Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-15March 15, 1979 (Adjourned from March 14, 1979) 307 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 15, 1979, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 14, 1979. Present: Messrs. L%ndsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W'. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M~. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: 1979-80 Highway Budget. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 2 and March 8, 1979.) Mr. Fisher introduced Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, who said that the Highway Department furnishes to the County an estimate of the amount of Highway funds which will be available each year. This year's allocation will be close to that of last year or $1,244,000; 82% of which must be spent on items in the adopted Six-Year plan; 13% going to projects not designated in the Six-Year plan; with 5% being used for putting plant mix on surface-treated roads. Mr. Roosevelt said that since adoption of the Six-Year plan last year, certain things have happened which.require a revision of that Plan. He then listed the proposed budget items in priority order: 1) Route 676, Plant Mix (601-614) - $45,300. 2) Route 614, Plant Mix (676-835) - $31,300. These two routes run together and this allocation will pay for plant mix from the intersection of Route 601 to the intersection of Route 835. 3) Rural Additions - $20,000. This allocation is set aside to finance improvements to roads which may be added to the State Secondary System under the "Viewer"Law. ~) County-Wide Items - $17,000. This allocation is for items not designated to any specific route such as installation of new signs and pipe for driveways (sometimes cross pipes), seeding banks and slopes where erosion has occurred, and a small amount for pre- liminary engineering on projects that are not yet financed. 5) Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) - $617,000. This allocation will finance both purchase of right-of-way and the beginning of construction on t'his improvemen~ project. 6) Route 631 (McIntire Extension) - $145,100. This allocation will finance planning on this improvement project. 7) Route 631 (Park Street Bridge) - $130,000. This allocation is for planning, purchase of right-of-way, and hopefully, some construction work on this new bridge. 8) Route 656 (Georgetown Road) - $40,000. This allocation will be used either to accelerate preparation of plans for widening this road or will be used to purchase right-of- way and improve the curve at the Inglewood Drive intersection. 9) Route 631 (Rio Road from Route 29 westward) - $40,000. accelerated plan preparation for this improvement. This allocation is for 10) Route 600 (railroad crossing) - $45,000. This allocation is to finance placement of flashing lights and gates on Route 600 at Campbell. 11) Route 665 (Buck Mountain Creek bridge) - $83,000. This is-.an additional allocation for construction of this project which is already in progress. 12) Route 601 (Mechum River Bridge) - $157,500. struction in the summer of 1979. This project is scheduled for con- 13) Slurry Seal Schedule - $52,000. This allocation will finance the resurfacing of about nine miles of roads, mostly in the following subdivisions: Canterbury Hills, Hessian Hills, Woodbrook, Orchard Acres, Wakefield, Brookwood, Georgetown Green and Buckingham Circle. 14) Route 601, Plant Mix (676-829) - $70,000. the Mechum River. This project is about 1/2 mile south of 15) Route 728, Spot Improvements - $25,000. This allocation is for spot improvements~ along Route 728 from Route 729 to about one mile west of that point. This road will be widened within the existing right-of-way sufficient to allow school bus access. Mr. Fisher then requested Mr. Roosevelt to explain the method by which priorities are assigned. Mr. Roosevelt said that most of the projects Just mentioned were taken from the adopted Albemarle County Six-year Highway Plan. In 1978, it was.decided that the major goal of the County would be to give emphasis to improvement of high-volume, hard-surfaced roads with the next priority going to high-volume, gravel roads which have traffic counts sufficient to make them eligible for hard-surfacing. The next priority would be given to replacement of certain bridges, with the remaining funds being spent on lower volume, hard-surfaced and gravel roads. Mr. Lindstrom asked if he could explain an alternative proposal for improvement to Route 656 (Georgetown Road) which the Board discussed on February 14th. He said there is an allocation of $40,000 proposed in the 1979-80 budget, and another $10,000 was a]l~~ ~ the 1978-79 budget. Inste~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ ..... March 15, 1979 (Adjourned from March 14, 19~9) curb and gutter improvement with sidewalks, he recommended to the Board that the $50,000 be spent on improvements to the road at the sharp curve at the intersection of Inglewood Drive. This smaller improvement would still require acquisition of right-of-way and if an asphalt pedestrian walkway is included, the County may have to fund some of this project from the Capital Improvements Program budget. Mr. Lindstrom said the cost of a major project on this road is quite costly and during the time it takes for the planning and while funds were being accumulated, there would be no improvement to the road at all. A number of residents in the area of Georgetown Road have concurred with this recommended change and he hopes the Board will approve this change tonight. Mr. Roudabush asked what happens to funds for road projects which are not completed during the fiscal year. Mr. Roosevelt said all Albemarle County allocations remain on project in the County; money from previous budgets is not lost. There are a number of projects which have been completely financed which do not show in the budget presented tonight, such as: Route 708 to Blenheim Route 601 at Mission Home Route 708 just west of Route 29 South to the north toward Route 637 Route 689 south off of Route 250 toward Batesville Route 719 between Esmont and the Orossroads area on Route 29 South (This is the final hard-surface link in this most direct route between Esmont and Route 29) Route 651 leading into Northfields. Subdivision A number of smaller State Force projects will be undertaken during this budget year At 8:10 P.M., the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mrs. Rachel Spencer, a resident of Route 618, who was speaking for friends and neighbors. Mrs. Spencer quoted from a letter dated February 20, 1979, which was presented for the record: "In the Scottsville District, approximately 1.9 miles of Route 618 from Fluvanna County line south to the intersection of Route 705 and approximately 1.5 miles of Route 729 from the Route 705 intersection north to the intersection of Route 728 are unpaved. In 1976, the Department of Highways conducted a traffic count on this section of Route 618 and found that an average of 57 vehicles per day used this route. During the summer of 1978, the Department conducted a second count and found that an average of 80 vehicles per day were then using this section of Route 618 thereby showing an increase in road traffic of more than 40% during a two year period. In 1976, the Department of Highways conducted a traffic count on the 1.5 mile section of Route 729 and found that an average of 68 vehicles per day used the route. Again in the summer of 1978, the Department conducted a. second traffic count that showed an average of 90 vehicles per day were then using this section of 729. This resulted in over a 32% increase in the traffic during the two year period." Mrs. Spencer said that these counts were taken during the summer months when school buses were not running. There have been at least 14 new homes completed and occupied on these two routes since the 1976 count, thus contributing several vehicle trips per day to the 1978 count. By deeds dated January 3, 1979, ~lp~6p~rty~o~ners having land fronting directly on the 1.9 mile section of Route 618, deeded to the State a 50-foot right-of-way. Also, on the same date, the 37 property owners having land fronting directly on the 1.5 mile section of Route 729 deeded a 50-foot right-of-way to the State. Mrs. Spencer noted that Continental Can Company and West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company have not deeded any right-of-way, althou she understands they have agreed to do so. She said of all the projects on the recommended list of improvements, only one project lies in the Scottsville District and she feels that this District deserves more than 2% of the total amount of Highway Funds for next year. Mr. Wilson Cropp said he also lives on Route 618. He was advised by the Board at last year's Highway hearing that as soon as the right-of-way was dedicated, these citizens should come back to the Board. (About 11 persons in the audience held up their hands to show they were present in support of this request.) Mr. Miles Creasy said he lives on the Fluvanna County side of Route 618. The section in Fluvanna is paved and Fluvanna will not let their school buses travel onto the unpaved portion in Albemarle to pick up his children for school. Mr. Steve Amato was present to discuss Route 785 in the Rivanna District. He said this road was funded for construction in 1972-73 conditioned upon the right-of-way being obtained. The property .owners have now agreed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way. He said there is not sufficient room on this road for two vehicles to pass. Also, there are drainage problems and a bad hill and curve. The residents do not care if the road is paved, but only request minimal improvements. Presently there is in excess of 100 vehicle trips per day on this road. Mr. Amato said this area is in the proposed high-density part of the Hollymead communi· but the land cannot be developed without improvement to the road. Mr. Roudabush said when he first became a member of the Board of Supervisors, he started receiving complaints about this road. He read from a letter written by Mr. Roosevelt to one of the residents on Route 785: "Development along this road has certainly increased the safety hazards and hindered the Department's ability to properly maintain the roadway. On a recent trip over this section, I counted some 27 houses and recent traffic counts taken in this area indicated some 198 vehicles per day use the roadway. This is almost four times the minimum amount needed for the road to be eligible for hard-surfacing. It is not surprising to me that the surface is difficult to maintain and that you and others are experiencing problems along this road," March 15, 1979 (Adjourned from March 14, 1979~ 2O9 Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Roosevelt had mentioned that it is difficult to keep the ditches open and control drainage. Mr. Roudabush said that, to him, this is a good indication that the road should be considered eligible for improvement. If it was eligible five years ago, conditions can only have gotten worse. Mr. Lester Hoel was present to speak about the allocation for Route 656 (Georgetown Road). He said that at the present time, there are serious problems because of traffic volumes and poor alignment.. There are no pedestrian facilities, although there are many school children in the area. He suggested that the allocation be used for immediate improve- ments and that the four-laning of Georgetown Road not be considered as a viable alternative. Mr. Donald Spencer spoke about Route 618. He asked what happens to the funds allocated to a project when the right-of-way is not obtained. Mr. Fisher said the funds are rea!located to other projects. Mr. Roosevelt said, earlier in the year, he had listed for the Board Several projects which are not in the adopted Six-Year plan, but on which the right-of-way has been dedicated. Two of these routes were: Route 6~8 at a cost of $208,000, and Route 729 at a cost of $180,000. He did not recommend that these routes be included this year because of the backlog of State Force work. However, when the Six-Year plan is revised, these routes should be given consideration for inclusion. He quoted from a letter written to Mr. Spencer in June, 1978: "Although the two routes involved ~f~l~'or the minimum, they have relatively low priority when the entire County is examined. It is possible, however, that these priorities could change with the development of these routes and because of the availability of right-of-way. Please see that each property owner understands that dedicating the right-of-way does 'not mean that the roads will be improved in the short future, nor will ~the Department undertake minor improvements along the roadways until Such time as the project is set up." Mr. Roudabush said he has received correspondence on the following roads: Route 685 near Keswick Routes 746 and 807 near Stony Point Routes and 700 and 600 Route 647 near Cobham Route 640 in the Stony Point area Mr. E. B. Snyder asked why there is a need to reconstruct the Park Street Bridge (Route 631) if McIntire Road is to be extended out to Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said that when the McIntire construction is completed, there will probably still be 1000 cars a day using the bridge which is only 17 feet wide. It is the narrowest, high-volume bridge in the County. Mr. Amato asked if property owners could receive some kind of tax credit' if they under- took to upgrade roads at their own expense. Mr. Fisher said he had no answer to this question Mr. Dorrier said he has been working with citizens for two years trying to obtain the necessary right-of-way so that Route 717 can be improved. That right-of-way is now available. Since Routes 618 and 729 also have dedicated right of way, these people have overcome a significant hurdle. He feels the Board should offer encouragement to residents along some of these roads by adopting a policy giving priority treatment to roads where the right-of-way has been donated. Although traffic counts should be taken into consideration, safety should also be considered. Mr. Dorrier then mentioned that he had received letters from Rock W. Harris, Diane E. Kyser, Nelly H. Ellinger and ~Rey Berry, ali in reference to Routes 6~18 and 729. At 9:23 P.M, with no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta requested that the Board again discuss improvements to Georgetown Road. He felt that for a modest amount of money, the situation for vehicles and pedestrians~ can be greatly improved. Mr. Lindstrom felt that a pedestrian walkway is more needed than straight- ening the curve, but the Highway Department will not spend money on sidewalks unless a four~.~ lane highway is constructed. He understands that the Highway Department will allow the County to put pavement in the right-of-way, if not too substantial a~ structure is built. If the Board decides to use the $50,000 for a lesser project, the Boardmust realize that a commitment of County funds will be required for this project. Mr. Fisher said he was not prepared to vote on spending~unds for a pedestrian walkway, but if the money can be used to alleviate the more obvious problems immediately, instead of waiting many years for major improvements, he feels it would be a worthwhile project. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the $40,000 in this proposed budget for Route 656, plus the $10,000 allocated for th~s project in the last fiscal year, be used for spot improvements at the intersection of Ingle- wood Drive, consisting of realignment and acquisition of right-of-way. The motion was seconde~ by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Roosevelt said the County's allocation for FYS0 may be $1.2 million instead of the estimated $1.5 million. Since it Would be hard to delete any of the 15 recommended improvemen~ he suggested that Hydraulic Road be placed as the lowest priority on the list, taking note of the fact that if this happens, additional funds will be needed for Hydraulic Road in future years. Mr. Fisher asked what affect this would have on the Hydraulic Road project. Mr. Roosevelt said it will not slow down the planning, only affect the amount of money that will have to be allocated to this project in the next two or three years. Mr. Bv~ Assistant Resident Highway En~~ ~ ~ March 15, 1979 (Adjourned from March 14, 1979) of the list, that project will disappear completely for the FYS0 year. Mr. Roosevelt said, based on comments received at the public hearing on the Hydraulic Road project, the Richmond Office is making a new "bare bones" estimate to see what items might be deleted to save money. As soon as he receives information on the project from Richmond, he will discuss it in more detail with the Board. At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve the Highway budget for FY80 as presented, but putting Hydraulic Road as priority No. 151 The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Roudabush asked if there are any provisions for obtaining state matching monies for donations received for Secondary road improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said this is allowed only on Rural Additions and there is a 15% match for Revenue Sharing Funds used for a project. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs to decide what to do about roads that have dedicated right-of-way that are not in the Six-Year Plan. It would take the burden off of his staff because they spend a lot of time going door-to-door trying to obtain right-of-way. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any way to pick up one of these projects each year. Mr. Roosevelt said if these projects could can be worked into the Six-Year Plan, one of these projects could be pulled forward in the Plan if one of the higher volume, gravel road projects is not undertaken f~r any reason. In order to work in any of these projects at this time, the Board would have to go through the entire Six-Year planning process again. Mr. Roosevelt said in the near future he will list all gravel roads in the County in traffic count order, list which have dedicated right-of-way, and the date when the right-of-way was obtained. With that information in hand, that might be the time for the Board to revise its philosophy on road improvements. At 9:50 P.M. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:55 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Professional Office Building Site Plan Appeal. (Deferred from March 1979.) Mr. Fisher said this item was deferred so the Board members could look at the site and the condition of the road. He said he checked the site and found that there are a number of large old trees in front of the existing building and it appears that putting curb and gutt 26 feet from the centerline of Old Ivy Road will take several of these trees. Mr. Roudabush said on the western edge of the property is a big tree and 26 feet from the centerline is about four feet behind that tree which is way back from the edge of the road. He said, by the time the bank is cut and sloped, this work will disturb quite a few of the trees and possibly result in all of them near the road eventually coming down. Mr. Roudabush said a good pattern has been set by the curb and gutter installed by IBM in front of their building. He felt it would be reasonable to require the same pattern in front of this property. This would give an ultimate 44-foot, curb to curb, travelway. He said it is unreasonable to require storm drainage on this property when it has not been required of others. Mr. Roosevelt said that in conjunction with other anticipated projects on this road, the Highway Department has estimated a minimum of 7000-8000 vehicle trips per day. To any engineel , this means that there should be a 52-foot wide cross-section and he personally feels that curb and gutter is needed in the area. He does not think that 44 feet will be adequate in the future, but he would rather have the 22 feet at this time than not get anything at all. Mr. Fisher said he does not disagree with the requirement for curb and gutter, but feels that the damage that would inure to this property at this time for the benefit of the general public would be hard to justify. He would rat~er see this property owner keep some of the trees, be able to say in business, and have the use of his property. Mr. Roudabush said the land is zoned for business. If someone who did not care about the trees wanted to construct a multi-story office building on the site and eliminate all the trees, this would be allowed. It is just a coincidence that this owner wants to keep the existing building and the trees. Mr. Roudabush said when the property was zoned business, he felt a commitment was made to develop the property for commercial use and commercial propertie require more road improvements than strictly residential lots. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not concerned about the storm drainage, but feels that for the safety of the public, at least a 44-foot roadway is needed. Dr. Iachetta said there should be curb and gutter across the entire frontage of this property. He then offered motion to approve this site plan, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but that Condition #2 be amended to require that full frontage development, curb and gutter, located 22 feet from the centerline of the existing road to the face of the curb, be constructed across the frontage of this property, instead of the 26 feet recommended by the Highway Department; and that storm sewer not be required. Mr. Roosevelt said their recommendation was that storm sewer be installed as needed. Mr. Coburn noted a typographical error in the Highway Department's letter of December 6, 1978. Letter stated "... storm sewer is necessa~ry .... "and should have stated "... storm sewer as necessary .... " The motion was then seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley.