Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-17February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) M.B. 43, Pg. 177 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 17, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Char- lotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter Fo perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Develop- ment, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silenbe. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Don Wagner, representing the North Charlottesville Business Council, presented a statement concerning the National Highway System (NHS) and the inclusion of the Route 29 North bypass route in the NHS. He asked the Board to study the issue carefully and direct its appointed representatives on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Committee to vote in the best interest of the whole community. Mr. Wayne Ferguson presented a petition, on behalf of Langford Farms Subdivision, requesting the Board to fully fund the costs of road improvements to bring Montgomery Lane (0.2 mile) and Pippin Lane (0.1 mile) into the State Secondary System of Highways. By letter of February 2, 1993, the County Engineer advised Langford residents that it would cost an estimated $22,000 to make the required improvements. Only $10,000 is available from the proceeds of a bond default provided by the subdivision's developers. According to the County Engineer, County policy provides for 50/50 cost sharing: the County would pay $6000 and the residents must pay the remaining $6000. Langford Farm residents object to this proposal and suggest that the County should assume responsibility for all of the costs. The residents contend that they have done everything within reason to get this work effectuated. The residents feel they are being asked to pay for work that they feel is due to negligence on the part of County staff. The Board requested staff to make a report at the March 3 meeting. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin to pull Items 5.1 and 5.10 for further discussion, approve Items 5.2, and 5.2a., and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Item No. 5.1. Draft letter dated February 12, 1993, from The Honorable David P. Bowerman, Chairman, to The Honorable Constance R. Kincheloe, Commis- sioner, Commonwealth Transportation Board, re: proposed Route 29 road pro- jects. Consensus of Board to pull this item and discuss with Agenda Item No. 12. Item No. 5.2. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for January, 1993, were approved, as presented, by the vote shown above. Item No. 5.2a. Resolution to take Meadowfield Lane and Meadowfield Way in Meadowfield Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. The Board adopted the following resolution, by the vote shown above: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept for maintenance, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Meadowfield Subdivision: February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) ........... M.B. 43, Pg. 178 Meadowfield Lane: Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the center- line of State Route 649 thence proceeding in a southerly direction 1130.26 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station 21+30.26. Meadowfield Way: Beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the center- line of Meadowfield lane thence proceeding in a n easterly direction 243.21 feet to the center of a cul-de-sac at station 7+56.79; and beginning at station 10+00 a point common with the centerline of Meadowfield Lane thence proceed in a westerly direction 777.28 to the center of a cul-de-sac located at station 17+77.28. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way, enlarging to a 55 foot radius at the cul-de-sacs and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1045, pages 236, 237; and Deed Book 981, pages 712 to 714. Item No. 5.3. Copy of Piedmont Virginia Community College Annual Report for 1991-92, was received for information. Item No. 5.4. Copy of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1992, was received for information. Item No. 5.5. Letter dated January 28, 1993, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr., State Location and Design Engineer, Department of Transportation, advising that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the location and major design features of the Route 691 project (#0691-002-234, C-501) for intersection improvements at the intersection of Route 240 and High Street (Route 1204). Mr. Cochran noted that improvements to the intersection at Route 1204 will be limited to the turning radius, and utilities at the intersections will be placed underground to minimize the impacts. Received for information. Item No. 5.6. Letter dated January 25, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, advising that roads in Willoughby, Section 4, were added to the Secondary System of Highways, effective January 13, 1993, was received for information, as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated December 9, 1992, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved effective January 21, 1993: ADDITIONS: LENGTH WILLOUGHBY, SECTION 4 Route 1129 (Fielding Drive) - From Route 1130 to 0.13 mi East Route 1130 0.13 Mi. Route 1128 (Chandler Court) - From route 1129 to 0.07 mile North Route 1129 0.07 Mi. Route 1127 (Towler Place) - From Route 1129 to 0.04 mile North Route 1129 0.04 Mi." Item No. 5.7. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 26, 1993, was received for information. Item No. 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for November 23, 1992, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. Quarterly Report of JAUNT's services and expenditures from October 1 through December 31, 1992, was received for information. Item No. 5.10. Memorandum dated February 11, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Commission on Population Growth and Development, was received for information. Mr. Bain requested this item be pulled for discussion later in the meeting. February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) M.B. 43, Pg. 179 Item No. 5.11'. Memorandum dated February 12, 1993, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, re: ZMA-78-15, Airport Industrial Park, was received for information, as follows: "The University Real Estate Foundation is pursuing development of the Airport Industrial Park (now titled North Fork Business Park). During their preparation of road plans it became evident that Agreement 8 of ZMA-78-15, which rezoned the site to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park, could not be fully complied with due to the entrance road's required entrance point on Route 649. