HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-06 000301
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 6, 1994, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
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.; 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 9:00 A.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mrs. Sarah Lee Barnes, a resident in the area of Routes 22 and 231 in
Albemarle County presented the Board with a petition signed by more than 150
neighbors and citizens concerned about the dramatic increase in truck traffic
on Routes 22 and 231. This was designed as a two-laned curvy, country road.
The residents are requesting the Board to hold a public hearing in the near
future to discuss what can be done about this traffic situation. The resi-
dents are willing to work with VDoT in getting traffic counts and all the
information needed to get trucks rerouted.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT can review the traffic counts for this area to
determine the volume of truck traffic versus other traffic and look at the
accident data, and then make a report to the Board at a later meeting.
A gentleman, who did not give his name, said he would like to reinforce
Mrs. Barnes comments. He traveled behind one bad truck accident on Route 22.
There seems to be more and more trucks traveling that road. There is no edge
to the road and drivers go into a ditch line. Trucks are using Route 22 as a
short cut. They try to drive too fast on the road and this is a farming
community.
Mr. John Moore, a resident of Route 231 presented the Board with a letter
(copy on file in the Clerk's office) stating his concerns regarding through
truck traffic on Routes 22 and 231. He pointed out that there was another
accident on Route 22 last night. One of his neighbors is now in critical
condition in the hospital.
Mr. Marshall related his experiences with farm equipment on country roads.
He agrees that large trucks should not be allowed on these small country
roads.
Not Docketed: Mr. Perkins announced that the Board would not be consider-
ing Agenda Items 9 and 10 today. Agenda Item No. 9 will be deferred until
August 3, 1994. Agenda Item No. 10 has been removed from the agenda because
of improper advertisement.
Agenda Item No. 5. Citizen Recognition Program.
Mr. Perkins recognized the following persons for their outstanding service
to the Police Department and the community at-large: Joey Bishop (Scotts-
ville), Mary Bishop (Scottsville), Kim Clements (Keene) and Jessica Morris
(Scottsville). On June 15th a woman swerved into oncoming traffic on Route
250 causing a two-vehicle collision. The above individuals assisted in
removing the woman from her car and attempted to get the man who was severely
injured out of his heavily damaged Van. Officer Jeff Vohwinkel was the
original officer on the scene.
The following persons were recognized for their outstanding service:
Early Francis Dudley, Jr. (Gordonsville), Neale Frazier Craft (Ivy), Frank
Daniel Schoch (Charlottesville), John C. Wyant (Ruckersville) and Betsy
Greenleaf (Greenwood). The above citizens were involved in rescuing the
driver of a truck who was involved in a crash on Route 22 on May 10th. After
striking another vehicle, the truck rolled over, struck a tree and burst into
flames. The five people named above helped the driver out of the cab and away
from the truck before the cab was consumed by flames. Officer Scott Parker
was the reporting officer.
The following person was also recognized: John Powell (Crozet). County
Police Officer Dave Sloope was performing routine patrol duties when he
noticed smoke from a nearby field. Upon investigation, Officer Sloope
discovered an elderly gentleman who had fallen into the flames while burning
000802
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
some brush. Mr. Powell assisted Officer Sloope in rescuing the man from the
fire and getting emergency help.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mrs. Humphris, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, items 6.1 through 6.4 were approved and the remaining items on
the consent agenda were received for information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Item 6.1. New High School Site Selection Committee.
(In a memorandum dated June 14, 1994, Mr. Tucker stated that in May the
Board discussed the appointment of a site selection committee for a new high
school. At that time the Board did not make a decision on his recommendation
although he believes there was a general consensus to follow the recommenda-
tion~ if a new high school was to be built. During the discussion, the Board
felt a decision had not been made to build a new high school and that any site
selection committee should await a final determination on the building of a
new high school. Subsequent to that meeting, the Board and School Board met
and discussed the enrollment data concerning a new high school and ultimately
decided to support building a new high school.
Since the Board did not officially take action on the recommendation, Mr.
Tucker is requesting approval of a site selection committee. If the Board is
supportive of this approach, staff will begin the site analysis immediately,
and bring back a recommendation to the Board and the School Board as soon as
possible. This process may require the staff taking options on several tracts
of land in order to protect the cost of the property prior to the Board making
a final decision.)
Mrs. Thomas said it is recommended that the Committee solicit input from
the Board member, School Board member and Planning Commission member only from
the area in which the property is being scrutinized or located. It seems to
her that given this is a county-wide high school it would not be wise to limit
the Committee's ability to talk to other School Board, Board of Supervisors
and Planning Commission members. She would like to make each of those
entities plural and strike the "from the area in which the property is being
scrutinized and located".
Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mrs. Thomas and said she thought the Board had
made a decision when it met with the School Board. Mr. Tucker said the issue
was discussed, but no decision was made.
Mr. Marshall said he has no objection to Mrs. Thomas suggestion, but he
wants to make sure that he, and the School Board and Planning Commission
members from the Scottsville District are included on the Committee since they
will be the most impacted.
Mr. Marshall asked if it is the intent that the whole Board be on the
Committee. He would prefer that the discussions occur in Executive Session
for financial reasons. He does not want the costs of the property to esca-
late. When the Board was discussing property for Cale School, they were
looking at about five locations and every time a site was mentioned the price
increased.
Mr. Tucker said it is the intent that the Long Range Planning Committee do
the initial review and recommend various sites based on developed criteria.
That information would then be taken to both boards in executive session.
By the vote shown above, the Board supported the School Board's request to
establish a Site Selection Committee to review various sites for a potential
new high school.
Item 6.2. SDP-94-026, Wray Bros., Inc., Building 3, Major Site Plan
Amendment, request to establish a central well and sewage disposal system.
(In a memorandum dated June 30, 1994, from the County Executive, Mr.
Tucker explains that Wray Brothers, Inc., has requested central well and sewer
system approval under Article III, Central Sewerage and Water Supply Systems
of the County Code. This section of the Code requires the County Engineering
Department to review the location, number of connections and type of system
and/or supply being proposed for central well and sewer systems and make a
recommendation to the Board. The County Engineering Department has reviewed
the request and recommends approval based on this system serving three
connections and approximately 22 people. The Department of Engineering
supports this system with the following conditions: 1) a maximum of 30 on-
site occupants/ employees; 2) reservation of a minimum 90 percent reserve
drainfield; 3) Thomas Jefferson Health District approval of the plans for the
additional connection and any required modification; and 4) verification of
adequate capacity prior to issuance of permit for central well system. Staff
recommends approval of this request based on the Department of Engineering's
analysis.)
000303
July 6~ 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Based on the Department of Engineering's analysis, the Board approved a
request from Wray Brothers, Inc., for a central well and sewer system, by the
vote shown above.
Item 6.3. Authorize payment of $1,186 for Albemarle County's share of
rate negotiations for Virginia Power Rate Negotiation Assessment.
(In an Executive Summary to the Board, Mr. Tucker explains that electrical
rates for jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia are negotiated every
three years by joint VML/VACO Virginia Power Steering Committee. As part of
this process a utility consultant as well as the general counsel for both VML
and VACO handle the complex rate negotiations. In order to handle the
expenses of negotiations and the related consultant costs, each jurisdiction
is asked to voluntarily contribute toward the estimated $160,000 necessary to
complete rate negotiations. History has demonstrated that the savings to
local governments throughout the Commonwealth, due to these negotiations, far
exceed the costs of the negotiations. The voluntary assessment for Albemarle
County's pro rata share of the contract negotiations based on electric usage
has been estimated by VACO at $1,186. According to VACO, the last negotia-
tions saved approximately $4.1 million during the first year of the contract
for local governments. Staff recommends that the Board approve a payment of
$1~186 for Albemarle County's share of these rate negotiations with funds
currently available in the Staff Services budget.)
By the vote shown above, the Board approved the payment of $1,186 for
Albemarle County's share of rate negotiations, by the joint VML/VACo Virginia
Power Steering Committee, with funds currently available in the Staff Services
budget.
Item 6.4. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, were approved
by the above shown vote.
Item 6.5. Meadow Creek Parkway eligibility for primary system, was
received for information.
(In the Executive Summary, Mr. Tucker noted that the Board had requested
staff review VDoT criteria for transferring roads to the primary system to
determine Meadow Creek Parkway's eligibility for that system. Staff has
limited capability to evaluate some of the criteria because they are based on
traffic characteristics that staff is unable to forecast accurately in-house.
The VDoT criteria is specifically for evaluating the transfer of an existing
road from the secondary to primary system. Since this is not an existing
road, response to these criteria must be based on projections. To further
evaluate these criteria, staff will need assistance from VDoT on projections
for percentage of light and medium truck traffic, tractor-trailer and bus
traffic, "foreign" vehicles and length (distance) of vehicle trips. Staff
will be meeting with VDoT in July to further evaluate the criteria.)
Item 6.6. Letter dated June 28, 1994, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re:
monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction
and quarterly report of projects under design in Albemarle County, was
received for information.
PROJECT LISTING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JULY 1, 1994
ROUTE LOCATION - DESCRIPTION CURRENT PREV. EST.
NO. ADV. ADV. CONST.
DATE DATE TIME
29 FROM RIO RD TO RIVANNA RIVER (WIDEN TO 6 07-94 24 MO
LANE S
29 S FORK RIVANNA RIVER TO AIRPORT RD (WIDEN 06-97 24 MO
TO 6 LANES
610 FROM RT 20 TO 1.8 MI E RT 20 (GRAVEL RD) 10-96'* 07-96 6 MO
631 FROM RT 743 TO RT 29 09-97** 07-97 12 MO
631 FROM NCL CH'VILLE TO CSX RR (RIO RD) 01-97 12 MO
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
637 FROM RT 635 TO 0.55 MI W RT 682 (GRAVEL 10-99'* 07-99 12 MO
RD)
649 FROM RT 29 TO RT 606 (AIRPORT RD) 09-99* 9 MO
656 FROM RT 654 TO RT 743 09-99** 10-97 6 MO
671 BRIDGE & APPROACHES OVER MOORMANS RIVER ? 12 MO
(MILLINGTON)
000304
July 6~ 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
682 FROM RT 250 TO 1.7 MI S RT 250 (GRAVEL RD) 08-95 12 MO
711 FROM RT 712 TO RT 29 (GRAVEL RD) 10-97'* 07-97 5 MO
712 FROM RT 29 TO RT 692 (GRAVEL RD) 10-96'* 07-96 9 MO
743 FROM RT 657 (LAMBS RD) TO RT 631 08-96** 06-95 12 MO
759 FROM RT 616 TO FLUVANNA CO LINE (GRAVEL 10-99'* 5 MO
RD)
760 FROM RT 712 TO RT 29 (GRAVEL RD) 10-98'* 07-97 12 MO
866 FROM RT 743 TO RT 1455 09-99** 07-97 9 MO
1403 FROM WOODBROOK DRIVE TO WAI~t~RT 10-94' 9 MO
* INDICATES NEW PROJECT
** INDICATES REVISED DATE
ADV. INDICATES THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED
NOTE: ADV. DATE REVISIONS DUE TO CHANGES IN REVISED 6 YEAR FINANCIAL
PLAN.
