Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-14 adjFebruary 14, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 14, 1994, at 4:30 P.M., Room 5/6, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from February 2, 1994. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None.. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda .Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, Items 2.1 and 2.2 were approved and Item 2.3 was received for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Item 2.1. Resolution to accept Signal Hill Road in Signal Hill Subdivi- sion into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the above shown vote, the Board ADOPTED the following resolution: The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin- ia, in an adjourned meeting on the 14th day of February, 1994, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Signal Hill Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 14, 1994, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Signal Hill Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 14, 1994, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re- quirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record- ed plats; and FURTHER .RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Signal Hill Road from the intersection of State Route 1171 (Station 19+08) to the end of the cul-de-sac, all as shown on plat dated June 23, 1989, recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 1053, pages 728-731. Agenda Item No. 2.2. Change in Policy Prohibiting Bingo Games on Sundays. (A request was received from the Charlottesville Chapter Women of Moose to operate bingo games on Sunday once a month in the County. In 1973 the Board adopted a policy that prohibits such games on Sunday. There is no state law or county ordinance that prohibits this activity on Sundays and surrounding localities permit this to occur on Sunday as well. Staff does not oppose this request.) By the above shown vote, the Board AMENDED the its' policy relative to the issuance of permits for bingo games and raffles as follows: "3. Days of operation: Any one day, Monday through Sunday." February 14, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 0000 0 Agenda Item No. 2.3. Letter dated February 4, 1994 from Senator John Warner, with attached letter dated January 24, 1994, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: response to Board's request for an interchange on Route 64 at Route 742 (Avon Street). The following letter was received from Mr. Pethtel: "This is in response to your letter of January 13 regarding a request for an interchange on Route 64 at Route 742 (Avon Street) at Charlottesville. The requested interchange has been looked at in the past and because of the proximity of the two adjoining interchanges, it is not feasible to add another interchange and retain the level of safety desired on this major corridor without adding a system of collector distributor roadways which would be cost prohibitive. The Department will continue to monitor the existing interchanges in this area to be sure that their function is beneficial to those entering or exiting the Interstate." Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Route 682. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said at a public hearing held on December 7, 1993, a proposal was presented to grade and widen Route 682 from Route 250 to 1.784 miles south of Route 787. Comments from the hearing were received from 59 people; 52 were in favor of the project and seven were opposed. Most of the people in opposition to the project expressed concern about increased traffic volume, changes in the character of the area and the high cost of' the project for the number of people served by the improvement. The people who supported the project basically favored it as it was presented. Mr. Roosevelt then provided the Board with a copy of the schematic (on file) of the plans presented at the public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Department made an error in the information it provided the staff on the two alternatives. He then provided the following information on the alternatives. Alternative I: 1) costs $1,650,000; is generally straighter alignment than Alternative II; and 3) does not create access problems to any properties. Alternative II: 1) costs $1,690,000 ($40,000 more than Alternative I); 2) incorporates more curves in the align- ment than Alternative I; and 3) creates limited (although adequate) site distance and a difficult left turn at an entrance for two properties. Mr. Roosevelt said the project follows closely the existing road align- ment. There were five specific requests for changes to the plans presented at the hearing. The first request was to use rustic, non-galvanized guardrail instead of the standard galvanized guardrail. The Department feels this guardrail treatment could be incorporated into the plan with a small increase in the cost and supports the change. The second request was to shift approxi- mately 1000 feet of alignment between Sta. 268 and Sta. 278 to avoid cutting numerous mature trees. This shift would involve cutting smaller trees on the opposite side and would possibly require additional utility easements in the shifted area. The Department feels this change could be incorporated with a minimal cost increase and supports the change. The third request was received from CSX Railroad to lessen the grade on the south side of the tracks to provide a safer approach at the railroad crossing. The Department also supports this change'. The fourth request was from a property owner, just south of the railroad tracks, who asked that the Department plant trees to replace