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that disturbance of the buffer on the east side of the property be permitted. The preliminary road plans indicate the minimum depth of the buffer as 20 feet at the entrance road intersection and that the full buffer can be achieved 295 feet back into the site. Staff opinion is that disturbance of this buffer is necessary to establish access on Route 649 because of sight distance require- ment. Staff notes that the plan submitted with ZMA-78-15 indi- cated disturbance of the buffer on the west side of the property (this disturbance will not occur with the realignment). Agreement 8 of ZMA-78-15 allows for the requirement of additional plantings by staff. Based on the entrance location requirements, staff's ability to require landscaping and the expected disturbance of the buffer on the west side of the property in the approval for ZMA-78-15, I am able to authorize the applicant's request as consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 8.5.63, Variations from Approved Appli- cation Plans." Item No. 5.12. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond and Program Report for the months of November and December, 1992 and January, 1993, were received for information. Item No. 5.13. Memorandum dated February 17, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Article, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Bowerman said there are a couple of times a year the Board has an opportunity to thank citizens who have served on various boards, commissions and committees. These certificates of appreciation are a small token of the Board's appreciation for the work the individuals have done. Mr. Bowerman said seven persons served on the Albemarle County Housing Committee. The members came together with different ideas about the problems of affordable housing and about the ways to solve those problems. The Committee shared the concern for the future well-being of the County as a diverse whole. Out of this concern and the respect they developed for each other's points of view, through many hours of discussion and community input, came a report which is currently before the Planning Commission. While Committee members were urban and rural, business people and social service providers, liberals and conservatives, and everything in between, they used those differences constructively to work out a plan to meet the housing needs of a wide spectrum of the County citizens. The Board, Planning Commission and community appreciates the work that was done. He then presented Certificates of Appreciation to the following Committee members: Kevin Cox, Virginia Greenwood, Forrest Kerns, Tom Jenkins, Karen Lilleleth (Chairperson), Burton Webb and Ellen Andersen. Mr. Bowerman next presented Certificates of Appreciation to Doris Davis and Ted Gardner for their service on the Social Services Board. Ms. Davis and Mr. Gardner both served ten years on the Social Services Board. In addition, Ms. Davis served as Chairperson from January 1990 through December 1992. Ms. Davis and Mr. Gardner were active members at all meetings. At the last meeting Ms. Davis and Mr. Gardner said they had originally wanted to serve on the Board to try to clean up the mess in welfare and was very surprised that the welfare mess is just myths. This Board appreciates the work these two people have done. Mr. Bowerman then presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mary Mikalson for her service on the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board. Ms. Mikalson has been an active and supportive member of the Library Board since her appointment and has willingly given of her time to participate in the Board and Library activities. Ms. Mikalson served as Vice-President and was at all times a thoughtful and supportive Board member. This Board appreciates Ms. Mikalson's for her years of dedicated service. Mr. Bowerman presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. John Lowry for his service on the Joint Airport Commission. Mr. Lowry served the Airport Commission with distinction for six years including two terms as Chairman. February 17, 1993 (Regular Night (Page 4) M.B. 43, Pg. 180 During his period of active participation, many changes were brought about. These included the successful completion of a major bond issue by the Airport Authority, the planning and construction of a beautiful new terminal building, a major upgrading of the general aviation facilities, including construction of a new hanger, a restructuring of the management relationship with a fixed base operation and most recently a complete revision and updating of the airport minimum standards. Through all of this Mr. Lowry's fine mind, quick wit and ready smile have been greatly appreciated by all members of the Commission. Mr. Bowerman again thanked all the individuals members for their service to the County and community. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-92-63. 1781 Productions~ Ltd. (Deferred from December 9, 1992.) Mr. Bowerman stated that the applicant is requesting withdrawal. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded Mrs. Humphris, to accept the applicant's request for withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing to solicit input on local community development and housing needs and potential projects in relation to Community Development Block Grant funding for a project in the County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 10, 1993.)' Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The following five projects were identified in the report as possible projects for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding: 1) Housing Rehabilitation-Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), 2) Crozet Community Improvements, 3) Emergency Medical Service in Scottsville, Agricultural Center/Farmer's Market and 5) Scottsville Community Improvements. At this time a request from AHIP is the only request for County sponsorship. Mr. Cilimberg said the County's use of CDBG funds over the last five years has been dedicated to housing rehabilitation projects either through AHIP or the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation, and most recently, for the development of the new affordable housing construction at Crozet Crossing. He will provide a recommendation at the end of the public hearing on possible projects to pursue. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Director of AHIP, came forward. Ms. Tapscott said AHIP is currently involved with a CDBG with the County, and is in the process of completing 36 rehabilitations from a $500,000 grant. AHIP's waiting list has continued to grow, which means there is still a substantial need in the community. AHIP is able to combine block grant funding with other funding sources. Ms. Tapscott said AHIP has put together a proposal that addresses disadvantaged families living in sub- standard housing in the County. She hopes the Board will give AHIP's proposal serious consideration. Since no one else came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends the Board support AHIP's rehabili- tation project for consideration of block grant funding for public hearing. Mrs. Humphris asked about a planning grant for Crozet water and sewer. Mr. Cilimberg said that can be included as a possible project to pursue as a second choice. It is his understanding that the County cannot apply for a community improvement grant and a planning grant. Mr. Perkins asked about the agricultural center/farmer's market. Mr. Cilimberg said it is difficult to justify that type project as having a low- to-moderate income benefit. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to support Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) rehabilitation housing project for consideration of Virginia Community Development Block Grant funding for public hearing (date for public hearing not determined at this time). As a second project, pursue a planning grant for Crozet community improvements. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) M.B. 43, Pg. 181 Mr. Marshall asked about possible Scottsville community improvements. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has recommended that the Town of Scottsville pursue a grant for that purpose. Mr. Tucker suggested staff communicate with the Mayor of the Town of Scottsville to make him aware of grants that are available that the Town may wish to pursue at some time in the future. Board members concurred. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-93-01. Trinity Presbyterian Church. Public Hearing to amend condition of SP-91-16 to allow add'l grading on site. Property of 17.54 acs zoned Res & EC is located on S sd of Reservoir Rd (Rt 702) approx. 3/10 mi W of inters with Rt 29/Rt 250 Bypass. TM76,Ps17C&17Cl. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The applicant is proposing to amend condition #4 of SP-91-16 which states "Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary for the installation of the modular classrooms." SP-91-16 was a request to allow two modular classrooms at the rear of the church building. The purpose of this amendment is to allow for the grading of a portion of the site behind the church. The applicant has provided a description and justification for the proposed grading stating: "To provide an area to be used as a playing field and future parking area if church expansion occurs. In addition, a permanent stormwater detention basin will be constructed in order to control this site. The church currently has very little space adequate for any outdoor activities. The filling in of this swale will provide for a playing field as well as eliminate a potential dangerous area adjacent to the children's playground." Mr. Cilimberg said staff reviewed this request for consistency with the conditions of SP-91-16 and recommends approval. This activity should have limited impact on adjacent areas and will provide for limited recreational areas. Staff recommends condition #4 of SP-91-16 be modified with the wording contained below: "1. Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which shall not be larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet; The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on Attachment C initialed WDF and dated May 6, 1991; 3e A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until connection to public sewer has been completed; and Clearing of trees shall be limited to that ncccss~ry for tkc .............. c .... c ............ a~srccmz shown on a site an titled Trinity Presbyterian Church, revised 1/7/93 and initialed WDF, 1/14/93." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-93-O1, to modify condition #4 as recommended by staff. Mr. Bain said he is concerned about what did not come before the Board regarding this application. The Zoning Administrator determined that the grading was a minor site plan amendment which will result in tremendous visibility from Route 29 South. He expressed concern because this property lies in the Entrance Corridor, and he thinks the issue should be discussed since it could occur in other corridors. He is not concerned about the use on the property, but is concerned about the visibility. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Tom Muncaster, representing the applicant, said he had no additional comments. He is present with other members of the church to answer any questions Board members may have. Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve SP- 93-01 to modify condition #4 of SP-91-16 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman~ Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Approval is for two modular classrooms each of which shall not be larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet; February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) M.B. 43, Pg. 182 The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on Attachment C initialed WDF and dated May 6, 1991; A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until connection to public sewer has been completed; and Clearing of trees shall be limited to that shown on a site plan titled Trinity Presbyterian Church, revised 1/7/93 and initialed WDF, 1/14/93. Mr. Bain then requested staff to address the issue of grading in the Entrance Corridors during site plan review process, at the April 7, 1993 meeting. Agenda Item No. 10. 8P-92-28. Boxwood Lane Homeowners Assoc. Public Hearing for a cemetery on 22.43 acs zoned RA. Property on E sd of pvt rd approx 0.87 mi S of Plank Rd (Rt 692). TM85,P78. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The proposed cemetery is for bodies and cremated remains and is meant for only Miran Forest homeowners. The proposed site is located on an open space parcel. The proposed use will not affect adjacent properties and will not change the character of the district. Staff recommends approval of SP-92-28 subject to the following conditions: "1. Cemetery is for Miran Forest homeowners only. Cemetery is to be located as shown on the attached (on file) plat showing 'A' Pond Parcel and initialed WDF, 1/7/93; and 3. Staff approval of access easement to cemetery." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-28 subject to conditions #2 and #3 recommended by the staff. Mr. Bain asked what is the size of the cemetery area. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the applicant respond to that question. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. John P. Cove, repre- senting the applicant said the size of the parcel is one-quarter acre. He is present to answer any questions Board members may have. Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Since no one from the public came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP- 92-28 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martins Perkins and Bain. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Cemetery is to be located as shown on the attached plat showing "A" Pond Parcel and initialed WDF, 1/7/93; and 2. Staff approval of access easement to cemetery. Agenda Item No. 11. $P-92-65. Dr & Mrs. John K. Youel. Public Hearing to create a 27 lot rural preservation development on approx 333 ac zoned RA. Property located at end of Loftlands Dr which is on S sd of Rea's Ford Rd (Rt 660) approx 0.3 mi W of Earlysville Rd (Rt 743). TM31,Ps16A,22, 22A&23F. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The application is for a Rural Preservation Development consisting of 26 lots and one preservation tract to be served by private roads. This development requires a special use permit as it proposes more than 20 development lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant worked with staff over a substantial time period and provided all the information requested. Mr. Cilimberg said the four major elements for all decisions on rural development contained in the Comprehensive Plan are: 1) preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; 2) water supply protection; 3) limited February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) M.B. 43, Pg. 183 service delivery to rural areas; and 4) conservation of scenic and historical resources. In staff's opinion all elements have been successfully addressed by the design features of the proposed development. Staff opinion is that this request provides a favorable design alterna- tive to conventional development, and complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of Section 10.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-92-65 subject to the following conditions: "1. Development shall be in general accord with the plat titled "Loftlands Farm" revised January 4, 1993, and initialed WDF, 1/11/93; The following revision to the development may be permitted by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority: ae Not more than 33.02 acres may be deducted from the Preservation Tract. Deducted acreage may be added to Lots 25, 26 and/or 27; and The building site shown on the Preservation Tract may be allowed as a development lot provided that the balance of the Preservation Tract is added to Lot 25, 26 or 27 resulting in a Preservation Tract with a minimum acreage of 188.83 acres. This provision allows for transfer of the Rural Preservation Tract acreage to only one of the aforementioned lots; 3e Upgrading of Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III road as specified in the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Manual." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-65 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Ted Glass, representing McKee/Carson and the applicants, said he was present to answer any questions Board members may have. Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing. Ms. Lisa Lory, a resident of Loftlands Wood and Vice President of the homeowners association, said she is concerned about the effect of this proposal on the services in the area. It is her understanding that this area of the County is designated as a "no growth" area. She is concerned about the effect on Broadus Wood Elementary School. She is concerned about traffic. The only access to this property is down Loftlands Drive. There are 28 lots already fully developed in Loftlands Wood. She purchased her property adjacent to the end of the cul-de-sac about six months ago with the thought that she was buying on'a cul-de-sac and not in the middle of a large drive. There are 23 proposed additional lots. In addition, the private drive to the 23 lots goes over a dam. The homeowners association is still responsible for general maintenance of that dam. The homeowners do not think they should be responsible for the dam if problems occur while those additional lots are being developed, or after the subdivi- sion is built, since traffic will be going over the dam to the new develop- ment. Dr. John Youel, the applicant, said he invited the Loftlands Wood Homeowners Association to his home, back in December, and presented this project. Everybody present was supportive of the project. He tried to reassure the homeowners about two major concerns they raised. He has no problem with upgrading Loftlands Drive. The engineers have done their borings and testings, and the dam has proven to be adequate to support the road and the traffic. The fine print in the homeowners covenants and deed restric- tions, spells out clearly what the homeowners association responsibility is with regard to maintenance of the dam. There is a clause in the deed restrictions which states that if a developer builds a road across the dam, then the developer or the future homeowners would be responsible for any maintenance or problems of the dam related to the road. He assured Ms. Lory and the other homeowners that their concerns are covered and they are not liable if a problem with the dam does occur. Since no one else came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain expressed support for the proposed project. Mr. Marshall also indicated his support. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-92-65 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bain said he intends to bring up for discussion, some time at a future Board meeting, the issue of groundwater, the cost to get Geographic February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) M.B. 43, Pg. 184 Information Systems (GIS) and VPI to do a study on the availability of ground- water and the areas where there is likely to be~problems. Mrs. Humphris commented that a couple of years ago the Board discussed a law in Clarke County that allows them to require a well on a site before the building permit is issued. At one time the County was considering requesting similar legislation. Mr. Cilimberg said the County received enabling legis- lation to allow it to make that requirement. Staff is considering whether to pursue that and what to do about the groundwater study that was presented to the Board a couple of years ago. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks some action needs to be taken. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Development shall be in general accord with the plat titled "Loftlands Farm" revised January 4, 1993, and initialed WDF, 1/11/93~ The following revision to the development may be permitted by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority: mo Not more than 33.02 acres may be deducted from the Preservation Tract. Deducted acreage may be added to Lots 25, 26 and/or 27; and be The building site shown on the Preservation Tract may be allowed as a development lot provided that the balance of the Preservation Tract is added to Lot 25, 26 or 27 resulting in a Preservation Tract with a minimum acreage of 188.83 acres. This provision allows for transfer of the Rural Preservation Tract acreage to only one of the aforementioned lots; 30 Upgrading of Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III road as specified in the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Manual. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Designation of Roads for National Highway System (deferred from February 3, 1993). Mr. Cilimberg said the types of roads which qualify for the National Highway System (NHS) are interstates and principle arterials. All interstates and those big priority corridors identified by Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation are required to be part of the NHS. Congress designated 21 high priority corridors nationwide. Route 29, from Washington to Greensboro, North Carolina, is one of those corridors (the only one identified in Virginia). The proposed Route 29 Bypass is recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) to be designated as part of the NHS because it would ultimately become the route for through traffic movement. Its designation as part of the system would permit NHS funds to be used for planning/engineering and ultimate construction. Route 250 from the 1-64 interchange at Shadwell to the Route 29 interchange and 1-64 are the only other area roads designated for the NHS. In terms of impact to the County, NHS roads would likely be subject to higher design standards. NHS roads are intended to function in a manner similar to interstates; that is, designed for higher speeds and limited access. Under the ISTEA legislation there will be greater local input/control over transportation projects. However, for the NHS there will be less flexibility, particularly in terms of the level of improvements and the timing of those improvements. As far as can be determined, there will be no significant affect to the amount of funds available to the County based on roads designated for the NHS. Therefore, there is no significant benefit to having roads designated for the NHS. In fact, local input, discretion and flexibility in design would be lost on those roads. Mr. Cilimberg said the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Technical Committee, at its meeting on Thursday, February 11, 1993, reviewed the proposed NHS. After extensive discussion, the Committee recommended approval of the proposed map with the exclusion of the Route 29 North Bypass. The proposed bypass, as staff and the Committee understands it, is not required to be a part of the NHS. The basis of the Committee's recommendation was to maximize the opportunity for local input on and control of the design and character of the bypass. Mr. Cilimberg said in an attempt to get as many answers to questions as possible, the Committee talked to Mr. Mustain, a representative of VDoT in Richmond and its resident expert on the NHS. The Committee asked the February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) M.B. 43, Pg. 185 following questions which Mr. Mustain responded: 1) Does Route 29 need t° be a part of the NHS? Mr. Mustain's response: "Yes," because of its designation by Congress. 2) Does a future road, such as this bypass, need to be designated as part of the NHS. Mr. Mustain's response: "It does not" 3) Would the bypass, as a facility, be eligible for NHS funds as an improvement to the Route 29 North corridor if it were not so designated. Mr. Mustain's response: "It probably would, but it is somewhat uncertain now and debatable as to absolutely whether or not it would be eligible for NHS funding if not shown. 4) How will the local input process be handled on for the NHS? Mr. Mustain was somewhat uncertain but the expectation is that the process will be handled much the same way as primary road construction projects are now handled, i.e, public hearings, staff involvement, field review, etc., but the decisions are vested with VDoT. 5) Did he have any knowledge of what design standards would be? Mr. Mustain response: "No," not at this time. Mr. Mustain thought the standards would not be interstate per se because that is not possible along all the segments of existing roads that were designated as part of the Congressional action or which will be included as part of the NHS. He did not have an answer as to exactly what the design standard would be for any portion of Route 29. Mrs. Humphris said the bottom line is that this designation does not change the amount of Federal funds that flow to the State. Mr. Bain said it is clear to him that VDoT does not want local control maintained. If the bypass is put in the NHS, there will be no local control. Mrs. Humphris said there is an agreement that parallels exactly the phasing that was established by the Commonwealth Transportation Board as to the way everything should be done. She thinks this Board must maintain that agree