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JLrLY 1, 1994
ROUTE NO. LOCATION STATUS ESTIMATED
COMP DATE
631 5TH STREET EXT. CONSTRUCTION 88% COMPLETE AUG 94*
S ROUTE 1-64
20 FROM 3.4 MI S ROUTE 53 CONSTRUCTION 37% COMPLETE OCT 94*
TO 3.8 MI S ROUTE 53
29 FROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO CONSTRUCTION 25% COMPLETE DEC 95
RIO ROAD
* REVISED DATE
Mrs. Humphris asked what improvements are those on Georgetown in which the
previous advertised date was October 1997, and now is September 1999. Mr.
Roosevelt said that is the overall improvement of Georgetown Road. VDoT has
not done any of the preliminary engineering work for that project. Included
in this project is a 40-foot wide roadway that will basically be marked as
three lanes and improvements to the intersection. This does not include the
spot improvements.
Item 6.7. Letter dated June 27, 1994, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re:
promotion of John H. Shifflett, Jr., to the position of Maintenance Manager in
the Charlottesville Residency, was received as information.
Mr. Roosevelt said there have recently been some changes in his office
staff. A second assistant position has been created to handle the maintenance
and site plan subdivision operations. The former maintenance manager, Bill
Mills, was promoted to that position. They recently filled the maintenance
manager position; the first maintenance manager being responsibility for
maintenance in this area in 20 years. He introduced Mr. John H. Shifflett,
Jr. Mr. Shifflett has worked for VDoT for more than 20 years in the mainte-
nance organization, actually worked in three different maintenance areas over
that time and recently was the maintenance superintendent for the Free Union
area. Mr. Shifflett will be assuming his new duties as of July 1, 1994. If
anyone has any maintenance problems, please feel free to talk with Mr.
Shifflett at any time.
Item 6.8. Letter dated June 8, 1994, from Mr. David R. Gehr, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, re: Addition of Village Woods Lane
(Route 1553) in Village Woods Subdivision, into the State Secondary System,
effective June 8, 1994, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated October 20, 1993, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective June 8, 1994:
ADDITION LENGTH
VILLAGE WOODS
Route 1553 (Village Woods Lane) - From Route 660 to
0.13 mile Northwest Route 660.0.13 Mi."
Item 6.9. Letter dated June 14, 1994, from the Honorable Thomas J.
Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, re: Interchange at 1-64 and Route 742 (Avon
Street), was received as follows:
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
oOoaos
"Thank you for your letter requesting me to write a letter of
support to Secretary Martinez for reopening debate on an inter-
change at 1-64 and Route 742 (Avon Street). I apologize for the
delay in my response.
I know that the traffic problems you are dealing with are very
real and that solutions must be found if the Charlottesville-
Albemarle area is going to be able to accommodate the number of
motorists who travel through the area. I have enclosed a copy of
a letter (on file) I have written to Secretary Martinez urging the
Virginia Department of Transportation to reopen consideration of
the interchange.
I shall be back in touch as soon as I receive a response."
Item 6.10. Letter dated June 21, 1994, from Mr. Robert J. Adams, Acting
Director: Department of Housing and Community Development, re: notice
concerning submittal of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) proposal, was
received as information.
(In his letter, Mr. Adams states that the Department of Housing and
Community Development has completed its review of the CDBG proposals received
in the first round of competition. An objective rating system was used to
judge the applications. Of the 1,000 points available in the rating system,
Albemarle's project received 592 points. Grant offers were made to local
governments with projects rating 696 or more. Grant proposals were received
from 60 localities amounting to $41,886,184 in funding requests. Although
most of these applications were worthwhile projects, grant offers could be
made to only 39 communities with the $21,833,666 available.)
Item 6.11. Copies of letters from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Adminis-
trator, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - § 10.3.1:
a. addressed to Mr. Roger W. Ray, dated June 13, 1994, on Tax Map 40,
Parcel 26, was received as information.
b. addressed to Mr. Steve Melton, dated June 24, 1994, on Bentivar
Subdivision: Tax Map 46, Parcels 143, 144, 145, 146 and 147, was received as
information.
c. addressed to Mr. Weldon and Mrs. Ruth Wheeler, dated June 24, 1994, on
Tax Map 133, Parcel 3, was received as information.
Item 6.12. Letter dated June 14, 1994, from the Honorable Charles S.
Robb, United States Senate, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: Board resolution
regarding state and local government relief from unfunded federal mandates,
was received as information.
Item 6.13. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond
Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of May, 1994, were received
for information.
Item 6.14. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority for April 25, 1994, were received for information.
Item 6.15. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for May 31 and June 14,
1994, were received for information.
Item 6.16. Financial Management Report for May, 1994, was received for
information.
Item 6.17. Road Name Change Policy Review, was received for information
as follows:
"BACKGROUND: The Board's current policy regarding road name
changes, initially adopted in September, 1991, in conjunction with
the approval of the new road names to support the Enhanced 911
System, is as follows:
(1) Requests to change Board approved road names must be submit-
ted to the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community
Development and must be accompanied by a petition signed by a
majority of the landowners along such road. Petitions will be
reviewed by staff and, if acceptable, will administratively
approve the change. These changes cannot be implemented until the
County has assumed operational control of the Building Locator
System (now projected to be by November, 1994).
000306
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
(2) A one (1) month window of opportunity was established for
road name changes to be submitted after which no further changes
would be permitted. The one (1) month window of opportunity for
road name changes will take place after the new address notifica-
tion phase of the project is complete (now projected to be in the
September-October, 1994, time frame).
(3) Property owner(s) incur the costs only for the fabrication
and installation for new signs. Other staff costs would be
absorbed within the County budget. If the Board continues to
allow changes after the deadline, the full costs for changes
should be paid by the property owner(s).
DISCUSSION: New address notification is targeted to begin by
September, 1994. Staff currently has 38 requests for road name
changes on file from County residents. Staff will begin to
coordinate the petition process with County residents requesting
road name changes in July.
RECOMMENDATION: The intent of this executive summary of the road
name change policy is to provide the Board with the opportunity to
review and re-acquaint itself with the current policy as this
phase of implementing the Enhanced 911 System can be a sensitive
issue for County residents and may generate citizen inquiries.
This information is provided for the Board's information."
Item 6.18. Letter dated June 23, 1994, from Mr. Eric J. Ellman, Associate
Attorney/Manager, Government Relations, Direct Selling Association, re:
recommendation for change in section in Zoning Ordinance relative to home
occupations, was received for information.
Item 6.19. Memorandum dated June 16, 1994, from the Long Range Planning
Committee, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive and Dr. Robert W.
Paskel, Superintendent, re: summary of public forum comments, was received
for information.
Item 6.20. Memorandum dated June 30, 1994, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, re: private entrance sight
distance, was received for information as follows:
"We have been made aware this week of a change in VDoT's policy
regarding minimum sight distance for private entrances {copy of
letter on file). I wanted to pass this along to you as this
change has significant potential impact and you may be hearing
from affected property owners. As an example, on a 55 mph road
the minimum sight distance would become 550 feet. This require-
ment will likely have the greatest affect on a rural property
owner seeking to divide off one or two lots."
Mrs. Humphris asked what relationship this would have on the upcoming
situation with the new entrances at the northwest side of Georgetown Road.
Mr. Roosevelt said anything that is currently in the process where a permit
has been issued will not be recalled. His letter which is attached to Mr.
Cilimberg's memo applies to reviews and permits that are issued from that date
forward. Although he, personally, has not looked at the three entrances on
Georgetown with regard to sight distance, he would guess that two of them have
350 feet of sight distance. He also thinks the third entrance, which is the
one closest to the Hydraulic Road intersection, is probably more than 350 feet
from the intersection.
Mrs. Humphris said she is particularly concerned about the improvements to
the Hydraulic Road/Georgetown Road intersection. She can foresee terrible
safety problems at the northern-most driveway. Cars traveling east on
Hydraulic Road and then turning south onto Georgetown Road will end up right
on top of that driveway. The driveway is at the edge of the commercial
property. She does not see how drivers will be able to get out of that
driveway. Mr. Roosevelt said the improvements the Georgetown Road Task Force
discussed for that intersection are intended to slow down traffic coming off
of Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is an existing lot in the rural areas which
does not meet the new sight distance requirements, would VDoT have to issue a
permit for an entrance. Mr. Roosevelt said if the lot does not currently have
an entrance and the owners wanted a new entrance, a new entrance permit would
be issued using the upgraded sight distance requirements. Mr. Bowerman said
if there is a new subdivision where a lot does not currently exist and the
subdivision meets all the requirements with the exception of sight distance,
would VDoT issue a permit for that additional lot. Mr. Roosevelt said the
County has the authority to create new lots, not VDoT. The primary purpose of
his letter of June 24 was to make the County aware of these sight distance
requirements so County staff could use this in deciding whether to approve the
subdivision of property for the lot lines that have been submitted for
approval. VDoT is hopeful that if lots are being created that cannot meet the
sight distance requirements, the County will deny that subdivision. He does
not expect the current procedure being used by VDoT and the County to change.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff would not approve the creation of a lot, if VDoT
indicated that it would not issue an entrance permit. Mr. Bowerman asked if
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
000307
it is likely there will be an increase in the number of waiver requests due to
these requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said there may be an increase, but the
entrance permit would still come from VDoT. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the
Board and Commission will have to deal with this issue in the future.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: June 10(A), July 1 and July 8,
1992; May 4, May 9(A), May 18, June 1 and June 8, 1994.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of June 10(A), 1992, and July 8, 1992
[pages 1-11 (#7)], and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Thomas had read the minutes of May 4 and May 9(A), 1994 and found
them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of May 18, 1994, and found them to be
in order with some typographical errors.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of July 8, 1992 [pages 11(#7) - 33 (%8)]
and June 1, 1994 and found them both to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of July 8, 1992 [pages 33(%8) - end], and
June 8, 1994, and found them both to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs.
Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. Sa. Transportation Matters: Jack Hodge - Discussion of
Transportation Issues.
The following letter dated June 30, 1994, from Robert E. Martinez,
Secretary of Transportation, was received:
"I have reviewed your letter of June 10, 1994, concerning the
Board's concerns regarding the sequencing of construction for
Route 29, the interchanges and Alternative 10. The sequencing
of construction as you stated is based upon traffic developed by
Sverdrup in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the
Route 29 Corridor Study.
