Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 06 81 PC MinutesApril 6, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Monday, April 6, 1981, from 4 to 6 p.m., in the Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. R. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner; Mr. Chris Devan of the Jefferson -Madison Regional Library; and Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Absent from the work session were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Mabe to inform the Commission of Mr. Massie's follow-up call after the work session of March 26, 1981, which clarified the figure of $22,000 cited for the Energy Conservation Project. Mr. Mabe stated that Mr. Massie had ascertained that the actual cost for each study was $2,500 and that the $22,000 figure pertained to retrofeeding and all of the improvements that the study had shown. VII. LIBRARIES of the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative. Mr. Devan of the Jefferson -Madison Regional Library stated that the Northside Branch had been requested previously and that no action had been taken on it. He added that the projected costs for such a branch were actually wild estimates ($65. per square foot) and that he had no realistic figure on actual cost. Mr. Devan stated that he would like the Commission to look over an excerpt from a publication entitled Modern Branch Libraries, in which a discussion on location of branch libraries is given. He added that the recommended best location for a branch library is the best available retail/commercial space. Mr. Devan observed that in the past libraries were located in parks, but that today the ideal location would for example be next to Miller and Rhodes in the Fashion Square Mall. He further stated that a location somewhere in between these two might be feasible, in terms of actual funds available. Mr. Devan continued, referring to recommendations made in Modern Branch Libraries, stating that it was preferable to wait and save until there were sufficient funds in order to get the right location. Mr. Devan said that according to current and projected population growth, a central location today would be at Rio Road and Route 29 North. He stated that future growth over the next fifteen to twenty years would be to the north. Mr. Devan described a mini -branch library located at White Oak Mall on I-64, beyond Dulles Airport. He stated that it was an enclosure within the Mall, operating strictly as a lending service, outfitted with revolving shelves, a non-professional staff, and offering no reference or children's program services. Mr. Devan said that the total cost to install this branch was $50,000 and that the space was donated, given free for a year or so. He stated that this branch does a huge business. Mr. Devan observed that a mini -branch of this nature might be an alternative, if the land for a branch were bought but construction were to wait for more funding. He said that such a mini -branch would alleviate some of the demand from the 29 corridor. Mrs. Diehl asked how Mr. Devan had reached the decision on locating a branch library, whether he was considering the ideal location for now or for the future, ten to fifteen years from now. Mr. Devan responded that it was needed ten years ago, but that locating a library at Rio Road and 29, in the Fashion Square, would serve for today and for the future. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the library board had considered renting space. Mr. Devan said that some informal inquiry had been made but that adequate space was not available, at the Fashion Square Mall. Mr. Mabe remarked that he had talked with the Manager at Fashion Square and been informed that not even 3,000 square feet were available. He added that costs would run from $.10 per square foot up to $25, with the sort of location desired probably running around $20 per square foot. Mr. Devan remarked that branch libraries in shopping centers have been quite successful and he offered some figures in support of this statement. A circulation of 200,000 volumes, which is comparable to Gordon Avenue, he said, represents 80,000 visits per year or 1,500 visits per week to the library. Mr. Devan stated that drawing this number of people into a shopping center weekly represents a great benefit to the shopping center and should be pointed out and used to justify a lower rental fee, perhaps, to a branch library. Mr. Bowerman observed that the Mall location seemed to make sense and would certainly represent less capital costs. Mr. Skove asked about County -owned land that might be appropriately used for a branch library. Mr. Tucker responded that the School Board owned land on Whitewood Road in the same general vicinity, but that based on Mr. Devan's recommendations this was a more residential area and not the prime commercial location desired. Mr. Tucker observed that there might be other shopping center space, such as Albemarle Square. Mr. Skove asked which areas would be served by this branch, whether other counties would participate. Mr. Devan replied that users would include residents of Greene and Louisa Counties. Mr. Skove asked whether the 8,000 square feet mentioned by Mr. Devan as the size of the proposed branch would take about one acre when parking was taken into account, or whether more space would be needed. Mr. Tucker concurred that these figures were accurate, about one acre with parking. Mr. Devan said that he was estimating serving a population of about 40,000 and providing parking for sixty cars. He said that this might be a high estimate and that it depended on where the branch were located. 