at all costs. Going along with the NHS designation takes away local control and it buys this area absolutely nothing. There is no advan%age to the NHS designation. There is no requirement that any unbuilt road be included in the designation. There is no funding advantage to the desig- nation, Federal funds will be divided between NHS roads and Surface Transpor- tation Program (STP) roads. Even after allocated, NHS funds can be moved to the STP side of the allocation and vice versa. There will be opportunities to add roads to the NHS in the future. Virginia will have no problem in reaching its quota of road milage to be included in the NHS. All of this information has been confirmed. The bottom line is that there is no funding advantage to including the proposed bypass in the NHS. There is no reason for this Board to approve that designation because it will lose control. Mr. Cilimberg said if Route 29 is included in the designation, the County will lose its element of control as to design characteristics. He does not think whether the road is or is not included will have anything to do with it being built. He saw the MPO's action as a way to keep as much local control and influence as possible. The MPO Policy Board has just agreed to appoint a committee to look at the bypass as to how it should be designed character-wise, and how it should look and feel. Mr. Bowerman said he has talked to members of the Route 29 North Business Council, Board members and Ms. Kincheloe from VDoT. He senses that VDoT will build the bypass no matter what. VDoT does not care about the interchanges; their major priority is the bypass. If this Board and community does not look out for the agreement, as a whole, including the interchanges, Meadow Creek and all the other elements of the agreement, then it will lose its ability to influence carrying out the entire project. There is a sequence of events that must take place and they have to be done in certain phases. He believe that the interchanges are in Phase II of the agreement and they should be started before the bypass. He thinks that is all this Board is saying. VDoT is interested in building that bypass, therefore, it will get built. A misunderstanding by the public is that the Board's pushing of the interchanges will delay or thwart the bypass. Mr. Marshall asked why the Board is pushing for the interchanges as opposed to the bypass. Mrs. Humphris responded that if the interchanges are not built, the level of service on Route 29 North will be "F" which is the worst level. Mr. Marshall asked if the interchanges are built would this area lose the bypass because VDoT would then say the bypass is not necessary. Mr. Bowerman said the bypass will be built regardless. Mrs. Humphris said the $3.6 million study done by Sverdrup established that the only area road project that would significantly improve traffic conditions on Route 29 North is the building of the grade separated interchanges. The level of service on Route 29 at the critical intersections is an "F". If the bypass is added the level of service at those critical intersections remains an "F". The bypass does not do anything for Route 29 North traffic except move a measly 5000 cars per day in the year 2010 all the way from north and south to north and south. That traffic level is very low. In the meantime there are 60,000 cars sitting in grid lock on Route 29 without the interchanges. That is with the Meadow Creek Parkway and the bypass in place. The whole package as established by M.B. 43, Pg. 186 February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) the CTB and agreed to in the agreement is absolutely essential and should be essential to those businesspeop~e on Route 29. Mr. Bowerman said the design and location public hearings for the three interchanges have not been held. It is known that there will be significant impacts to some businesses, but those businesses will be compensated. There will be other businesses that will lose some right-of-way and will be affected. He thinks those businesses should be completely taken and not partially destroyed. Those are things that have to be dealt with on each interchange as the public hearings are held. Mr. Martin then asked what the Board is being asked to do. Mr. Bowerman responded that VDoT and the Route 29 North Business Council wants the Board to designate Route 29 Alternative 10 as part of the NHS. The Board took no action and there was no further discussion. At this time the Board went back to Item No. 5.1 from the Consent Agenda. The consensus of the Board was to authorize the Chairman to sign the following letter and to send a copy to the City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia, Secretary of Transportation, John Milliken and Jack Hodge, of the Department of Transportation: "I enjoyed the opportunity of seeing you at the Route 29 North Business Council meeting and sincerely appreciate your taking the time to make that appearance. I think that it was very helpful to have you discuss the State's plans and answer questions and concerns regarding the proposed Route 29 road projects. There was, however, one matter which you discussed that troubled me. In the question and answer session, you seemed to be saying that the only reason the grade-separated interchanges were included in the list of road projects was that there was an agreement between the City, the County and the University which VDOT confirmed. As you are aware, the $3.6 million Sverdrup study found that the building of the interchanges would improve the level of service (LOS) on Route 29 to a LOS 'B',' while the building of a bypass without the interchanges would leave the LOS at an 'F'. The VDoT staff recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) set forth the order of priorities, which included the build- ing of the interchanges in Phase II. The bypass was recommended by VDoT as a Phase III project, to be constructed 'at such time as traffic conditions along the Route 29 corridor become unacceptable and economic conditions permit.' In other words, the bypass would be built following the completion of Phases I and II, on an as- needed basis, if funds were available. Numerous'other documents issued by VDoT have also confirmed that order of priorities. After the release of the Sverdrup study, after VDoT's recommenda- tion for the phasing of projects, and after the approval of those projects by the CTB, the City, the County and the University signed an