Traffic forecasts for the design year 2010 were developed for each
candidate build alternative as well as for the base case and
proposed interchange developments at Rio, Hydraulic and Greenbrier
Roads, using a regional travel demand model. The model was
designed and calibrated based on land use and demographic data and
surveys of existing travel characteristics. The future highway
network assumed for forecasting includes all projects in the 1985
Charlottesville Area Transportation Study, the MPO-adopted region-
al transportation plan.
The traffic study did identify that with only the base case
improvements in place the level of service (LOS) on Route 29 would
remain at F. The base case with the three grade separated inter-
changes would improve the LOS on an average to B. However,
this study did not incorporate the LOS on the connector roads.
This detailed information will be addressed in the study currently
under way for the proposed interchange projects.
If you look only at projected LOS, it may appear that construction
of the base case with three grade separated interchanges would
satisfy the travel needs for this corridor. However, LOS alone do
not tell the whole story. While the projected arterial LOS on
Route 29 would be a B, the average operating speed would remain
low at 30 miles per hour, and stop and go conditions would persist
at the remaining signalized intersections. This is not consistent
with an arterial routes function as a high speed facility for
uninterrupted travel. Local traffic would have to contend with
large volumes of through traffic, 16 percent of which would be
heavy trucks.
On August 1, 1991, Albemarle County Board Chairman Bowie wrote to
then Commonwealth Transportation Secretary Milliken requesting
clarification of the three phases of the CTB resolution of Novem-
ber 15, 1990. Secretary Milliken responded on November 4, 1991,
and presented this letter to the CTB on December 19, 1991. The
CTB resolution of December 19, 1991, directed staff to take all
steps and make all efforts to complete the projects approved in
the November 15, 1990, resolution as more fully set out in a
letter from Mr. Milliken and made a part of the December 19, 1991,
resolution.
The base case improvements are currently under construction from
Hydraulic Road to Rio Road, and the portion of Route 29 from Rio
000, 08
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River are scheduled for
advertisement in July of 1994.
A consultant has been hired to design the grade separated inter-
changes. As soon as functional plans are available, Mr. Hodge
will present these plans to your Board prior to any information
meeting being conducted. This is anticipated to occur late this
summer. Once the design has been completed, a public hearing will
be conducted and presented to the CTB for action.
Currently, we have not brought a consultant on board to proceed
with final design plans for the Bypass alignment (Alternative 10).
This should occur this summer after the EIS is finished to accom-
modate the proposed revisions to the north and south termini.
As stated in Mr. Milliken's letter of November 4, 1991, and as
indicated in the CTB resolution of November 15, 1990, Phase I
included the development of refined plans to be provided to
Albemarle County to aid local officials in the preservation of
right-of-way within the Alternative 10 corridor and development
of compatible land use plans. In addition, approved right-of-way
plans are necessary to allow for hardship acquisition of right-of-
way parcels which are less than a total take.
In order to have approved plans available to fulfill this require-
ment, plan development must occur, a Location and Design public
hearing conducted and design approval obtained from the CTB. The
Department always sets the earliest dates possible for plans to be
available for advertisement pending the availability of funding.
These dates are necessary for the Department as a planning tool.
In view of this, I do not believe that the Department is in
violation of the CTB resolutions regarding this project.
I believe some miscommunication may exist in the understanding of
advertisement dates you have been provided. The dates indicated
by VDOT are necessary for the planning process and availability of
plans to meet the goals of the CTB resolution regarding the phases
of the projects. No construction funds for these projects were
established in the Six Year Plan adopted by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board on June 23.
I understand that Mr. Hodge will be meeting with the County Board
on July 6, 1994, at which time he will discuss the schedule for
this project as reflected in the approved 1994-1995 through
1999-2000 Final Six Year Improvement Plan.
The Virginia Department of Transportation does not and cannot
advertise either the interchange projects or the proposed Route 29
Bypass (Alternative 10) until construction funds are available in
the Six Year Plan. Each year preallocation public hearings are
held and each year the CTB updates and approves the Six Year Plan
which sets VDOT's advertisement schedule. The VDOT staff is
carrying out the preliminary engineering necessary to meet the CTB
resolutions and Mr. Milliken's letter."
Mr. Roosevelt introduced Mr. Jack Hodge, Chief Engineer for VDoT, who is
responsible for the design of highway improvements for the Department of
Transportation; Mr. Don Askew, District Administrator, Mr. Bob Connick,
Assistant District Administrator, who is responsible for the construction
program for the Culpeper District and Mr. Ron Chowjack, from the transporta-
tion and planning section of VDoT's Richmond office.
Mr. Hodge said since he last met with the Board in October, 1993, VDoT has
stayed in contact with the County Executive and County staff. At this time he
reviewed with the Board changes and modifications that have taken place that
relate to the bypass, the interchanges, the base case, Berkmar Drive, the
connection at Carrsbrook and Millington Bridge.
Mr. Hodge said VDoT is preparing final design plans so they can deal with
hardship cases for partial takes. Currently VDoT has been dealing with
hardship cases where they are taking entire lots. VDoT needs to go to a
public hearing, develop the plans through the right-of-way stage and be able
to address partial takes. He provided the Board with an evaluation of the
revision to the Alternative 10 alignment at its northern termini (copy on
file). Mrs. Humphris asked what is the additional distance to the original
5.3 miles of the bypass with the new terminus. Mr. Hodge replied 1.9 miles.
Mr. Hodge then discussed access to the North Grounds of the University of
Virginia. He said VDoT is prepared to work with the University when it
determines that access is necessary. Mrs. Humphris asked if the design at
that terminus require a triple level interchange. Mr. Hodge replied, "yes"
and then explained what would be done. Mrs. Humphris asked if the final
design would require the taking of property in Canterbury Hills Subdivision.
Mr. Hodge said he cannot answer that at this time; it may or it may not. That
is one of the reasons VDoT needs to go ahead and hire the consultant to
prepare the design.
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000309
(Page 9)
Mr. Hodge then provided to the Board a schedule (copy on file) of the
sequence of events. In his opinion, VDoT is following the Three-Party Agree-
ment and the Commonwealth Transportation Board's resolution. He believes it
is absolutely necessary for VDoT to address the partial takes for hardship
before going to public hearing. In addition, the advertisement date has to be
a planning tool for the Department. The Department must be able to complete
the plans in a timely fashion in order to acquire rights-of-way. When he last
appeared before the Board he indicated that there was no money in the six year
construction plan for either the three interchanges or the bypass; there is
still no money. As a result of the CTB's meeting on June 23 money has been
put into the plan for preliminary engineering. Mr. Hodge then discussed the
base case improvements. Segment I which is from the north corporate limits of
Charlottesville to 0.2 mile north of Rio Road is currently under construction.
Segment II, scheduled for advertisement in July, 1994, is 0.2 miles north of
Rio Road to 0.02 miles south of the South Fork Rivanna River. Modifying the
existing plan to provide for a connection to Carrsbrook will not hold up the
project. The modification will be advertised as a plan revision. Segment III
is 0.02 miles south of the South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road; negoti-
ations are ongoing with the consultants. The advertisement date has been
tentatively revised to August, 1999, to allow coordination with the Route 29
Corridor Study from Charlottesville to Warrenton. This date could be revised
based on the outcome of that study.
Mr. Hodge then discussed the proposed interchange projects at Rio Road,
Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road. The Department advertised for a consul-
tant in January, 1993. The contract was awarded to Whiteman Requardt &
Associates in November, 1993. Surveys were completed in March, 1994. A
combined location/design public hearing will probably be held in July, 1995.
VDoT could begin right-of-way acquisition, if funds are available, in Novem-
ber, 1995. The plans would be available for construction should money be
available in November, 1997. Due to funding availability all three inter-
changes cannot be built at one time. A public information meeting will
probably be held in August or September. Based on traffic analysis and need,
the interchanges are prioritized subject to funding as follows: 1) Rio Road,
2) Hydraulic Road and 3) Greenbrier Drive. The consultant is working on
suggested schemes for the interchanges before going to the public information
meeting. Mr. Hodge said he hopes to bring back to this Board the plans for
the interchanges before going to the public information meeting. Hopefully, a
joint meeting with the City of Charlottesville can be scheduled. He would
also like to take the proposals to the North Charlottesville Business Council.
Mr. Marshall said he has always had a problem with the interchanges. He
is not opposed to them, but at this time he does not support them. It is his
feeling that if the bypass is constructed and if the Meadow Creek Parkway is
constructed, the millions of dollars spent to build the interchanges is
wasted, not to mention the disruption to the businesses on Route 29 North. He
asked if they will be sitting down to discuss whether the interchanges are
actually needed. Mr. Hodge said VDoT will show the Board the plans and
configuration of the interchanges. In 1990 this Board asked the Department to
look at the interchanges as part of the Three Party Agreement. Mr. Marshall
said he was not on the Board at that time and he has since seen plans for the
Meadow Creek Parkway and the Alternate 10 bypass. After looking at those
plans, it does not appear to him that the interchanges are going to be
necessary. Mr. Hodge said when the Department brings the plans to this Board
in the public information and public hearing stages, there will be an opportu-
nity for the Board to look at the issue again. He is following the procedure
this Board asked the CTB to follow. When that procedure goes to a public
hearing or information meeting and somebody wants to revisit it, modify it or
change it, then the Department stands ready to work with that person. The CTB
wants the Board's input based on today's situation as compared to the 1990
situation.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is LOS data available on the connecting
streets for Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Hodge replied
"yes". The consultant has been working on traffic data on the side streets
for the last several months. They periodically take traffic counts to provide
a base count for projections. These counts have nothing to do with the
bypass, interchanges or the base case.
Mr. Hodge then discussed the Route 29 bypass (Alternative 10). VDoT is
redoing the environmental document to incorporate both the south end and north
end for the location and design public hearing. He thinks the savings on the
south end will be approximately $20.0 million and still provide the same LOS
with less disruption. Considering the right-of-way problems and other issues,
he thinks the north end will probably be a "wash". The connection to Berkmar
will relieve that area a great deal and the connection to Carrsbrook will be
much better. The reevaluation of the document should be complete in August,
1994. VDoT will probably advertise for a consultant in September, 1994. The
agreement will probably be finalized and a notice to proceed issued in
February, 1995. The location and design public hearing is currently scheduled
for February, 1997. Subject to funds being available and not hardship cases,
VDoT could start acquiring rights-of-way in June, 1997. The plans could be
ready, subject to funds being available, in March, 1999. He emphasized that
VDoT is trying to get the plans ready. It is his desire that VDoT cooperate
and work with the Board throughout the process.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an updated estimate on the bypass with the changes
at the northern and southern termini. Mr. Hodge did not have an estimate, but
said he would get that information.
000;3:1.0
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mrs. Humphris referred to a statement in Secretary Martinez's letter that
"Local traffic would have to contend with large volumes of through traffic, 16
percent of which would be heavy trucks". She thinks people might assume that
the 16 percent is of the total traffic on Route 29, which it is not. The
latest numbers provided by VDoT that related to through traffic was 1.6
percent, not 16 percent. Mr. Hodge did not agree and said he would verify
that information. He felt the 16 percent was correct. Mrs. Humphris added
that the figures provided in the Sverdrup report indicated that through
vehicles were only 9.9 percent of the total traffic. Mr. Hodge said because
of inconsistencies VDoT is trying to get updated traffic information.
Mrs. Humphris said she found the response in Secretary Martinez's letter
vague in reference to the question that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Trans-
portation Coalition addressed to the Board about the agreement as it related
to the advertisement date for construction of the bypass. She asked if VDoT
must have an advertisement date in order to do the planning that leads up to
the construction date. Mr. Hodge said VDoT must have a planning date that it
works towards.
Mrs. Humphris said she has to respond to previous comments made by Mr.
Marshall. She is totally astonished that somebody on this Board would not
understand the importance of those interchanges to moving local traffic up and
down Route 29 North, which is what this Board must be the most concerned
about. As soon as there are updated traffic figures, the Board needs to see
them. If there is going to be a significant change where there is a lot more
through traffic than the $3.7 million study indicated, and not as much other
traffic to move on Route 29 as originally thought, that would present a
different picture. She cannot imagine the local traffic on Route 29 North
will do anything but increase and probably more than Sverdrup indicated.
Traffic needs to be moved across that road in an efficient manner. If the
County does not get those interchanges, it will be stuck in its own exhaust
fumes out there while traffic whizzes by on its way to Lynchburg.
Mr. Hodge said VDoT may be able to move traffic on Route 29 at the
sacrifice of the cross streets which is the reason he wants to wait and see
the traffic counts. Since he last met with the Board, the arterial Route 29
program in the ISTEA bill is now being studied. That certainly will put more
emphasis on Route 29 traffic coming through Virginia as a through route not a
local route. Mrs. Humphris asked if VDoT knows what the overall plan is to
handle that traffic and its philosophy of how to deal with the Route 29
corridor, cuts and lights. Mr. Hodge did not have an answer, but added that
the entire Route 29 corridor cannot help but increase in traffic.
Mrs. Humphris said she wants to be cooperative in the effort of making the
Route 29 corridor function as it is meant to, but she does not think she wants
to participate in any activity that would result in the death of the Route 29
North commercial area to benefit through traffic.
Mr. Hodge said for 37 years VDoT has constructed bypasses and most of the
time local businesses prosper if the local and through traffic is allowed to
use it by adequate signs. VDoT has done some brief studies on bypasses in
towns and has found that access along the local streets improve. Mrs.
Humphris referred to Route 11 which had an interstate constructed around it
and caused the death of the businesses. Mr. Hodge said he thinks proper
signing should take care of the problem.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board is concerned about the integrity of the Three
Party Agreement to which the CTB adopted a resolution. She believes the
agreement is firmly in place and she intends to proceed with that recognition.
Mr. Marshall said he will adhere to that agreement also. He is still not
certain whether these interchanges are necessary at a cost of more than $40.0
million of taxpayers money, if they will not improve the traffic situation and
be beneficial to the businesses. He does not want Route 29 to look like
another Fairfax County with all of those interchanges unless it is absolutely
necessary. Mr. Hodge said VDoT will try to bring to the Board all the
necessary information; how the interchanges will fit in; how much they will
cost; what they will do; where the traffic lights will be located; what the
level of service will be on the side streets and what the anticipated speed
will be on Route 29 with them and without them. Hopefully, the Board will
assist the Department and CTB in the public meetings to make a decision.
Mrs. Humphris said she heard that the North Grounds interchange will have
a limited access for those people only. She asked if that is legal, if it is
possible and if taxpayers money can be used for that purpose. Mr. Hodge said
since the people using the access will be the public, it can be done. This
discussion came about because the University wants to reduce its parking
congestion. The University has not agreed to having an access built at this
time because it does not want the access used as a cut through. Mrs. Humphris
asked if the University has set aside land for future parking lot possibili-
ties. Mr. Hodge said nothing definite has been determined.
Mr. Hodge said VDoT is trying to find a way to keep the Millington Bridge
in its same location, not make the road any more curvy than it is and put a
sufficient structure in there with a wooden deck that will take care of the
safety, health and welfare of the people in that part of the county. He does
not have a design but Mr. Roosevelt will bring back to the Board a report when
he gets to that stage.
000811
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mrs. Thomas asked what is the status of Route 250 West, at the bypass
access. A lot of people continue to be annoyed for have to take a circuitous
route. She asked if there is a date when a further decision will be made.
Mr. Hodge said that is a local matter, but he did have an opportunity to
review the matter. He has some suggestions which he will discuss with other
VDoT staff. That is a difficult intersection. The exit and entrance of the
subdivision on the other side of the road needs to be addressed. He noticed
that no matter how much painting VDoT does people drive on the wrong side of
the road. Just about everyone who enters the intersection goes on the wrong
side of the yellow line. VDoT is working on reconfiguring that area to come
up with the best configuration to fix the situation.
Mrs. Humphris said at the last MPO Policy Board meeting the VDoT represen-
tative suggested that it was possible that the County would not be able to use
its secondary road funds to construct the Meadow Creek Parkway. This project
is in the County's Six Year Plan. The representative said there was a new
Secondary Roads Engineer and he makes the decisions and will do things differ-
ently. Mr. Hodge said he knows of no reason why secondary road funds cannot
be used for that project. He will get information back to the Board.
Mr. Hodge thanked the Board and said he would get the information request-
ed back to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 8b. Request to set a public hearing to prohibit truck
traffic on Route 656 (Georgetown Road).
Mr. Cilimberg said a set of recommendations for addressing various traffic
design concerns on Georgetown Road were provided to the Board. One of the
recommendations was to prohibit truck traffic on the road. VDoT has a formal
procedure, including specific warrants which must be met, for restricting
through truck traffic on a state road. To conform to the requirements of the
Code, the local governing body must hold a public hearing and make a formal
request of VDoT to restrict trucks on a road. The public hearing must include
a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors describing the proposed
through truck restriction and a description of an alternate route, including
termini. The resolution will then be forwarded to the VDoT Resident Engineer,
and then VDoT's evaluation will begin. The Assistant Chief Engineer of VDoT
has to complete a report on the proposed truck prohibition. A recommendation
for approval or denial is based on five criteria. Failure to satisfy three of
the five criteria will normally result in rejection of the requested restric-
tion.
Mr. Cilimberg said based on a preliminary review by staff, it appears that
Georgetown Road meets at least three of the five criteria. Staff recommends
that the Board hold a public hearing for prohibiting through truck traffic on
Georgetown Road.
Mrs. Humphris said if Board members have not had an opportunity to drive
on Georgetown Road, they should do it some time soon and look at the new
driveways on the northwestern side. There is going to be possibly four new
driveways and they will add to an already dangerous traffic situation.
Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to set a
public hearing for August 10, 1994, to consider prohibiting truck traffic on
Route 656 (Georgetown Road). Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman said at some time in the future, as the improvements on Route
29 N occur along with the new access road from Route 29 N to Berkmar Extended
near Floor Fashions, he will probably be asking the Board to look at prohibit-
ing truck traffic on Carrsbrook Drive. Carrsbrook is not a road designed for
any type of heavy traffic.
Agenda Item No. 8c. Relocation of Route 627 and abandonment of existing
section (Enniscorthy).
Mr. Cilimberg said the owner of Enniscorthy proposes to relocate, at his
expense, a portion of State Route 627 and abandon the replaced portion, to
allow the existing road to be used for private access to the Enniscorthy house
and the Cose family cemetery. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal
for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and with certain conditions found
it to be in compliance. The applicant is currently working towards satisfying
those conditions. The applicant proposes to submit road plans to the County
Engineer and VDoT for approval if the Board indicates a willingness to abandon
the existing section of Route 627. The County Attorney indicated that the
road could be abandoned as allowed in § 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia.
Staff recommends the Board indicate a willingness to abandon the requested
section of Route 627 and authorize a resolution allowing the requested
abandonment be brought back for Board approval.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there is a reason the proposed new road is mirroring
the two 90 degree turns in the old road. Mr. Cilimberg said the new alignment
runs with the land and runs into the lower area so as to minimize visibility
from Enniscorthy and the adjacent property.
000352
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Roosevelt added that detailed plans will be provided to insure that
the grades and alignment are satisfactory, and that there is nothing along the
alignment to prevent the road from meeting VDoT standards or approval for
acceptance into the State system after it is constructed. Mr. Perkins asked
what are the standards for this road. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "a private
road". The road does not have the traffic volumes to warrant a hard surface.
Mr. Roosevelt said he does think the road should be widened so that as traffic
increases in this area and the sections on either end of the road have to be
improved, this section would have the necessary width.
Mr. Perkins expressed concerns about the proposed road alignment. The
applicant is going three times as far to get from one point to the other.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the cost of maintenance. Mr. Roosevelt said if
the road meets standards for grade, curvature and width, VDoT should be able
to maintain the section for the same amount or less than the section it is
replacing. VDoT can afford to maintain a little longer distance if someone
else is paying the expenses for construction.
Mr. Marshall then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to indicate a
willingness to abandon the requested section of Route 627 and authorized a
resolution allowing the requested abandonment be brought back for the Board's
approval subject to the following:
1. Evidence that all conditions of comPliance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan have been satisfied.
2. Approval of road plans and construction of the relocated
section of Route 627 in accordance with those road plans.
3. Approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8d. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins asked that a speed limit study be conducted on Route 684, from
Yancey's Mill to Jarmans Gap Road.
Mr. Marshall said on Route 20 South, where the construction is occurring
just beyond his farm, some of the residents are concerned about a possible
change in the plans. It was his understanding that the present road would
remain and serve as a private road to the four houses. Yesterday he was
informed that the road would be removed and the property owners would access
at the southern end of the new road. Mr. Roosevelt said there will be a
connection on the southern end that will serve those four properties. The
existing road will be a 300 foot to 400 foot long stretch that will dead end
at the last property. Mr. Marshall said that is a change from what was
presented at the public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt said he would review the
construction plans and get with Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that someone had posted a sign at the Warren Boat
Landing~ roped off the area and eliminated the parking. He asked who owns the
property. Mr. Roosevelt said the State maintained a ferry at that location
until it was washed away in a prior flood. At that time, through an agreement
with the Board of Supervisors, the ferry at Warren was discontinued which
meant the public still had the right to use the crossing, but the Department
was not responsible for maintaining it. Since 1932, to his knowledge the road
that leads down to the bank of the river has been a part of the secondary
system. The actual ownership of the land is probably the adjacent property
owners. The Department has a 30-foot restrictive easement that covers the
roadway maintenance.
