Increase the attractiveness of public transit through implementation of short-term improvements to fare structures, marketing programs, elderly and handicapped services, bus stops and location of fringe lots. 3) Improve the a~ministration and planning of the areas three public transportation providers through development of formal agreements defining common areas for cooperation and coordination. 4) Consider using school buses for emergency transportation and midday and summer programs. Refurbished buses might be used for special commuter and shuttle runs. 5) Expand the role of taxis in public transportation through the insti- tution of innovative services and pricing schemes. 6) Increase ride-sharing participation through continuation and expansion of JAUNT's Ride-share Program and the institution of approp~r±ate incentives. Bicycle travel was another mode of transportation analyzed in the study. Short and long term engineering tasks to eliminate roadway hazards, add paths, lanes and other roadway features that enhance safe cycling. In order to make this transportation study comprehensive, air and rail transportation was also studied. Although the recently completed master plan prepared by the Airport found few existing deficiencies, the CATS study makes the following recommendations: 1) 2) Improvements should be made to the Airport's navigational equipment. Improvements should be made to present parking and terminal space. Finally the areas major rail transportation system was analyzed. Included in the analysis was an examination of such issues as prospects for continued rail passenger services and the effects of proposed mergers and abandonments; identification of agri- cultural, forest products and wholesale and manufacturing firms that are served by rail and the degree of their rail dependence; and available industrial and business sites with rail access. It was concluded that rail-serviced industrial development should be en- couraged through zoning, extension of utility lines and designation of appropriate Sites in the comprehensive plans. Lastly, efforts to identify and correct hazardous railway crossings should be continued. Following Mr. Lantz's presentation, Dr. Reed opened the meeting to questions from the audience. Questions included costs involved for the proPosed improvements; if 1980 census data was included in the study; and how much authority the City and County have over the improvements which will be implemented. Mr. Reed and Dr. Iachetta of the CATS Committee stated that the cost of the proposed improvements is not known because of the inflationary factors involved, however, the greater percentage of those costs paid directly by the local governments, the greater discretion those local governments will have in decisions regarding the improvements. Dr. Reed noted that the 1980 census figures arrived too late for inclusion in this report. The remainder of the questions from the audience involved the proposed "Western Bypass". Concerns were expressed not only as to how such a bypass would relieve traffic on Route 29 North, but the proposed location, costs, access points and other options in lieu of such a bypass. Dr. Iachetta stated that the entire possibility of such a bypass project is questionable because of the extreme costs involved, the unavailability of land at the northern-most point, and lack of potential financing at any government level. Following the question/answer period, Mr. Fisher said this report is now in the hands of the City and County Planning COmmissions and that eventually it will be brought before the City Council and Board of Supervisors for action. At 9:28 P.M., motion was then offered by'Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn to Monday, February 1, 1982, at 2:00 P.M. in Meeting Room #5 of the Albemarle County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Chairman