agreement concerning the Route 29 corridor projects, including the Meadow Creek Parkway. The agreement between the City, the County and the University parallels exactly the project phasing recommended by VDoT, approved by the CTB and supported by Sverdrup's study. Based upon your comments at the meeting and the comments made by Mr. Hodge which appeared in the local newspaper last week~ you seem to be suggesting that the interchanges may be dropped if a number of people show up at a proposed future public hearing and complain. The interchanges were approved in the same CTB resolu- tions which approved the conditional construction of a bypass and should not be relegated to some lesser status, especially when the traffic studies indicate the interchanges are the key ingredient to successful traffic flow on Route 29 in the urban area. In fact, public hearing comments were obtained on all of the Route 29 corridor projects in 1990 before the CTB resolutions were adopted. As the attached table from the VDoT staff report to CTB dated October 4, 1990 indicates, 205 citizens favored building the interchanges and 16 were opposed; 51 citizens favored building a bypass and 3212 were opposed. Should we now tell bypass opponents that, even if all of the preconditions for bypass construction contained in the CTB resolutions and our agreement are met, the bypass won't be built if they complain loud enough? You also mentioned at the meeting that the construction of side- walks along Route 29 would not be possible if the interchanges were built. In speaking with my staff and with members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, it has been reported to me that VDoT has consistently taken the position that sidewalks are February 17, 1993 (RegUlar Night Meeting) Page 11 M.B. 43, Pg. 187 not compatible'with Route 29 in the County area without grade- separated interchanges, in the absence of the interchanges, pedestrian crosswalks and'~destrian signal delays would cause the LOS to decline significantly. With the interchanges, there would be no need for crosswalks or signal delays on the main road. There are overpasses and bridges with sidewalks all over the country, including Albemarle County. We have spent many years dealing with the problems of traffic in the Route 29 corridor and attempting to arrive at an acceptable solution. The County has been very opposed to a western bypass due to its potential impact upon the public water supply, schools, businesses and its neighborhoods. The City and the University had their own concerns, as did the Department of Transportation. After many years, we finally reached a solution which was accept- able to all parties, as evidenced by many documents, some of which are attached. Not coincidentally, our agreement is supported by the State's $3.6 million study. Albemarle County intends to adhere to its agreement. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, I would be happy to discuss them with you. And thank you for considering this important, matter." Agenda Item NO. 13. Request to adopt resolution supporting Regional Solid Waste Authority. Mr. Bain said he and Mr. Tucker have been meeting with representatives of the City of Charlottesville, surrounding counties and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to discuss the feasibility of either expanding the RSWA or creating a new regional solid waste authority that would encompass more localities than just Albemarle and the City. Provided for the Board is a resolution identifying localities that are serious about pursuing further discussion regarding a larger regional solid waste authority. Greene County has indicated that they are not interested in pursuing discussions. Nelson County and Louisa County are interested. Fluvanna County has not made a decision. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about shortening the life of the County's landfill by allowing these other localities to dump trash. Mr. Tucker said it would only shorten the life span by 2.3 months. Mr. Bowerman said he supports the resolution. The region has a better chance of working together to totally solve the problem. Mr. Marshall asked where is the $300,000 that was escrowed for the Keene transfer station. Mr. Tucker said that money is in a contingency account. Mr. Tucker explained that with the budget cycle the Board will be seeing all the various costs for closing a landfill and, specifically, the Keene Land- fill, including some of the costs for water monitoring and testing. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution supporting a Regional Solid Waste Authority. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson, the City of Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority agree that the disposal of solid waste and the recycling of recyclable goods are issues of great magnitude for all governments and their citizens; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid all recognize the potential economic benefit to each entity of working together to develop an efficient system; and WHEREAS, the counties of Fluvanna and Nelson have short term disposal needs; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority are able to meet the short term need for a disposal site; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle agree to accept the solid waste for the ensuing year from Nelson and Fluvanna counties; and February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 12 M.B. 43, Pg. 188 WHEREAS, the County of Louisa is interested in an efficient long term solution to solid waste management; and WHEREAS, all of the entities desire to develoP a cooperative method of resolving both the short term and long term issues; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle agrees to appoint a representative who, acting on its behalf, will meet in a full faith effort to develop a proposal under which localities and the Authority may join together in a new or expanded organization to manage solid waste; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the counties with short term disposal needs will pursue the possibility of contracting with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for landfilling of solid waste under mutually agreed upon terms; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all proposals put forth by the designated group will be discussed with the appointing entity, and subject to approval by the governing body. Agenda Item No. 14. Cable TV Access Center, Request additional funding for equipment costs for FY 1994. Mr. Tucker said earlier this year, the Board approved a $2000 appro- priation to the City to assist with equipment purchases for citizen cable TV access. The City has made a request for an additional $5000 in FY 1994 for equipment and some ongoing equipment costs. If the Board choose to support the request, he recommends that it use FY 1993 contingency funds Mrs. Humphris asked who will be monitoring use of the channel. Mr. Tucker responded that Adelphia Cable will be responsible for monitoring, training people and use of the equipment. Mr. Bowerman said he supports the request. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $5000 from the Board's FY 1993 Contingency Fund for equipment costs for the citizen cable TV access center. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO CABLE TELEVISION STUDIO EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100079000567305 1100011010999999 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CABLE TV-PUBLIC ACCESS BOS-CONTINGENCY TOTAL $ 5,000.00 (5,000.00) 0.00 Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation: Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary School. Mr. Tucker said at its meeting on January 11, 1993 the School Board approved a Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary School. The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Stony Point the grant in the amount of $250. Board approval of the appropriation is requested. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $250 for a Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary School. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TEACHER INCENTIVE GR3kNT FOR STONY POINT SCHOOL February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 13 M.B. 43, Pg. 189 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1221161101312500 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PROF. SERVICES INSTRUCTION TOTAL $250.00 $250.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200024000240238 TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT TOTAL $250.00 $250.00 Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriation: Scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment. Mr. Tucker said the Joint County/Town of Scottsville Selection Committee has selected the firm of Roudabush, Gale & Associates to perform the survey for the proposed Scottsville boundary line adjustment at a cost of $18,648. The County and Town will enter a joint contract with the Town of Scottsville funding this survey, and with the contract to be administered by the County Engineer. The survey should be completed within 100 days. He recommends approval of the appropriation request. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $18,648 to perform the survey of the proposed Scottsville boundary line. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 FUAID: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCOTTSVILLE SURVEY EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100011010312340 PROF. SERVICES-SURVEY TOTAL AMOUNT $18,648.00 $18,648.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100019000199924 RECOVERED COST-SCOTTSVILLE SURVEY TOTAL $18,648.00 $18,648.00 Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: February 19, March 11 (A) and November 11, 1992. Mr. Bain had read the minutes of February 19, 1992 (pages 11-22) and found them to be in order. Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of March 11 (A), 1992 and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of November 11, 1992 (pages 1-15) and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of November 11, 1992 (pages 16-25) and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, 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 Bain. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowerman asked that in the future, the Clerk not include as part of the minutes, anything that can be reproduced and used as an attachment to the minutes. Staff reports, etc., can be referenced as attachments. The consen- sus of the Board was to continue with the specificity of Board comments. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Perkins requested an update on the Crozet Crossing Housing project on March 3, 1993. Regarding Item No. 5.10 from the Consent Agenda, Mr. Bain asked for a staff analysis at the April 7, 1993 meeting on the Commission on Population Growth and Development. Mr. Bain asked when a report would be coming to the Board on cellular February 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 14 M.B. 43, Pg. 190 phone towers. Mr. Tucker said a report would be provided to the Board on March 3, 1993. Mr. Bain said he would like to have an executive session on legal matters to get an update on the police suit. Mrs. Humphris said at the last Jail Board meeting, it was brought up that it might be helpful if there were more coordination of communication systems between the Police Department, Sheriff, Joint Security Complex and City of Charlottesville. She asked for a consensus of the Board to request staff to move forward on that. Board members concurred. Mrs. Humphris commented that once again the Charlottesville-Albemarle's Technical Center's (CA-TECH's) open house conflicted with a Board meeting so she suggested that staff coordinate a tour, to include lunch, of the CA-TEC facility during a day meeting. Board members concurred. Mr. Marshall said it was recently brought to his attention, from people who were recently fined, that County ordinances relative to hunting laws are considerably different from the state and surrounding counties. He would like to see uniformity established. Mr. St. John said he has no problem with looking at County ordinances relative to hunting laws to see if they can be made more uniform with other counties in the Commonwealth. Not Docketed. At 9:26 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into Executive Session under Va. Code Section 2.1- 344.A.7 for legal matters to discuss and get an update on the Police Suit. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. At 10:00 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. MOTION: Mr. Bain SECOND: Mrs. Humphris MEETING DATE: February 17, 1993 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's know- ledge~ (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 Albe- marle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.