7N3 M Mr. Skove questioned sharing the cost, if other counties were involved. Mr. Devan replied that since the building would be constructed in Albemarle County, on County land, the idea had been to request the monies from Albemarle, but that once open, this branch would collect its operating budget from all participating counties. Mr. Devan added that Gordon Avenue is supported by all four counties and the City. Mr. Cogan asked whether Mr. Devan had any reservations about leasing space rather than building a branch. Mr. Devan replied that he did not, that under certain circumstances it gave you greater flexibility to make a change. Mr. Cogan stated that it occurred to him that another alternative might be to have a third party construct a branch to library specifications and lease it over a long period of time at much less cost that $20 per square foot, as estimated at the Fashion Square. Mr. Devan said that this was essentially what was being done in Crozet. Mr. Kindrick pointed out that a careful study should be made before determining that leasing was the more viable solution. He suggested that a building after ten years would probably more than pay for itself. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the cost figure was just for construction of the building and did not include land cost. Mr. Devan replied that this was correct. Mr. Mahe returned to read from the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative, Scottsville Branch. Mrs. Diehl asked the status of this study. Mr. Devan responded that an architect is working on the plans now. Mr. Skove asked whether Buckingham residents use the Scottsville Library. Mr. Devan replied that they did not, that they were not in the library district. He added that Fluvanna and Buckingham residents could pay $12.50 annually for use of the library. Mr. Devan said that a few years ago Buckingham County had approached the library to explore the possibilities of joining the district. He said that the State had given permission but that no further indications had been forthcoming that Buckingham would join the district. Mr. Devan said that Fluvanna was within the district but had not indicated any desire to join. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any additional questions or comments. Since there were none, she thanked Mr. Devan for his time and for coming to the work session. 24�{ XI. UTILITIES of the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative. Mr. Mabe read this section from the Narrative and told the Commission that Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was present and would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might have concerning the Crozet interceptor or any other of the eight projects. Mr. Skove asked what the status was on Project Number Five, the water system storage and interconnection on Pantops. Mr. Williams responded that this project was in the final design stage and should be completed by summer, that the design plans should be ready by then. Mr. Skove asked how this project was being funded. Mr. Williams answered by revenue bonds. Mrs. Diehl asked when construction of this project was scheduled to be completed. Mr. Williams replied that hopefully it should be finished in 1982. Mr. Skove asked whether there had been any problems with the water. Mr. Tucker replied that there were none to his knowledge and that no projects had been held up due to water shortage or lack of pressure. Mr. Williams stated that there was adequate water for the present usage on Pantops, but that the critical need was for additional fire protection. He added that the current half -day storage of water was inadequate and that the proposed five million gallon storage tank would provide vital fire protection to the entire urban community, including downtown Charlottesville. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Williams whether this system was to hook up with another line south of the City. Mr. Williams replied that the description in the Narrative might be somewhat misleading. He stated that this summer the project would tie the transmission main to the South Rivanna system, but that it would be desirable in the long run to loop it to the Observatory system. Mr. Kindrick asked Mr. Williams what type of storage tank was planned. Mr. Williams replied that it would be steel, on the ground, and would float on line with the Observatory and South Rivanna tanks, so that being at the same elevation there would be no difference in pressure. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions. Mr. Skove asked whether the construction of this project would increase capacity in the Pantops area and thereby encourage further development. Mr. Williams replied that it would not necessarily encourage such development and that the purpose of its being built was not to serve development needs but a total community need. Z45 Mr. Williams added that the Pantops area would in all probability grow and need additional water. Mrs. Diehl inquired as to whether this system was sized to handle this projected growth. Mr. Williams replied that it was. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any additional comments or questions on any of the projects. Since there were none, Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Williams to give the Commission a briefing on the current status of the Crozet Interceptor. Mr. Williams stated to the Commission that during the past six months, at the request of his Board of Directors, he had filed a request for approval under the Federal Water Rbllution Control Act. He explained that under this Act the community could build the interceptor if it so chose, finance it locally, and then file for reimbursement. The State Water Control Board supported this request, Mr. Williams stated, and was sympathetic to our need. The Environmental Protection Agency turned down the request, at least in tone, Mr. Williams reported, saying that the request could not be approved as a prior approval request because it was a project of such magnitude. Mr. Williams said that the Environmental Protection Agency did, however, approve the lower segment of this project for prior approval and that his Board had authorized final design of this segment, consisting of approximately 5,000 feet of interceptor. Mr. Williams said that this segment is located in the Bellair area, up through Ednam, to where the University is planning to build a golf course. Mr. Williams further stated that financing arrangements were being made by the Board and reimbursement from Federal funds would be applied for when such were available. Mr. Williams informed the Commission that the EPA had taken unusual action in requesting that the State Water Control Board reevaluate its priorities with regard to the Crozet interceptor, since this project was viewed as so necessary. Mr. Williams stated that the Board was in the process of this reevaluation when President Reagan's budget cuts came through, posing another dilemma. He added that the interceptor ranks number nine in the State, a high priority, and has no further problems other than financing. Mr. Williams said that the State Water Control Board has indicated that should funds become available, this project could be moved into a position in the FY83-84 area, which would mean funds could be available in late 1982. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Williams thought that in the projected FY83-84 funds to be received, there would actually be funds for this project. Mr. Williams replied that he did believe there would be actual funds, although certainly a reduced amount. He compared the project to highway projects, saying that when seventy-five percent of the work has been completed, it is difficult to cease work and in all probability would be reactivated, although substantially reduced funds would be available. Mrs. Diehl asked how a reduction in funding might affect the priority status of this project. Mr. Williams replied that it would not really affect priority, that this project was ninth out of 200 and was one of the larger projects. Mr. Skove stated that it appeared more a question of when than if, with regard to this project proceeding. C-4(,o Mr. Williams concurred with Mr. Skove's opinion. Mr. Skove asked whether there -were any alternatives if Federal funds did not come through. Mr. Williams replied that there were: a treatment plant at Crozet or in Ivy could be built, although the operational cost and capital cost for such a facil- ity would-be quite high, especially if nutrient removal is involved. And Mr. Williams stated that nutrient removal would have to be involved if the reservoir were to be protected. He added that the State Health Department has been adamant about not wanting a treatment plant. Mr. Skove asked about the Health Department not allowing any more treatment plants in the Watershed. Mr. Williams responded that no more permanent treatment plants were allowed. Mrs. Diehl asked for an explanation on this position by the Health Department. Mr. Williams replied that one of the reasons was that the Health Department did not like to see any discharge of treated or untreated water into drinking water supply. He added that another was the economic aspect. Mr. Williams added that at this time there would be no significant increase in loading to the reservoir. Mrs. Diehl asked about Morton's reapplication for a permit to discharge, whether this application was due to the change in ownership, or proposed new treatments. Mr. Williams replied that lie believed it was the change in ownership. Morton was given the option of building its own sewage treatment plant or tieing into the regional system, by the State Water Control Board, Mr. Williams continued. Mr. Skove said that Morton would be constructing within the Watershed. Mr. Williams said that this was correct. Mr. Skove asked whether their joining the regional system would have a major impact.on the economic feasibility of the Crozet interceptor. Mr. Williams concurred that it would, since Morton's would be a significant customer. He added that the segment out Route 250 West had received prior approval and would be financed locally, principally through customers, including two developers, until such time as Federally reimbursed. Mr. Bowerman asked who these developers were. Mr. Williams replied Ednam and Boars Head. Mr. Skove asked whether failure to get financing and actually construct the Crozet interceptor would adversely affect the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant project, should the interceptor project actually not proceed. Mr. Williams replied that it would not necessarily affect the Wastewater Treatment Plant project, which involved the Crozet/Ivy community, and would still be a feasible project in itself. 247 Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions on the interceptor. Mr. Williams stated that he would try to keep the staff informed of any changes or developments concerning this project. He added that currently there was a substantial movement taking place to use some of the funds that other states turned back in. Mr. Williams said that currently the law does not permit this. He also stated that this attempt to allocate the leftover funds was unpredictable at this point as to possible success. Mr. Skove asked how long completing the interceptor would take, if EPA gave its approval. Mr. Williams estimated two years. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions on the Advanced Waste- water Treatment Plant. Mr. Williams stated that this project was on line this fall and should be completed by spring, 1982. Mr. Skove asked what the current capacity was, if the new plant would provide 15 million gallons per day. Mr. Williams replied seven and a half. He added that the new plant was projected to serve the area through 1995 - 2000. Mr. Skove remarked that this was allowing for substantial growth in the area. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the project was staying within budget. Mr. Williams replied that it was. Mr. Bowerman asked when the progress report on Buck Mountain Creek was expected. Mr. Williams responded that it was due out this month, and that the report would be made to the Board of Directors at a meeting on April 20, 1981, in the Basement Conference Room of City Hall. He added that the Commissioners were welcome to attend. Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Williams for attending the work session and providing the Commission with this information. V. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION of the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative. Mr. Mabe read this section from the Narrative, describing the first project, improvements to Hydraulic Road. Mr. Kindrick asked that the exact location of these proposed improvements be given. Mr. Tucker stated that the project would begin at Route 29 and taper back to Whitewood Road, involving a realignment of Lambs Road, so that it would tee in with Whitewood. Mr. Tucker added that he had heard late the previous week that additional money might be available to extend this segment. He said that another part of this project was an improvement of the intersection of Rio Road and Hydraulic at the Rock Store. Mr. Bowerman asked about the segment from the Bypass at 29 along Hydraulic. Mr. Tucker responded that it was included in the City's program and might be done at the same time. Mrs. Diehl asked about the "necessary priority" rating on this project. Mr. Mabe explained that it was so designated by Mr. Bailey. Mr. Skove asked about the $151,700 request. Mr. Tucker explained that this amount came out of the State's Secondary Road budget and represented the County's share, not County tax dollars. Mr. Mabe continued reading from the Narrative, describing the Georgetown Road Pedestrian Walkway. Mrs. Diehl asked what kind of walkway was planned. Mr. Tucker replied that an asphalt path through the trees was planned, the cheapest, not a curb and gutter or sidewalk. Mrs. Diehl expressed surprise that this project had a "deferrable priority" assignment. Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Bailey had designated these projects and that perhaps a delay was involved, due to the County's having to acquire additional right-of-way or to request easements. Mr. Tucker mentioned that Mr. Lindstrom had brought this project to the attention of the Board and he did believe that when funds were available, it was expected to begin. Mr. Tucker said that he would like to return to Mr. Skove's earlier question concerning the requested funds for Hydraulic Road. He stated that he believed that these were funds that the County had to come up with, beyond the State Secondary Road funds. Mr. Tucker explained that the County had to finance the bike paths, the bike trail from Georgetown Road to the school, the rights -of - way for sidewalks and that this was an agreement the State had with localities. Mr. Mabe added that this request had not been appropriated yet by the County, according to Mr. Ray Jones. Mr. Kindrick asked about the timetable on the Georgetown walkway. Mr. Tucker responded that in the Six -Year Plan of the Highway Department, this project was deferred to the end of the Plan or actually taken off by the Board. He stated that it was not considered a high priority. Mr. Mabe proceeded to the third project, the Secondary Road Six Year Plan. He read from the Narrative. IN9 Mr. Mabe pointed out on the exhibited map each of the twelve secondary roads involved in this project. When Mr. Mabe completed his presentation, Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the Secondary Road Six -Year Plan is reviewed every two years for budgetary reasons and that this fall Dan Roosevelt would be updating the current Six -Year Plan to present to the Commission with any changes. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any questions or comments. Mr. Skove asked about Fifth Street Extended, whether it was classified as a primary or secondary road. Mr. Tucker replied that it was under secondary roads, as 631, and its total realignment was way down the list, but should funding ever become available, this project would be moved up. VI. HOUSING of the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative. Mr. Mabe read from the Narrative, describing the two housing projects in this category. Mrs. Diehl asked for comments and questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Skove asked whether it had generally been a practice to favor dispursing low income -assistance housing throughout the County, such as grouping of six dwellings. Mr. Tucker replied that although it was not a stated or written policy on the part of the County, this general practice had been discussed and even suggested to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say that the Board has made comments in support of AHIP-type rehabilitation projects and would appear to prefer that sort of assistance as opposed to massive housing developments. Mr. Skove and Mr. Tucker agreed that there were some advantages to this policy. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS of the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative. Mr. Mabe read from the Narrative and asked Mrs. Diehl to comment on the first project, Piedmont Virginia Community College Site Development. Mrs. Diehl said that she had some information from Mr. Jenkins concerning this proposed addition of the Learning Resources Library Extension to the existing building. She clarified that funding exists for the parking lot, sidewalk, and lighting, but that the utility extension and grading funding did not. Mrs. Diehl stated that the parking lot, sidewalk and lighting were expected to begin in the summer of 1981 and were budgeted. She said that the State did not have funding for the utility extensions and grading, which were part of the classroom building project, and funding might not become available until 1983. when Mr. Mabe finished reading the descriptions of the three projects under MISCELLANEOUS, Mr. Kindrick asked how old a building the Joint Security Complex was. 2SC Mr. Tucker estimated that the building was around four, five or six years old. Mr. Kindrick remarked that it should have had a bond requirement. Mr. Cogan and Mr. Kindrick together stated that there should at least be a ten- year warranty on the roof. X. SOLID WASTE of the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative. Mr. Mabe read from the text of the Narrative. Mrs. Diehl asked about the life expectancy of the land fill, whether there were any new figures. Mr. Tucker answered that Mr. Bailey could provide that information. He added that records were kept on everything that went into the land fill, the weight and content of the refuse, and that these records were up-to-date. Mrs. Diehl remarked that she was curious to know whether the land fill was running on schedule since the City had started using it, or whether this use had changed the projected life expectancy of the land fill. Mr. Mabe said that he would like at this time to further inform the Commission on a couple of matters he had been requested to follow-up on: 1. The water lines to the schools, Western Albemarle, Henley, and Brownsville had been fully funded and no additional monies were requested. 2. A request for a School Board annual report was made and Mr. Mabe reported that a mid -year update was the latest report available and that he had copies for all of the Commissioners. 3. The Court Square complex involves a renovation of the County Office Building to be utilized by the District Court: court rooms, jury rooms, offices, mechanical systems of the building, Mr. Mabe reported. Mr. Mabe then reported that he and Mr. Tucker had gone over the projects after the last work session and based on the definitions provided earlier, had assigned priorities to each project taking into account the direction the Commission had taken in its review of the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Mabe stated that this was to be a worksheet and that the priorities reflected critical health and safety priorities. Mrs. Diehl asked about the actual amount of money available to apply to the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Tucker replied that there is funding in the Program for the projects approved last year. He added that originally it had been intended to put a quarter of a million dollars into the C.I.P. each year, so that it would build up continually. Mr. Tucker said that there was no money to apply to C.I.P. this 2si year, due to the fact that there had been no increase in taxes. He added that hopefully by next year it would be possible to resume the funding of the C.I.P. Mrs. Diehl asked what amount of money the Commission had to work with that actually could be assigned, out of the C.I.P. budget. Mr. Tucker answered that really only those projects that were on line to be funded this year, shown as urgent, would receive funding. He clarified that the Commission and staff were not really considering funds, but the ranking of priorities. Mr. Tucker said that the responsibility of funding projects rested with the Board, and that the Commission was to give the Board guidelines. Mr. Cogan and Mrs. Diehl agreed that it would be helpful to have an actual dollar amount in mind when assigning priorities. Mr. Skove observed that most of the projects did not involve the current budget, realistically speaking, but had to be assigned priorities in order to hopefully be funded next year. Mr. Cogan asked how the additional assessments this year might be absorbed. He said that he understood that the revenues derived from these assessments were up twenty-three percent. Mr. Tucker answered that normal inflation and funding of Government programs, schools - these would utilize the increased funds. Mr. Tucker remarked that at the recent Board meeting concerning budget the majority of people attending had indicated a willingness to have their taxes increased if the additional revenue went for schools, improvements in the school system. Mr. Cogan asked whether the 23% was to be spread over two years. Mr. Tucker replied that he believed so. Mr. Skove mentioned that collecting taxes twice a year might be an alternative. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether another work session was desired. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the Code of Virginia did not require a public hearing on the Capital Improvements Program, but a public hearing has always been held. He stated that -it has been his practice to advertise a week before the public hearing and that at that time he likes to have a finished product in hand for any interested citizen. Mrs. Diehl determined that the Commissioners were in favor of continuing discussion at the April 14, 1981, meeting, when the C.I.P. was tentatively scheduled. Since there were no further questions from the Commissioners of Mr. Tucker and Mr. Mabe, other than the request that an actual dollar figure be provided on the amount available in the C.I.P., the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. until the April 14 meeting. Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr., Secre ar <2S L