Mr. Davis said the public can legally use the Highway Department's 30-foot
right-of-way for parking and access to the river. The parking area outside of
the right-of-way belongs to the adjacent property owner and it is his decision
whether to allow people to use the property for parking. It is his under-
standing that the owner has posted signs and roped off the area outside of the
30-foot easement. Unless there is an agreement with the property owner, he
can require people not to use the parking area and have cars towed.
Mr. Tom Ransom, a resident of the Warren community, said this past weekend
when he went to the river he noticed that "no trespassing" and "no parking"
signs had been posted. The posting made it look like the dam was about to be
closed. He knows that this landing has been used for many years by people
fishing, tubing, etc., and has always been free to use. There never has been
a problem. Also, three weeks ago the state totally rebuilt the bridge leading
to this hand. The County Parks Department cuts the grass and removes trash on
a weekly basis. He does not want to see access to the river impeded. It
makes parking difficult, especially on busy weekends, in a 30-foot area.
Mr~ Tucker said staff is negotiating with Mr. Hawranke, the property
owner~ to either acquire an easement or an area for parking. Staff is also
considering a request to the Board for inclusion in the Capital Improvements
Program to purchase the land to maintain a parking area for the public.
0003 3
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mrs. Thomas asked if the state has a program for purchasing access to a
river. Boating access to rivers is a state-wide problem. Mr. Tucker said he
would look into it.
Mr. Perkins noted that the Tabor Street project should be included in the
monthly listing of highway improvement projects currently under construction.
Mr. Roosevelt concurred.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs to make a decision on the improvements
at Georgetown Road/Hydraulic Road and on the modifications of the slip ramp.
In addition, a recommendation from the Georgetown Road Task Force included
rebuilding the current sidewalk. The cost for modification of the slip ramp
is $10,000 and the cost to rebuild the sidewalk is $26,000.
(Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 10:52 a.m.) The consensus of the Board
was to add this item to the August 3, 1994, agenda.
The Board recessed at 10:54 a.m., and reconvened at 11:05 a.m. Mr.
Marshall was also present.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation by Nancy K. O'Brien on a proposal for a
public/private regional economic development partnership.
Ms. O'Brien, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, said she is present to request the Board's support in the creation
of a Regional Economic Development Partnership. If the Board supports this
endeavor, the TJPDC will bring back an organizational structure for consider-
ation in the Fall. For a number of years, people have been discussing
economic development on local and regional levels. Discussions about the
possibility of a regional partnership began in 1992 among the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, some people from Albemarle and Charlottes-
ville, Piedmont Virginia Community College and the University of Virginia.
The group determined that the economy was a regional issue and not something
limited to Charlottesville and Albemarle. As a result they broaden the
discussion to include all Planning District Ten. The group received some
facilitation assistance from the Commission on Rural Development (CORD) and
decided they needed to hold a public forum and touch base with local elected
officials and chief administrative officers, and did so. They were encouraged
to hold a large forum, and held a meeting called REV UP which many persons
attended. From that meeting the group developed an action strategy which
included creating a regional economic development office. At the same time
individuals from the private sector indicated an interest in a regional
economic development approach and committed themselves to looking for funds to
do so. These two efforts have merged and TJPDC has directed its staff to work
with the private sector, visit the localities and talk to each locality about
a regional economic development partnership.
Ms. O'Brien said the reason a regional approach is being taken is because
the economy functions in a regional way, i.e., residents live, work, shop and
learn across government boundaries. The group is hopeful that all the locali-
ties in the region will give them an opportunity to come back with a final
proposal. This has been an evolving process and will continue to evolve into
the future. Originally there were some concerns that the smaller rural
localities would be overwhelmed by the magnitude of Albemarle, Charlottesville
and the University all in one unit, but that has been overcome. There is
definite interest by the rural localities and the City.
Ms. O'Brien said this is similar to other past regional efforts such as
the Metropolitan Planning Organization. This is an effort to provide some
efficiencies of scale, eliminate duplication in the area of data development,
map development, production of information, etc. There have been many
successes of regional partnerships and this is the ideal candidate for one
more success.
Mr. Harold Morris, Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of
Commerce, said he was present to represent the private sector. He asked the
Board to support a regional economic development partnership concept for the
six jurisdictions that make up Region Ten. Recently he had the opportunity to
meet with the other four boards of supervisors in Region Ten and Charlottes-
ville City Council. The Board has been provided copies of support letters
from each of those jurisdictions. He understands that each Board member has
received information from the TJPDC. In a recent study by the TJPDC it was
evident that this endeavor needs to be a private/public partnership to be
successful~ Examples of successful regional partnerships are Roanoke Valley,
Lynchburg Regional, New River Valley, Hampton Roads and Richmond. Regional
economic development partnerships benefit each partner. It supports both the
existing business as well as prospecting for new business. It acts as a
regional marketing agent for the locality. It will sell what the locality has
to offer. It will maintain a regional data base with pertinent information on
each locality such as social, economic and labor data, and information on
available properties and local resources. About 79 percent of regional
economic offices' efforts go into marketing such things as advertising, direct
mailing and public relations. Further the study indicated that typically a
regional partnership such as this is the first to be contacted by a prospec-
tive client. Regional development partnerships are encouraged and have full
support of the State Department of Economic Development. As a partner the
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) ~)00.~.4
(Page 14)
County would have the broad base of marketing, visibility and direct partici-
pation through representation on the board. Higher education is a vital part
of this plan. Ms. Jane Dittmar, President of the Chamber, was recently
appointed by Governor George Allen to chair Region 8, which is one of the
eighteen Economic Development Advisory Councils in the state. Region 10 is
included in Region 8. The Council will support regional development partner-
ships to see that state resources are distributed equitably throughout the
state. This is an honor for the Chamber and its President. It shows that the
Chamber is behind economic development and this partnership arrangement. He
concluded by asking the Board to join its neighboring counties, the City of
Charlottesville and the private sector to support this concept. A regional
economic development partnership makes good sense; it is good business sense.
Together it will be more efficient; it will invite more attention to this
region and it will allow the County the ability to keep a good prospect in our
region and not lose it to another locality. What is good for other jurisdic-
tions in this region is good for Albemarle County and vice versa. He assured
the Board that the private sector is willing and able to commit as a full
partner. A regional economic development partnership will support jobs for
the citizens and increase the tax base for the public sector partners.
Mr. Paul Wood, Vice-Chairman of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce Board,
said through the initiatives of the Governor's Council on Economic Development
and the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, a regional economic development partner-
ships will chart a vital and orderly course for Virginia businesses. There
are presently eight successful partnerships in the State with a realistic
potential of ten additional ones being established in the future. They span
the state from Roanoke Valley through Richmond to Hampton Roads, as well as
stretching from southside Virginia to the northeast. Of those eight regional
partnerships only Hampton Roads is presently privately funded. The response
over the past months to the regional partnership concept has been overwhelm-
ing. He reemphasized that the private sector is a committed partner and will
take the lead to insure its success. He encouraged the Board to adopt the
regional partnership concept.
Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President, Piedmont Virginia Community College, said
PVCC is 100 percent supportive of a regional economic development partnership.
First, PVCC supports the partnership concept. Virginia community colleges
have been involved in partnerships long before it was "cool" to talk about
partnerships. Partnerships build on each others strength; they are cost
effective; and they afford duplication of effort. PVCC is moving increasingly
towards delivery of services, programs and training with its sister community
colleges, senior institutions, K-12 and the business sector. PVCC sees this
as a key strategic direction for the future.
Her second reason for support is the concept of economic development. In
general, PVCC and other community colleges define community economic develop-
ment as a process of creating wealth and jobs by mobilizing the appropriate
resources to expand the marketable products and services of a particular
community. They see a community economic development program as serving a
number of purposes. Prominent among these are the quality of life of the
area, stabilizing economic ups and downs, diversifying employment avail-
ability, increasing overall income level, creating more job opportunities,
managing the rate of economic development and controlling the type of economic
growth. Within in this context, the best way to approach economic development
for this area is a regional effort. PVCC service area includes the City of
Charlottesville, counties of Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson and
the northern part of Buckingham. Each of these localities has a majestic
uniqueness. Each locality has its own set of challenges and strengths which
grow out of this majestic uniqueness. In her judgement the potential to
direct majesty and uniqueness towards the greater public good is immense. The
bottom line of economic development is jobs; jobs that are diverse, jobs that
carry career ladder mobility. Manufacturing brings money into a community,
but the service sector keeps it there. Some jobs may mesh better in one area
of the region than another area. A regional partnership has this built in as
a working assumption and each region needs jobs.
Dr. DiCroce said she often describes PVCC's service area as "uniquely a
community of extremes" There is incredible wealth on the one hand and then
incredible poverty. In her judgement, a regionally economic development
partnership has the potential to effectively meet the needs and serve the
interests of both extremes and everything in between. There is a direct
relationship between economic development, education and training. PVCC, the
University of Virginia and all seven school divisions in PVCC's service area
have already entered into a partnership to meet the education and training
demands of the region, and they are ready to plug into the larger economic
development regional partnership effort. She was part of the workings of an
economic development regional partnership in the South Hampton Roads area. It
did work and they did not come close to having this area's majesty and
uniqueness. As President of PVCC and a partner in regional education and
training efforts, she encouraged the Board to join the economic development
regional partnership concept. It is a concept that is in the best interest of
the people they serve.
Mr. Leigh Middleditch said he is appearing before the Board as a private
citizen. He is convinced this community can do better to offer jobs to young
people so they do not have to move out of the region to pursue economic
opportunities. This partnership would allow that opportunity. This regional
aspect is extremely important to Albemarle County because of the diversity and
cooperation of the surrounding jurisdictions. In the past, he has been
concerned that the University of Virginia has never seen a spin-off business;
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15) ..... ~,,~,
a business that located here because of the research that is ongoing at the
University. There is a need for a partnership that can be designed to try to
attract those businesses that we would want to have here. He hopes the Board
will join in and support the surrounding jurisdictions. The private sector is
obligated is to raise its portion of the funding for this endeavor. He hopes
the Board will support this concept.
Mrs. Thomas said she has talked with each Board member individually. She
is a charter member of the TJPDC and has followed this process of a regional
economic development partnership. Mrs. Thomas then offered motion that the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees to work with the Planning
District Commission and private interest groups to explore development of a
regional economic development partnership. The Board agrees that a regional
approach to any such partnership is better for the sake of efficiency and
coherent planning. Any substantive support from Albemarle County must be
based on our citizen's knowledge and support, and the Board's judgement of its
value to all taxpayers and citizens of the County, following the principles on
which this Board reached consensus two years ago:
1. any change in Albemarle County's policy regarding economic development
must be effective in solving identified problems;
2. any change in policy should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and its identified goals;
3. any change in the County's economic development policy should not
increase the burden on existing local taxpayers without the benefits
being identifiable, predictable and significant; and
4. no change should be made without being preceded by formal public
hearing.
In addition, as the Albemarle County Planning Commission is currently
dealing with updating the Comprehensive Plan and particularly the economic
development section of that Plan, any agreement to give blanket support to a
regional effort at this time would be poor timing and disrespectful of the
Commission's efforts.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mrs. Humphris said she has given economic development a tremendous amount
of thought particularly over the last several months, but also over the years.
Her position on economic development is that she does not believe government
should be in the business of promoting business, instead government should be
planning, legislating and regulating. She will support the motion because of
the specific wording of the motion, not as an endorsement that the County
should be in the business of promoting development. The County is in the
middle of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and is supposed to be reevaluating
its economic development position. When the computer model for the fiscal
impact study is available, it will help to determine the cost of growth to
County taxpayers. The sustainability council is working to provide informa-
tion on carrying capacities, and where growth and development should take
place. All of these tools will help in the decision-making process.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been wrestling with several issues in determin-
ing what she thinks is appropriate for Albemarle County. She does not think
this County's problems are the same as the problems of surrounding counties.
Albemarle County occupies an enviable position with an extremely low unemploy-
ment rate and a stable economy. She thinks the County needs to carefully
identify the problem that it intends to solve. If this Board decides that it
should take a different path and actually promote economic growth and develop-
ment, she personally feels the role of County government is to plan, provide
services and regulate those services and it cannot do both. Promoting and
soliciting development provides conflicts when it is done by government in
what the government then has to allow the new business to do. She is wonder-
ing what the County's desired rate of growth should be. Between 1980 and
1990, the County experienced two percent growth per year; the County ls now
experiencing over one and one-half percent per year. The County is not able
to keep up with that growth in terms of providing services that require tax
increases. She wonders what people want the Board to do. She asked if a tax
increase is wanted. It is possible that if the Board promotes growth and
development, it will cause a triple whammy in this County for people who own
property, i.e., upward pressures on the value of property because people will
move here and want to buy, upward pressures on the cost of affordable houses,
and increased taxes to provide new services for these new people and to pay
for a development office to do the recruiting. She is not sure the taxpayers
think this is an appropriate use of their tax dollars. All of these pressures
will be on property owners not on the people who will benefit by the new
wealth brought into the community. There will be people who could benefit
tremendously by growth and business development in this community, but there
certainly are many people who will suffer financially because they are on
fixed incomes.
She has not heard this Board say it is willing to provide money for job
training for those new job opportunities. She is not sure a regional approach
is in the best interest of the County given its existing situation, However,
she is willing to personally take this step to support Mrs. Thomas' motion to
see what it leads to. In reading the letters from the other localities she
noticed that one said it did not have the ability to give financial support to
such an effort and the others said they were willing to provide support but in
no way did they define what they were willing to do. If this motion passes,
she would like to be included on 'the discussions to study the issue further.
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~[.~
(Page 16)
She does not think the County should help some people to the detriment of many
others.
Mr. Marshall said he wants to support an economic development policy and
the regional concept is the'best way to do it. He thinks Mrs. Thomas' motion
is drastically diluted. When Mrs. Thomas was campaigning for the Board she
said she would support a regional economic development council. Mrs. Thomas
added that she also stated the support would be at no taxpayers dollars to
stimulate growth. Mr. Marshall said he believes that poor people should have
an opportunity. Only a select few can afford the quality of life of Albemarle
County. He knows a lot of people who have a poor quality of life in the
County. He has a lot of' family who have a lousy quality of life. He is
concerned about those people who are underemployed and can hardly afford to
pay their rent. Housing in the City of Charlottesville is being subsidized
astronomically and ending up with the entire City being nothing but a ghetto
in the future with people having no where to go and no opportunities. As an
employer, he knows that if he does not pay his employees enough, they will
steal from him. He knows that if people are not given job opportunities, they
will kick your door in and take what they want. Those are simply things from
a simple minded man. He is concerned about people who needs jobs. This is an
opportunity for us to work together to live in harmony so that everybody can
have an opportunity for some decent quality of life. The unemployment rate
might be only two or three percent, but the people are not making anything.
He totally disagrees with Mrs. Humphris because he feels it is government's
responsibility to see that its people have a decent quality of life and good
jobs. We cannot sit here like a bunch of snobs and say 20 years from now
Albemarle County is going to remain the same. He wants to be in a position
where this County can attract the types of jobs and the types of businesses
that will be good for the community.
Mr. Perkins said he believes this motion gives the Board the opportunity
to work with the Planning District Commission. It allows the Board the
opportunity to proceed.
Mr. Bowerman said he is wholeheartedly in support of a regional approach
to whatever the Board decides to do rather than Albemarle County versus other
counties. He thinks that collectively the localities can come up with
solutions that meet the needs of different areas in the region. He thinks the
last paragraph in Mrs. Thomas' motion is unnecessarily negative and he would
suggest that she end the motion with Item #4.
Mrs. Thomas agreed with the change in the motion.
Mr. Bowerman said personally he feels that the efforts of local government
should be directed at issues such as education and training. This amounts to
millions of dollars in commitment, far in excess of what he thinks the private
could provide. He is pleased that the private sector is taking the initiative
to bring this to the Board. He thinks the private sector gains directly from
this type of approach. He thinks the Board needs to work out the details of
the County's involvement in a regional approach.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board would add to the motion that Albemarle
County is supportive of a regional economic development commission.
Mrs. Thomas said she carefully crafted this motion so that the language
was such that the Board would agree states the basis for which it would offer
substantive support. She wants to remain with this particular wording. Mr.
Marshall said basically the Board is not saying that it supports a regional
economic development commission. Mr. Perkins commented the Board is not
saying it does not support the concept. Mr. Marshall said he supports a
regional economic development commission and, therefore, he cannot support the
motion.
Mr. Martin agreed as seconder to the change in the motion. Mr. Martin
said he thinks this motion reflects the Board's support of an economic
development commission, but the Board needs to see the details before making a
commitment. Mr. Marshall said the other localities are all saying they
support the establishment of this commission. Mrs. Thomas said one of the
distinctions between Albemarle County and the other localities in the Planning
District is that they have money in their respective budgets for economic
development. Their taxpayers and citizens are all aware of this. This is a
different approach in Albemarle County and she thinks it needs to be handled
differently. Mr. Marshall said the Board would not be committing itself to
financial support by saying it supports the idea of economic development.
Mrs. Thomas said most of the other localities interpret support of economic
development as financial support and she thinks that is unfair to the citi-
zens.
At this time roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall said he supports a regional economic development commission
and he did not support the motion because he does not think it states that the
Board is supportive.
July 6, 1994 (Resular Day Meetins) 000~.~.7
(Pase z7)
Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation by Michael C. Collins, Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, re: Prioritization of Third and Fourth Order
Watersheds in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District.
Mr. Collins said the County Engineering staff has been working on a
capital improvements plan for stormwater funding for some time. As part of
the project the County ranked ten priority watersheds based on current
development, potential development and funding mechanisms. Moore's Creek
ranked number one. In 1992 the Planning District Commission began to priori-
tize the whole region. There are 640 small watersheds in the six jurisdic-
tions and the Commission was interested in which were the most threatened.
Threatened watersheds are defined as those that demand personal and financial
resources to maintain some level of water quality. In summarizing the report,
Mr. Collins said the project raised two questions. The first question was
"What is the water quality desired?" The second question is "What does high
quality water mean?"
Mr. John Potter, the TJPDC's Geographic Information Systems Planner, then
presented maps demonstrating the results of the study. They maps outlined the
sensitivities for all of the watersheds in Albemarle County, the impacts for
all of the watersheds and the classifications of the watersheds. Mr. Potter
said the data that was collected for this study can be used by local govern-
ment staff to take a more comprehensive look at the watersheds which they have
identified as high priority. This is something that can be built upon.
Mr. Tucker said this data is helpful and he recommends that the Water
Resources Committee review this and use this data to help the Water Resources
Official prepare the water resources element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to request
the Water Resources Committee to review the report and use the data to help
the Water Resources Official to prepare the water resources element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Letters from Piedmont Environmental
Council concerning the Comprehensive Plan and land use taxation.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing PEC, said Mr. Reuben Clark, author of the
two letters, had to leave the meeting due to the time. She will be glad to
try to answer any questions.
Mrs. Humphris said she asked that the letters be brought to the Board for
discussion. She thought the letter on the Comprehensive Plan review had some
good points about the schedule and the fact that the Board and public is
losing its trend of thought. When something takes place over a long period of
time, the public loses interest. She asked if the Board could get an updated
schedule and if there was a way to expedite the review. Mr. Tucker said a
joint meeting with the Planning Commission is planned for the afternoon of
August 3, to discuss the new schedule and provide a review. Mrs. Humphris
asked that staff consider the suggestions made by PEC and problems they are
having with the way the review is being done.
Mrs. Thomas said it seems the Board is responsible for the process of the
Comprehensive Plan because it has sent mixed signals. The Board is constantly
adding more things to what it wants the staff to cover in the review and the
Board is constantly promising people that issues will be handled in the
review, yet it wants the process to speed up. She is not sure what PEC is
referring to when it says "outside resources should not be used so much". She
thinks this Board should think about whether it can demand speed and thorough-
ness at the same time.
Mr. Cilimberg said at the joint meeting staff will inform both bodies what
it thinks can be done within the requested time frame including the amount of
public involvement. The Board will also be provided the survey results from
the Center for Public.
Mrs. Humphris asked what is the status of the telephone survey. Mr.
Cilimberg said the results will be presented at the joint meeting on August 3.
Mrs. Humphris said she was glad to see that PEC had acknowledged there is
a flaw in how land use taxation is handled in the County and it could be
changed to the advantage of the taxpayers. She isa Strong supporter of land
use taxation and she thinks it is extremely important to the County to have it
in place, but it is costing a lot of money and there is still a possibility
for abuse of the program by people who plan to develop their land. It seems
to her that the Board should look at stopping the abuse if it will not be a
hardship on the people in land use. Someone who is sincerely into agriculture
would merely have to either join an agricultural/forestal district or sign a
piece of paper promising the County not to develop the property for "x" amount
of years to be eligible for land use. This would provide reassurance that the
land will not be developed.
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
ooOa s
Mr. Perkins said he would like to know how much abuse there is. He thinks
it would be a hardship on farmers and rural landowners to sign up for agricul-
tural/forestal districts or whatever. It is a big change in what the County
has been doing. There are going to be some abuses with anything of this
nature. He thinks the critical issue is how much abuse there is.
Mrs. Thomas said there is an increasingly amount of land put into land use
each year and she thinks that if there is a lot of abuse, land would constant-
ly be coming out.
Mr. Tucker agreed that the issue is what is abuse. Every time there is a
reassessment there is a review of those properties under land use to make sure
they still meet the criteria in which they signed up for land use.
Mr. Marshall asked what is the criteria. He would be affected by a change
more than anyone else on the Board. If he is not allowed to remain in land
use, he would have to sell his property. He cannot afford to raise cattle on
the small amount of money he is earning from his farm. He thinks that most of
the landowners' in the County have the same problem. A person cannot produce a
product on land in the County and make a profit at the cost of the land.
There must be land use to keep open space. His farm will remain open space as
long as he can keep it in land use. If he dies, he does not want to put that
restriction on his wife.
Mrs. Humphris asked that the Board be provided information on how much
land is coming out of land use, whether there is abuse, how much land is going
into land use. If there is a problem, should the Board deal with it. She
also asked that the proposal regarding land use that came to the Board several
years ago be reactivated.
Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:26 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to § 2.1-344(A) of
the Code of Virginia under Subparagraph (1) to consider a personnel matter
regarding interviews of individuals considered for appointment for various
boards and commissions, and under Subparagraph (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff members on a specific legal matter regarding public safety
services.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Executive Session.
At 2:06 p.m., motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humph-
ris, that the Board adopt the following Certification of Executive Meeting:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has con-
vened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative
recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virgin-
ia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, § 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a cer-
tification 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: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs Marshall, Martin,
Perkins and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request for approval of Amendment #2 to the agreement
between Albemarle County, Virginia, and GTE-GIS, Inc., for the E-911 building
locator system.
Mr. Tucker said as a result of GTEGIS, Inc. (Enhanced 911 consultants)
selecting a new subcontractor, Network Design Engineers, Inc. (NDE), to
fulfill its obligations to provide Albemarle County and the City of Char-
lottesville with a Building Locator System to support Enhanced 911, the County
0003'19
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
had an opportunity to revise hardware and software specifications. After
several meetings between NDE, the City, the County, the University of Virgin-
ia, and emergency service providers, NDE demonstrated its product and submit-
ted a proposal which has undergone a detailed review. The proposal was
submitted as AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, AND GTE GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES INC., FOR A BUILDING LOCATOR
SYSTEM. A full copy of the amendment is on file in the Clerk's Office if
anyone wants to review it.
The approval of this amendment will.result in a net increase to the County
in the price of the original contract ($331,392) of $25,329.70. The total
contract price subject to the approval of this amendment will be $403,964.20.
The additional $25,329.70 that represents the County's share of this contract
amendment will be paid from 911 revenues as part of the project and will
result in a much more useful geographic mapping system than what technology
would support back in 1991 when the original contract was signed. The change
in hardware and software specifications will benefit the City and County in
that there will have a system which will more adequately meet the short term
needs to support Enhanced 911 and long term goals for future enhancements to
the system. In addition, the proposed system will enable the us to address
issues raised by City staff concerning system maintenance in a multi-user
environment which was lacking under the previous system configuration. Staff
recommends that the County Executive be granted authority to sign and date the
referenced amendment.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to authorize the
County Executive to sign Amendment Number Two to the Agreement Between
Albemarle County, Virginia and GTE Government Information Services, Inc., for
a Building Location System. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. 10:30 A.M. Public Hearing on a request from Char-
lottesville Oil to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to extend sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcels 77 and 80B,
located on Route 250 West. (Defer until August 3, 1994).
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer this item
until August 3, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10 ~.nn ~ ~
....
.or a ..... salary
This item was removed from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Policy on mandatory connection to
Albemarle County Service Authority public water and sewerage systems.
Mr. Cilimberg said for some time the requirement for connection to public
utilities has existed through the operation of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. If property was within the service area of the Albemarle County
Service Authority and the development was reasonably accessible to the public
utility, then it was a requirement that it connect. In the past waivers of
that requirement have been granted by the Planning Commission. Staff dis-
cussed this situation with the County Attorney, the County Executive and the
Executive Director of the ACSA. Mr. Brent of the ACSA said the Service
Authority Board had indicated a willingness to amend its rules and regulations
to require that new construction adjacent to an existing water or sanitary
sewer line connect to such line. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is recommending
that the Board authorize the ACSA to adopt a policy of mandatory connection
for new development only and to amend County rules to comply with this
requirement as a condition of approval under the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances. The staff also identified several circumstances that would be
reasonable for exemption.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a waiver provision for a hardship. Mr.
Cilimberg said language could be written into the policy. Mr. Bowerman said
he thinks there needs to be some provision where a person could show good
reason why he/she should not connect. Mr. Davis said the Service Authority
would have that authority and would be the administrators of the regulation.
The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances would state that the person would have
to comply with the Service Authority requirements for new construction. Mr.
Bowerman asked who would make the determination of the waiver request; the
Service Authority Board or Mr. Brent's office. Mr. Davis said it could be
done either way. Mr. Bowerman said he is agreeable as long as there is a way
to deal with specific circumstances.
000 3 0
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to authorize the
Albemarle County Service Authority to adopt a policy for mandatory connection
for new development only and amend County rules to comply with this require-
ment as a condition of approval under the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances.
The Service Authority would also be allowed to grant exemptions to this
requirement under the following circumstances:
1. Cases where an adequate private system already exists due to
pre-existing development, such as in the case of a house being
rebuilt due to a fire or other physical problem.
2. Cases where the cost of connecting to the public system (ex-
cluding tap fees) greatly exceeds the cost of providing on-
site water and/or septic (usually due to physical con-
straints).
3. Cases where the Service Authority has no available capacity.
The Board also asked that some type of waiver procedure be developed.
This policy is to be brought back to the Board for a public hearing.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris~ Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Resolution of Intent - Amendments to Develop-
ment Review Fees.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board rejected a prior Zoning Ordinance amendment
which would have allowed it to reduce fees in a particular case based on
certain criteria. The Board directed staff to develop amendments under which
fee reduction would be implemented at staff level and cited the following
three specific circumstances:
1. Family division under Virginia Code applies to subdivision, not zoning
matters. Staff previously recommended that special criteria be
developed in the zoning ordinance when a request for a special use
permit for additional lots in the Rural Area resulted from a proposed
family division. The Board did not direct pursuing such amendments.
Criteria for review remains the same for family division as for a lot
to be sold. Since review of a family division necessitating a special
use permit in the rural areas zone would be the same as for any other
review for additional lots, staff has no basis for preferential fee
other than to provide applicant relief. The proposed amendment would
provide a fee corresponding to "minor amendment to a zoning map
amendment." Language of the proposed amendment (35.0.a.1) would not
allow preferential fee to be available in cases in which the original
property was developed as a combination of family/for sale lots or for
a situation where the owner purchased with no development rights and
later proposed a family division.
2. Small addition to non-conforming churches and the like would be
treated in the same manner as "minor amendment to a valid special use
permit." Determination of minor amendment is currently an administra-
tive one and would also be so for small additions Should specific
criteria be desired, § 8.5.6.3 and § 32.3.8 may serve as guidelines.
3. Multiple fees would be addressed by addition of a new § 35.1, FEE
REDUCTION. It has become customary for many rezonings and special use
permits to be accompanied by site plan/subdivision plats. Currently,
due to overlay districts, multiple special use permits may be neces-
sary to establish an individual use (i.e.- flood plain and scenic
stream for a stream crossing).
Mr. Cilimberg said in accordance with the previous direction of the Board,
staff recommends adoption of the following resolution of intent to address
certain fee changes:
"The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, to serve the public neces-
sity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice has adopted
a resolution of intent to amend 35.0 FEES of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow fee reduction for uses that may be subject to multiple fees,
minor expansions to non-conforming uses and the like, and family
divisions that necessitate a special use permit."
Mr. Bowerman then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the
following resolution of intent:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in an effort to serve the public necessity,
convenience and general welfare, or good zoning practice, does
hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in Section 35.0, FEES, to allow fee reduction for uses
that may be subject to multiple fees, minor expansions to noncon-
forming uses and the like, and family divisions that necessitate a
special use permit.
00032 -
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance,
and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommenda-
tion to this Board at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Martin said, personally, he still thinks the Board need to find a way
to waive fees when it wants to for whatever reason it wants to.
Mr. Davis said when this amendment comes back to the Board for public
hearing, the Board needs to take action on ZTA-94-04. The Board indicated
that this be included in the staff report.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17a. Request to set public hearing for August 3, 1994, to
amend the County Code in the following section: Chapter 15, Personnel,
Article I, In General, § 15-1, to add the Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue Group and
the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division, as additional organizations deemed
to be an integral part of the safety program of the County.
Mr. Tucker said State law § 15.1-136.1 of the Code of Virginia provides
state death benefits for members of designated public safety groups in
counties where the governing body has, by ordinance, recognized these groups
as being necessary in carrying out an integral safety program for the County.
Once recognized by ordinance of the county, any career or volunteer member of
a designated organization or department killed in the line of duty is then
eligible to receive a $25,000 state death benefit which then triggers a
$50,000 federal line-of-duty death benefit.
Section 15-1 of the County Code provides for the designation of those
public safety organizations. Staff has received a request from the State
Department of Emergency Services to add, retroactively, the Blue Ridge
Mountain Rescue Group to that list. This organization is a 501-C(3) organiza-
tion formed to provide volunteer search and rescue services as a part of the
larger Appalachian Search and Rescue Conference, a licensed emergency medical
service provider for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Volunteer search and
rescue teams provide an invaluable service in coordinating and providing
manpower for very difficult and often extended search and rescue operations
throughout the Commonwealth and adjacent jurisdictions. The Blue Ridge
Mountain Rescue Group has its registered office for the corporation at Newcomb
Hall Station in Charlottesville and is comprised largely of University of
Virginia students, both undergraduate and graduate. The majority of these
volunteers are also members of our local volunteer rescue squads and, in that
way, are providing other valuable services to county residents.
On May 3, 1994, Ms. Lisa Hannon, a member of the Blue Ridge Mountain
Rescue Group was killed in an automobile accident near Winchester, Virginia,
while returning from a search and rescue operation just over the West Virginia
state line. Ms. Hannon was serving as an Incident Commander for the search
and rescue of a missing five-year old child and was responding at the request
of the West Virginia State Police through the Virginia Emergency Operations
Center.
Mr. Tucker said due to a technicality in the State Code, members of
volunteer search and rescue teams who are responding at the state's request
are not covered under the state or federal line-of-duty act unless their
organization has been recognized by a county, city or town pursuant to § 15.1-
136.1 of the Code of Virginia. The State Department of Emergency Services has
approached the County to recognize the Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue Group so as
to provide this line-of-duty coverage to Ms. Hannon's beneficiaries. An
Attorney General's opinion dated May 18, 1994, to Mr. Addison E. Slayton, Jr.,
State Coordinator, Department of Emergency Services, acknowledges that prior
opinions of the Attorney General have allowed a resolution or ordinance
recognizing an organization after a decedent's death making the incident
eligible for line-of-duty benefits. The opinion also indicates that the line-
of-duty act applies in the case of a death outside the jurisdiction of the
organization whether in or out of the Commonwealth, and further acknowledges
that the local government does not assume legal liability for the operation of
the organization by virtue of adoption of such ordinance.
As an extra precaution, staff suggests adding the County Fire/Rescue
Division to the list since they are now being asked to provide technical
expertise at the scene of large fires and hazardous materials incidents.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board authorize the advertise-
ment of a public hearing for August 3, 1994, to amend § 15-1 of the County
Code of Albemarle to add the Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue Group as an additional
organization deemed to be an integral part of the safety program of the
County, retroactive to October 8, 1993, the date of incorporation of the
organization as certified by the State Corporation Commission. Staff further
recommends that the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division be included in the
amendment effective retroactively to their inception date of January 1, 1993.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded, by Mr. Martin, to set a public
hearing for August 3, 1994, to consider an amendment to Chapter 15, Personnel,
000322
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Article I, In General, § 15-1, to add the Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue Group and
the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division, as additional organizations deemed
to be an integral part of the safety program of the County. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17b. Request to set public hearing for August 3, 1994, to
amend the County Code in the following section: Chapter 11, Licenses, Article
I, In General, § 11-12, to require all personal property and transient
occupancy taxes be paid prior to issuance of a business license.
' ~ Mr. Tucker said the Code of Virginia in § 58.1-3700 was amended by the
1993 General Assembly to expand enforcement techniques available to local
governments. This amendment would expand our Ordinance to adopt the same
enforcement tools allowed by the State. Currently, the County cannot withhold
the issuance of a business license when the taxpayer has delinquent personal
property taxes. This amendment would require all personal property and
transient occupancy taxes be paid prior to the issuance of a business license.
It is estimated that this amendment would increase personal property revenues
by $15,000.
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for August 3, 1994 to
consider the attached ordinance amendment.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a public
hearing for August 3, 1994, to consider amending Chapter 11, Licenses, Article
I, In General, § 11-12, to require all personal property and transient
occupancy taxes be paid prior to issuance of a business license. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.'
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17c. Request to set public hearing for August 3, 1994, to
amend the County Code in the following section: Chapter 8, Finance and
Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property--In General, § 8-68 and 8-69, to
extend proration of personal property Taxes to boats and trailers.
Mr. Tucker said proration of motor vehicles was originally adopted for tax
year 1991 and thereafter. At that time, it was not adopted for boats and
trailers due to the complexity of administration. Proration has been effec-
tive for three full tax years. Procedures have developed sufficiently to
extend proration to both boats and trailers. This will make our Ordinance
consistent with proration as authorized by the Code of Virginia. Additional-
ly, taxpayers are frequently confused when classes of personal property are
taxed differently. Revenues are estimated to increase $10,000 to $20,000 per
year as a result of this amendment. The requested amendments would be
effective January 1, 1995 for the 1995 tax year and thereafter. Staff
recommends that a public hearing be set for August 3, 1994 to amend § 8-68 and
8-69 of the County Code per the attached draft.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public
hearing for August 3, 1994, to consider amending Chapter 8, Finance and
Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property--In General, § 8-68 and 8-69, to
extend proration of personal property taxes to boats and trailers. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17d. Request to set public hearing for August 3, 1994, to
amend the County Code in the following section: Chapter 19.1, Water and
Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, § 19.1-5 and 19.1-6,
to add a grandfather clause for the building setback restrictions for parcels
recorded prior to July 11, 1990, and to modify the definition of sewage
disposal system.
Mr. Tucker said the Runoff Control Ordinance applies to all construction
projects in the watershed of a public water supply impoundment. The ordinance
requires setbacks from perennial and intermittent streams. It also requires
runoff control measures for development that creates impervious cover on
greater than five percent of a parcel. The ordinance was adopted in 1980.
The ordinance required setbacks for sewage disposal systems only. These
setbacks were 100 feet from tributary streams and 200 feet from the flood
plain of a drinking water reservoir. This ordinance contained a grandfather
clause for plats recorded prior to October 22, 1980. This clause allowed the
Runoff Control Official to allow encroachments of sewage disposal systems into
a setback under certain conditions and with mitigation as deemed necessary.
The grandfather clause ensured that the Ordinance did not create a regulatory
"taking" for parcels recorded prior to ordinance adoption on which the
setbacks eliminated a buildable area. The ordinance contained no definition
of what constitutes a sewage disposal system.
000323
July 6, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
The Runoff Control Ordinance was amended on July 11, 1990. Among the
changes was the addition of § 19.1-6(a)'(3)~ This section requires structures
subject to the Uniform Statewide Building Code to abide by the same setbacks
that apply to sewage disposal systems. The amendment also added a definition
for sewage disposal system (§ 19.1-5). The definition includes ,,plumbing,
piping and fixtures" as components of a sewage system requiring the setback.
The 1990 amendment did not contain a grandfather clause for plats recorded
prior to July 11, 1990. The result is that the building setback is retroac-
tive on plats recorded prior to July 11, 1990. This could arguably constitute
a regulatory taking if the building setback renders such a lot unbuildable.
At least one lot at the Emerald Ridge Subdivision appears to be unbuildable
due to the retroactive building setback, and this situation is possible with
other lots in the Runoff Control area.
One solution to the problem at Emerald Ridge and similar future issues in
the Runoff Control area is to amend the Runoff Control Ordinance to add a
grandfather clause for the building set back restrictions for parcels recorded
prior to July 11, 1990. Such an amendment would parallel the wording for the
grandfather clause regarding sewage disposal systems that applies to parcels
recorded prior to October 22, 1980. The clause would allow the Runoff Control
Official to authorize structures that require a building permit to encroach in
a Runoff Control setback under certain conditions and with mitigation for
water quality impacts.
An amendment would also have to modify the definition of sewage disposal
system. Specifically, plumbing, piping, and fixtures would have to be removed
from the definition, as these components predispose a house as being part of a
sewage disposal system. A proposed definition would include septic tanks,
flow splitting devices and drainfield lines as components of a sewage disposal
system.
Mr. Tucker said staff requests the Board authorize the advertisement to
amend the Runoff Control Ordinance in conformance with the language in the
attachment for the August 3, 1994 Board meeting.
Mrs. Thomas offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set a public
hearing for August 3, 1994, to consider amending Chapter 19.1, Water and
Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, § 19.1-5 and 19.1-6,
to add a grandfather clause for the building setback restrictions for parcels
recorded prior to July 11, 1990, and to modify the definition of sewage
disposal system. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None. '
Agenda Item No. 1Sa. Appropriation: Commonwealth Attorney's Office -
$7,200 (Form #930081).
Mr. Tucker said the Commonwealth Attorney's office is funded primarily by
the State Compensation Board. This office will be over-expended on June 30,
1994, based on current appropriations. Thisoverexpenditure will result
primarily from the resignation of one of the assistant attorneys who had
accumulated leave requiring a final pay-off of $7200. The Compensation Board
approved an additional allowance of $6,461.60 for this expense.
Mr. Tucker said approval of the additional appropriation of $7200 as
detailed on the attached appropriation Form #930081 is requested.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution of appropriation in the amount of $7200 for additional funding
for the Commonwealth's Attorney's office. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94
NUMBER: 930081
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMONWEALTH
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100022010110000
REVENUE
SALARIES-REGULAR TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$7,200.00
$7,200.00
AMOUNT
2100023000230101
2100051000510100
COMP. BOARD-SALARIES
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$6,461.60
738.40
$7,200.00
000~24
July 6, 1994 (Regular DaY Meeting) (Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 21. APpointments.
Mr. Martin offered motion, Seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to appoint Mr. Michael
Matthews, Jr., to the Joint Airport Commission, with said term beginning on
December 1, 1994, and expiring on December 1, 1997; to reappoint Mr. William
Kehoe to the Joint Airport Commission, with said term to expire on December 1,
1997; and to appoint Mr. Raymond E. Gaines, to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals
and the Fire Prevention Board of Appeals, with said terms to expire on
November 21, 1999.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to reappoint Mr.
John Hood to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Fire Prevention Board of
Appeals, with said terms to expire on November 21, 1999. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22.
BOARD.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Martin asked for a status report on the Meadow Creek Parkway study.
Mrs. Thomas asked if anyone from staff is attending the Shenandoah
National Park Service symposium. Mr. Tucker said he would check with the
Parks and Recreation staff.
Mrs. Thomas referred to a letter dated June 9, 1994, from Mr. John Gaines,
President, Albemarle County NAACP, to Chief Miller, and said his concerns
should be discussed at some point.
Mr. Perkins said he would be absent from the next two meetings.
Mrs. Humphris asked that a set of the aerials that Mr. Hodge used during
his presentation be placed in the Planning Department.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a cover story on Mrs. Thomas in Virginia Business,
and said it was an excellent article.
Mrs. Humphris expressed concern about the notification of a public forum
on the state's plan for historic preservation which was held in City Hall.
When she called around Piedmont Environmental Council was the only organiza-
tion which indicated that it had received a flyer in the mail about the
hearing. Neither the Albemarle Historical Society or Citizens for Albemarle
had received any notice. There were only a few people in attendance. There
was one staff person from the County's Zoning Department, one Albemarle County
citizen and several City citizens. Everyone was pretty angry that nobody had
been informed before hand. She does not feel that adequate notification was
provided and she thinks the department responsible for this should be contact-
ed and informed of this concern.
Mr. Marshall commended the Parks & Recreation Department for the mowing on
Route 20 South, from Route 53 to the City limits. The area really looks good.
Mrs. Thomas said apparently different segments of the state have different
standards as to how often the Highway Department cuts the grass. The stan-
dards around Williamsburg are different than in this area. She asked staff to
find out if there is some way for the Charlottesville area to have the same
standards as Williamsburg, which may allow more careful grass cutting around
the entrance corridors.
Agenda Item No. 23.
Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Cha i rman