Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-15ASeptember 15, 1976 (Afternoon Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on September 15, 1976 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building; said meeting being adjourned from September 8, 1976. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Heathy, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. .Officers Present- Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County ~ttorney; and Robert Tucker, Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman. The meeting'was called to order at 3:06 P.M. by Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session with Representatives from the Highway Department. Mr. Fisher said the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the problems of U. S. Route 29 North of Charlottesville in Albemarle County. Several weeks ago, the Board was made aware that the Highway Department is working w~th the Planning Commission and staff on a third lane concept for development occurring along 29 North. For a number of years, the County's policy has been to require setbacks, on site plans for commercial developments, which would ultimately provide service roads along 29 North for traffic in the future. He noted the Planning Commissi had~6~anged this policy recently and ~fe!t this meeting was needed with representatives of th Highway Department, the Planning Commission and the Board to discuss this change. At this time, Mr. Fisher welcomed Senator Harry J. Michael, Jr., Delegate Thomas Michie, Jr., and Mr. D. B. Hope, District Highway Engineer from Culpeper, to the meeting. Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said for the last~few years the County's policy hAS been the service road concept. When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1971, it recomm'anded that service roads be provided along this major arterial highway. To this date, the Planning Commission has only been able to provide a service road approach through site plan approval. In some instances, problems have arisen when the Planning Commission required dedication of land for service roads. The problems have been the cost involved in building such roads along the front of developments with curb and gutter and providing access to Route 29 until adjacent properties are developed. There is also a question of who sh~ul~dmaintain the service drives. He said Highway Department representatives came to the Planning commission in late 1975 and said the concept of service roads was not being implemented. Mr. Charles Perry, ~Ssistant Resident Highway Engineer, suggested an alternative of a third lane concept ~hich means ~ha~the~?lanning Commission require a third lane along the full front of propert~e when site plans are submitted. This seemed to be a viable alternative since it is difficult to require a service road at this time. The third lane would provide a means of egress and ingress and also provide a deceleration and acceleration lane while providing two lanes for free-flowing traffic. This was the basic reason for the Commission's change in respect to th~ service road concept. Mr. Tucker ~aid~:o~ September 3, 1976, Mr. Agnor and himself met with Highway Department staff on other alternatives that will be presented today. Mr./D. B. Hope, District Highway Engineer~Culpeper District, was present to present the ~lternatiVes for Route 29 North. He said traffic on Route 29 North has domhled during the last ten years. The traffic volume will continue to increase and the question is how to accommodate that increase. One alternative is to build a new highway. He did not think the increase is large enough to require a new facility. The second alternative is to require that a third lane be built by developers. This would provide the necessary deceleration and accele~ tion lanes to a site. Through traffic would flow more freely and provide a safer facility. The cost of upgrading Route 29 in the future would be less, but t~s~alternative would not provide any long range ~s!for preserving the corridor. It would only provide some relief to the congestion. The third alternative would be for the developer to provide service roads at the time of development. This would preserve the traffic carrying capacity of the existing ~oads. It would eventually eliminate direct access to the main road and additional lanes ~ould then be provided in the future with minimum disruption of adjacent development. He ~aid whate~er is decided must be implemented jointly. The Highway Department's only control is the issuance of entrance permits to assure safer highways. By ~king together, and with proper planning, the objectives can be achieved in p~reserving this corridor. He noted that ~he Highway Department is willing to assist in whatever decision is made. Mrs. Fisher noted that controversy has arisen concerning the powers~of the County to ~equire setbacks for service roads, which are recommended in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. David Carr, Chairman of the Planning Commission, was present. He said the Commission aad made every effort to clarify the county's rights to the petitioner. He has been a promoter ~f the third lane concept, which was arrived at as an alternative. ~he concept fell when a~ ~uestion arose as to who would build the third lane and the County's power to enforce this ~oncept. Problems also occurred when dealing with individual parcels. The Commission did aot feel they had the power to legally enforce construction of a third lane by the individual ~eveloperso He noted that a third lane was required at the Badger-Powhatan~site. It ~as also ~eq~ired on a site plan in the area of Real Estate III. ~- Mr. Fisher said there are three basic~questions: 1)~~ Can the ~ounty legally require the s~back which it has been requiring; 2)~ ~h~th~r a public right of way can be reserved as service ro~ds over private property for future use; ~nd 3) whether actual construction ~osts would be for ~asar~2.~ad ~r~a third lane. Also, can the County or the Highway ~epartment, or both, require all property owners to construct at their own~expense a third lan~ along the entire front of their property. Mr. St. John said the concept of a service road should be discussed separately from ~hat of a third lane. After discussing these two concepts, then the question of construction ~osts and requiring dedication of right of way can be discussed. He suggested that a sufficien ~etback be required to pre~ent buildings from being built where a road is already planned. 386' (Afternoon September 1 ~ ~~_~eeltio .il_ Setbacks are legal ~and ha could see no problem with that requirement. This is a different situation th~n when dedication of land is required for public use. He did not feel a private individual can be required to give his land or have it taken away for public purposes without some, compensation. On the other side of the argument, a developer can be required to dedicate land or to construct facilities which are occasioned by his development. This is what the Board.is dealing with when talking about a third lane concept. A service road is a separate road that is built along the. main road. This would have to be required on a piecemeal basis because applications coma in one at a time. He did not ~hl~k~there is any legislation which would allow this. He did not think the Board can require the developer to construct a strip of service road along his frontage. The same argument would apply to the third lane concept, except fOr the fact that it is possible to say that an acceleration or deceleration lane adjacent to an entrance off of Route 29 North, as opposed to the service road, is occasioned by the traffic going in and out of that particular development. Theoretically speaking, a deceleration and acceleration lane occupy the same width as a third lane. Eventually, with a deceleration and acceleration lane there would be a continuoms strip which ~ould be used as a third lane, but there are two problems with this. One, some of the frontage on Route 29 N~t~ has already been'.developed~without a deceleration &~ne or acceleration lane or any additional lane. T~o, if a decision to require a deceleration lane and acceleration lane for the entire frontage of these parcels is challenged, the argument is likely to be that these lanes are not legally required. Practically speaking, the third lane strip in those areas where~development has already taken place~would have to be condemned. He felt it is impossible to sustain the service road concept on the basis of planning and zoning processes. Mr. Fisher said he does not want to drop the service road concept since the County's adopt Comprehensive Plan suggests that it be implemented for the Route 29 North corridor. Mr. St. John said the service road concept would be different if the~e had not been any development there and all parcels could be treated the same. Bince there a~e so many vested rights there now, he felt it would be~impossible to implement at this time. ~'Mr~ Fisher felt the health, safety and welfare of the public is in p~ril ~aWhat is occuring and the Board must determine what can be don~ to preserve Route 29 North as an arterial highway. Mr. Hope said the Comprehensive Plan has given the County the power to require a service road to be constructed so long as it shows on the plan. Land does not have to be dedicated for a service road. Mr. Hope said the High~'aY~D~partment only requires dedication when the Highway Department maintains the road. He felt the traffic carrying capacity of Route 29 North needs to be protected and.the only way to do this is to get the local traffic using businesses on Route 29 off of the main road and back where it can be controlled. Mr. Fisher said if that recommendation is followed, the County can use its zoning and planning powers to require private property owners to reserve the land, whether it be dedicated or not, and to construct and maintain the service road. Mr. St. John/~$m~ervice roads would be the developed piecemeal, and for an indefinite period of-time these would ~e ~nly a series of short segments. Mr:. Hope said he could see no problems with that. The service road would be built in front of the property to be served and would serve as an entrance to the place of business until a complete service road could be built. Mr. St. John asked the advantage of this over a separat driveway. Mr. Hope said it would be providing a future usable facility. Mr. Carr felt this would lead to a lot of problems. First, there would be ingress/egress at every property. Mr. Hope said an entrance could be provided at the best location either in the middle Or at the end of the property. If the property next to it is developed, the service road could be connected. As each. piece of service road is connected, the individual entrances to the highway would be closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Board has the power to tell one p~perty owner that a neighboring property owner has a right to use his road. Mr. Hope said the person that owns the property has the legal right to close the road..~He felt businesses would see the advantage of opening their entrance ~and letting people come in. He said 95% of the people dedicate their land so maintenance of the road falls on the Highway Department. Mr. Agnor asked at what time these service roads are connected. Mr. Hope said they eventually connect themselves. Dr. Iachetta felt the County's present policy is a disaster. He said there is no other alternative other than the one suggested by Mr. Hope. He felt a~.s~r~ce road is the only way to preserve Route 29 North as an arterial°highway. Mrs.. Joan Graves was present and asked who is going to maintain the service road. Dr. Iachetta Said if it is required to be built to State standard~, the S~a~will maintain the road. Mr. William Washington, a member of the Planning Commission, was present. He asked if the county could not still provide a deceleration lane and acceleration lane in order to get the service road. i?Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hope if he would still recommend a deceleration lane. Mr] H~pe said yes, but the~e lanes would be shorter and not as close together. The deceleratii lane would still be needed to get the person off of Route 29 and onto the service road. Mr. Roy Barksdale, a member of the Planning Commission, said a lot of people ~ant no more development on Route 29 North. The concept being discussed would-prohibit a lot of people from developing there. The cost of putting in what amounts to another highway, plus an acceleration lane and a deceleration lane would prohibit some people from developing their land. Mrs. David asked-about the areas that were developed before the third lane concept as far as space for a service road is involved. Mr. Tucker said there are some there which do not have enough setback. They are ones that were done prior to the Planning Commission seeing a site plan. Mr. Hope felt the only thing to do was to go ahead with the plan and in time the deve!ope~ that are there may redevelop and rezone and at that time require them to construct a service road. He said there may be some instances where the HtE~y~Department would have to construct these lanes themselves. ~d September 15, 1976 (Afternoon Meeting) 367 Mr. Agnor noted that the local members of+~e State Legislature had been invited to this meeting in the hope that some new legislation could help. Senator Michael said this question is a matter of public convenience and necessity. public is being served generally by maintaining Route 29 North as aN arterial highway. He felt the burden should be put on the publia to serve the public. The courts will say that you cannot impose th~s cost on private landowners. Delegate Michie said he can see that this is a problem and would be happy to work with the Board if there is an amendment required to the enabling statute for zoning. Mr. Carr said he hoped this matter can be cleared up so the CouNty can establish a firm policy in accordance with law. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. St. John communicate with the legal staff of the highway department to find available data on requirements for service roads/third lane. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Hope if he thought a service road~is the only viable way to this problem. Mr. Hope said ~n preserving Route 29 North as an arterial corridor~ he feels this is the only solution. He suggested that the planning staff review the cont'ents of the County's Comprehensive Plan as to what it sets forth on this question and see that requirements were properly adopted and that proper ordinances are adopted to carry out this alternative. Mr. Fisher said he is not ready for this step. He felt legal review is needed first. Senator Michael said if 'after legal review, legislative action~is needed, he would help the county to get some~adopted. At 4:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier,. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconveyed at 5:15 P.M. and upon proper motion, the meeting that began at 3:00 P.M. was adjourned.