vegetation removed during construction. This vegetation acts as a light screen for headlights of approaching vehicles. The Department feels that the above grade change for the railroad approach would create an embank- ment and accomplish this request. It was also requested that a bridge be used in place of the pipes shown on the plans at Station 236+30. The pipes shown in the plans can adequately handle the flow. The use of a bridge would be about double the cost of pipe at this location. The Department recommends that the pipes be used instead of a bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said with those changes, the Department requests the Board support the project as presented at the public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department has no strong feelings about either alternative. Both alternatives accomplish the same purpose and are within Department standards. Mrs. Thomas first thanked Board members for discussing this project today. She said the original right-of-way for improvement of this road is dated 1964; which is how long people on this road have been working to get improvements made. This is an unusual project in that the neighbors, particu- larly Walter Johnson, have worked with the Highway Department for a long time. The road is designed to fit into this neighborhood; the speed limit is 20 to 25 mph. The character will change and traffic will move faster after the road is paved. At this time, Route 682 is extremely unsafe. She supports Alterna- tive II even though it is more curvy. She thinks drivers need to know from the onset that this road was designed for a slow speed; therefore the curve at the beginning of the' road would let them know what to expect for the remainder of the road. February 14, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 000021 Mr. Walter Johnson, a resident of Route 682, said the people are indebted and wish to express their appreciation to the Highway Department for making compromises to accommodate the ecology and develop a safe road. Mrs. Thomas then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to support the Route 682 project as proposed by the Highway Department in Alternative II and with the agreed upon changes (set out in resolution below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Location and Design Public Hearing to consider the proposed location and design of Route 682 from the intersection of Route 250 to 1.784 miles south of the Intersection of Route 787 in Albemarle County (Project ~0682-002-P33, C501; and WHEREAS, comments were received from persons in favor of the project and from persons opposed to the project. In response to specific requests for changes to the plan presented, the Virginia Department of Transportation supported the following: the use of rustic, non-galvanized guardrail instead of standard galvanized guardrail; to shift approximately 1000 feet of alignment between Sta. 268 and Sta. 278 to avoid cutting numerous mature trees; and to lessen the grade, from the CSX Railroad, on the south side of the tracks to provide a safer approach at the railroad crossing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse Alternative II as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation with the above outlined changes. Mr. Martin asked if the Board has changed its policy regarding purchase of right-of-way since one of the property owners on this road would not agree to donate the necessary right-of-way. He also asked if the property owner is being forced to sell or if he is willing to sell the right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said there is more than just one property owner who would not donate the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Leveque would not agree to donate any more right-of-way than he had already donated. Mr. Leveque has no problem with the project provided he is paid a fair price for his property. Mr. Martin said he noticed that the Six Year Plan is before the Planning Commission and he asked if staff is taking into consideration this change in the Board's policy. He is thinking about Route 640, a project which was in the Six Year Plan in the 1970's, but was removed because one property owner would not donate the right-of-way. If the project was a priority in 1970 but was taken out for one reason and now that reason does not exist, it seems to him that 20 years later the project should be looked at again as a priority. Mrs. Humphris said the Board had a major discussion on whether it should or should not make an exception to its' policy for Route 682. To her memory, this was a distinctly different situation because Mr. Leveque had originally donated the easement and then the Highway Department proposed a change in the route of the road. His donation was not satisfactory for the change in the route. It was not that the Board changed the overall policy, but in this particular instance there was a peculiar history to the project. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any other property owners along this road who have failed to donate right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said there is other right-of-way that needs to be purchased. He feels that the Department will purchase the majority, if not all, of the additional right-of-way needed to make this project a reality. For example, the person who owns the property at the oak tree has indicated that she is not in favor of the project proceed- ing beyond the oak tree. It is evident that if the project is to go beyond the oak tree, the Department will have to pay for the land. The donations given for this project followed the middle of the road and there were no ease- ments for grading beyond the 40 feet. Since he became involved with the project in 1978 there have been sporadic dedications at various locations, but there remain a number of locations where right-of-way is not in the name of the Commonwealth and will have to be obtained. The Department will approach the property owners first to see if they are willing to donate the right-of- way, but he thinks if some people are being paid, they have to be prepared to pay for the remainder of the right-of-way. That is why the Department developed the plans to this detail for the entire length of the project. Mr. Roosevelt added that the cost estimated for this project is still suffi- cient to build the project even if the Department has to purchase right-of- way. February 14, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) oooo z Mr. Martin said he hopes the Board members will take into consideration that Route 640 was in the Six Year Plan in the 1970's, it was a priority and traffic has doubled. He thinks Route 640 fits into the same category as Route 682. Mr. Perkins asked how much right-of-way has been donated. Mr. Roosevelt said basically 40 feet of right-of-way has been donated, but there are some locations where additional right-of-way is needed due to the size of the cuts and fills. Mr. Perkins asked if the Department will try to acquire additional right-of-way to get to 50 feet. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks the Department will need 50 feet of right-of-way along the entire length of this project. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board deviated from its adopted policy when it agreed to move forward with this project. He thinks that by doing this the Board set a precedent. He thinks it will be difficult to continue to encourage property oWners to donate right-of-way if the Board is now willing to purchase some property. Mr. Marshall said it was his understanding that all of the property owners had donated the necessary right-of-way with the exception of Mr. Leveque. He asked how many property owners have not donated the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said there are six or seven people opposed to the project. He thinks the Board can safely assume that right-of-way will need to be purchased from each of these property owners. Mr. Roosevelt added that in order to move forward with the plans in May, 1992, the Board "requested that the Highway Department move forward on the Route 682/787 gravel road project in accordance with the Board's adopted policy on unpaved roads, recognizing that there is not sufficient right-of-way dedicated for this project, but also recognizing that there is a clearly demonstrable danger to public safety which necessitates the use of funds to purchase right-of-way for this project. The Board also requested the Highway Department to move forward on the Route 610 gravel road project with the same understanding." His memory is that the Board is basically holding to its adopted policy of donated right-of-way on gravel roads but recognized in this case and on Route 610 that there is a "clearly demonstrable danger" to public safety which necessitates the use of funds to purchase right-of-way. With that understanding, the Department moved forward to develop plans so to purchase the right-of-way. He recognized, at the time the Board made the decision to move forward, that the Department would need to purchase right-of-way from other property owners. Mr. Marshall said in May, 1992, he voted to proceed with this project because of the safety issue even though he did not understand the right-of-way would have to be purchased. Mr. Martin again said he thinks this is a policy change. He feels that projects which were in the Six Year Plan 15 or 30 years ago and were elimi- nated because of a policy, and now the policy has changed, needs to be looked at in that context. Mr. Perkins said he hopes that this is a one-of-a-kind project because he does not think the Board should start agreeing to purchase right-of-way to pave gravel roads. Agenda Item No. 5. Executive Session: Personnel. At 5:19 p.m., motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn into executive session under Va. Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 (personnel matters.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. At 5:25 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the following certification of executive session: MOTION: Mrs. Humphris SECOND: Mr. Martin MEETING DATE: February 14, 1994 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma- tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully February 14, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 000023 exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint Ms. Sonia H. Barton to the Jaunt Board to replace Irvin R. Land, Jr., with said term to expire on September 30, 1996. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. 5:30 P.M. - Joint Meeting with School Board. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Russell Madison Cummings, Jr., William W. Finley, George C. Landrith, III, Michael J. Marshall, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore and Mrs. Karen L. Powell. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Sharon Wood. OFFICERS PRESENT: Superintendent, Dr. Robert W. Paskel; Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Carole A. Hastings; and Director of Transportation, Willie Smith. Agenda Item No. 6a. Presentation of film on transportation issues created by inclement weather. Dr. Hastings said for several years severe weather conditions have caused County schools to be closed more than normal. Last year after many telephone calls from residents, the school system realized a lot of people did not know how large an area the County encompassed. Mr. Smith then put together a film, he has been showing to the parent teacher organizations, to explain the road conditions when school administration make the decision about whether to open or close schools. Mr. Smith said the film presentation deals with road conditions on good weather days and bad weather days. When the film was put together, it was an attempt to inform the public about the function of the Department of Transpor- tation and why the Department makes the recommendations it does. He also provided a map, with the roads highlighted in yellow, to show how wide-spread the problem is in the County. He then proceeded with the film presentation. Mr. Smith said last year when administration looked at where the students live they found that approximately 65 percent of the students live on rural roads in the outlying areas and 35 percent of the students live in the urban ring. In addition a lot of the bus drivers live out in the rural areas and take their buses home at night, and cannot get their buses out on the roads in bad weather. Dr. Hastings said a Main Roads Plan was developed which includes alternative bus stops for students who live on the most terrible roads. The plan has not been actually used yet. The plan would be put into effect when it is feasible to bring the majority of the students to school. Dr. Paskel asked what number of students living on those roads could be excluded if the Main Roads Plan was implemented. Mr. Smith replied approxi- mately 470 to 480 students would not be picked up at their normal bus stop; they would have to actually meet the bus at an alternate location. Mr. Roosevelt commented that the Highway Department has a bare pavement policy for the primary and interstate system. The Department has a plan that assigns all of its trucks which account for 34 in the County. Each truck is assigned a 25-lane mile section of interstate or primary road. The trucks apply chemicals and plow during the storm on those roads. As long as it is snowing the Department gives attention to those roads in an attempt to keep the pavement bare. In addition the Department has hired 19 private dump trucks in which they attach state plows and put them on the secondary system while the storm is underway. Those trucks are concentrated in the urban area and in subdivisions to provide the most service per person. The 19 trucks only plow; they have no chemical spreading capability. After the storm is over and the primary and interstate system roads are cleared sufficiently, the trucks scatter to assigned areas in the secondary system. February 14, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) 000024 (Page 6) Dr. Hastings reiterated that the Main Roads Plan will only be used when a majority of the students can get to school. Everything will be done to accommodate the parents of students who live on roads where the bus cannot travel. Mr. Perkins said he has received more calls on this plan than any other issue lately. The people who live on those roads where the students are not going to be picked up are concerned and feel like they are not getting their fair share. He thinks this is a policy that needs to be looked at closely by the School Board and there should be an opportunity for public comment. He asked what happens if the parent has no way to get the child to the alternate bus stop. He knows that this is no easy decision but maybe the School system could contract with someone who lives on these roads to bring all of the children out to a certain point. This is complicated, but it is not a new problem. If school is going to be open, it should be open for every student. If the School system wants to continue with this policy, then he thinks those people being affected should have an opportunity to make comments. Dr. Hastings said this plan is an attempt to be responsive to the parents. The Superintendent formed an advisory council of parents represent- ing all of the schools. The idea for the Main Roads Plan came from that advisory council last year. There are also other options being looked at. Mr. Mike Marshall said he has also received a lot of calls on this Plan. The School Board instructed the Superintendent to not use the plan unless absolutely necessary because they also see it as inherently unfair to those 400 students who may not be able to get to school. Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. There were none. Agenda Item No. 6c. Executive Session: Personnel. At 6:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn into executive session, with the School Board, in accor- dance with Va. Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 (personnel matters). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. At the same time, motion was offered by Mrs. Powell, seconded by Mr. Cummings, to adjourn into executive session, with the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with Va. Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 (personnel matters). On a voice vote, all members voted aye. At 6:33 p.m., the Board of Supervisors and School Board reconvened into open session. The following certification of executive session was adopted: MOTION: Mrs. Thomas SECOND: Mr. Martin MEETING DATE: February 14, 1994 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma- tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. O000P February 14, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) On motion by Mrs. Powell, seconded by Mr. Cummings, the School Board adopted the above certification of executive session. Roll was called and all members voted aye. Agenda Item No. 7. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman