Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-03A115 October 3_, !9_~9 _~ternoon) (Ad--ned from Se~_~tember 26__ ._.. 1~ An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 3, 1979, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 26, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 2:41 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 2:41 P.M.), C. Timothy Lind~trom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Tucker, Jr. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Planner, Robert W. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:38 P.M. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session - Comprehensive Plan. A) Neighborhoods 1 and 7. Mr. Fisher said that at the last meeting on the urban area neighborhoods it had been suggested that the staff might be able to determine the maximum density that could be set for these neighborhoods using certain structures in that area for runoff control. Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Lindstrom were asked to serve, along with the Engineering and the ~lanning staffs, on this committee. Mr. Lindstrom said the staff has been asked to do more work than was indicated at the original meeting and he then asked Mr. Agnor to make a report. Mr. Agnor said the committee will try to have its report ready by Thursday, October 11, however, it was the general consensus of the committee that densities could be arrived at by using the rmn-off control formula in a backwards fashion, thus arriving at a generalized density for areas in sub-basins of the drainage basins in the urban area. The committee is concerned that this same process should be followed on other lands in the watershed. Prior to initiating this kind of staff work for the Crozet area, the committee asked Mr. Bailey and Mr. Tucker to examine the proposal for a dam on the Lickinghole Creek from the standpoint of potential location, the area the lake would occupy, the drainage basin, and the area in Crozet that would benefit from such a sedimentation pond. Mr. Roudabush said the idea of an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek is to study this as a flood control structure and not just as a water impoundment. Mr. Lindstrom said the committee had also requested the County Attorney to look at Mrs. David's proposal to see if it is legally feasible. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other new information on urban area neighborhoods 1 and 7. Mr. Tucker said the staff had been asked to make a slope analysis of the area, but it has not yet been completed. B) Urban Area Neighborhoods 2 and 3 · Mr. Tucker then proceeded to go over the Planning Commissian's ~ecommendation on Urban Ar~a neighborhood 2 as set out on Page 32 of Minute Book 18. After a short discussion, the general consensus was to concur with the recommendations of the Planning Commission on all of these items. Mr. Lindstrom noted that at the last meeting he had asked the staff to draft some ~igures showing the amount of developed commercial and commercial office zoning shown on these Comprehensive Plan ~mendments. Commercial and Commercial Office Land Stock Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments Urban Area Neighborhoods Albemarle County, 1979 Neighborhoods And Categories Estimated Estimated A~res Acres Developed Undeveloped 1. Commercial Commercial Office 2. Commercial Commercial Office 3. Commercial Commercial Office 4. Commercial Commercial Office 5. Commercial Commercial Office 6. Commercial Commercial Office 7. Commercial Commercial Office 9O 4O 6O 5O 65 4O 10 25 160 160 8o 7o -- tO 5 10 4O 5O 30 ~ 5O l0 Total 590 455 Mr. Dorrier said these statistics point out in a glaring way that there is no commerciall designated land in urban area neighborhoods 4 and 5; the southern part of the County. We would be in favor of designating some acreage for commercial in those areas because he feels it is needed. Mr.'Fisher said the Board should keep that in mind as they work their way through the Urban .Area neighborhood amendments. October 3_~1979 (Afternoon) (Adjourned from Se t~~ 26_, Mr. Tucker then went to the Planning Commission's recommendations on urban area neighborhood number 3; those recommendations being set out on Page 38 of Minute Book 18. There was no consensus on the part of the Board members on any of the recommendations, however the following information was requested of the staff. 1. Was the eastern boundary of Neighborhood 3 determined by a ridge line for gravity flow of sewage. 2. Show on a map the area that can be served by gravity sewage. 3. Show on a map the commercial area in Neighborhood 3 that is presently undeveloped. 4. Show on a map the commercial area presently in existence, cut down on the commercial office zoning around the State Farm Building and show medium density residential near Glenorchy Subdivision. 5. Show some commercial uses at the 1-64 interchange if the terrain is conduc±ve to such uses. 6. Reduce the amount of commercial zoning on Route 20 North. Change some of the commercial to commercial office on the area from Pantops Drive back to the east and slash the remaining with high density residential development. Mr. Tucker said that on Neighborhoods 4 and 5, the Planning Commission had recommended that the Biscuit Run area be added as an extension to the Urban Area to absorb some of the population lost if the watershed area is deleted from the Urban Area. Mr. Fisher said the next meeting on these Comprehensive Plan amendments is scheduled for October 11 at 1:30 P.M. and he would recommend that an advertisement be placed in the newspaper that the Board will discuss the Biscuit Run area at that time and take public comments, At 4:10 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:20 P.M. with Mr. Dorrier being absent at this time. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: Six-Year Highway Plan. Mr. Fisher noted that he had read in the morning addition of the. newspaper that the Virginia Highway building program faces a 171 million dollar shortfall in the next few years and new construction will be virtually halted. Part of the reason for this shortfall in funds is the slow growth in the State fuel tax because motorists are apparently driving less. There is also a decrease in Federal funding with new emphasis being placed on spending Federal funds on interstate construction. There are also new State requirements to spend more money on rural roads, plus the inflation factor. The Board will have to keep these factors in mind ~hen setting priorities on highway projects. Mr. Roosevelt then handed out the following materials to begin the discussion. Code and Department Policy Requirements Guiding the Development of the Six-Year Plan Code: Requires allocation of Secondary Improvement Funds to each county for gravel road improvements to hard surface. Percentage is based on miles over 50 vpd compared to state wide miles over ~O vpd. Albemarle percentage is 19.55%. Policy: That each county will share equally the burden of Federal Aid Funds which amounts to about 45% of Secondary Improvement Allocation, Federal Aid requirements specify types of projects that can be funded. One type of Federal funding is for railroad crossin improvements, To fully qualify for this funding, all qualifying crossings within the state must be programmed in the Six-Year Plan. Albemarle County's share must be funded. Policy: A maximum of 5% of the allocation for Secondary Improvements each year can be d~signated for plant mix application without designating the location. Policy: A maximum of 2% of the combined Secondary Maintenance and I~prove- ment Allocation can be designated for improvemen~ of roads qualifying for addition to the State Secondary System. Policy: A maximum of 13% of the Secondary Improvement Funds allocated to each county can be designated for unforeseen items. This funding must also include allocations for such county wide items as new pipe installa- tions, new sign installations, preliminary engineering for projects not budgeted, and seeding and fertilizing of roadsides which are impractical to plan for by location so far in advance. Within the requirements of the Code and Department Policy, the following is the policy and philosophy of the Board and Department for Albemarle County con- cerning road improvements: 1. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County recommends the concentration of population growth in the urban areas around Charlottesville, Crozet, Hollymead and in the villages. Improvement of gravel roads to hard- surface is acknowledged to draw development to these roads. Therefore, hard-surfacing of gravel roads outside the growth area would seem to con- flict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It is acknowledged, how- .~ ever, that traffic volumes exceeding 50 vpd on gravel roads make proper maintenance of the road difficult, and some consideration should be given to the needs of people already living along gravel roads. Special consid- eration should be given to those who assist in the improvement of a gravel road through the prior dedication of right-of-way and easements, funding or other services. 117 October ~ $9_~9_(Afternoon) (~ourned from September 26, 1979) e This plan recommends funding of hard-surface improvements to gravel roads to the minimum amount required by law, based upon the following criteria: First priority should be given to qualifying road along which right- of-way for improvement has already been donated. Second priority shou&d be given to qualifying roads within the urban and village areas. Third priority should be given to the gravel roads having the highest traffic counts. The Federal Aid funding requirements for railroad grad crossings will be met by funding during the six-year period. The~improvement needs of the high-volume, hard-surfac roads can be tempo- rarily met by application of a smooth, low maintenance surface. Therefore, the maximum amount available for plant mix application, without route des- ignation, should be allocated each year. $20,000/yaar has been allocated in the past for improvement of new additions to th~asyNtem. This money has seldom been fully utilized. Therefore, the full amount allowed by law and policy will not be allocated, but the allo- cation will remain at $20,000. Although policy allows 13% of the funds available to be used for unforeseen or undesignated improvement, other priorities w~dld B.eem to take precedence over this. However, some funds for unforeseen items should be set aside. This plan recommends $70,000 be set aside for this item. Twenty thousand dollars (~0,000) of this will be used for county-wide items such as new E~Ms, new pipe, and seeding and fertilizing roadway banks. The remaining funds will be available for unforeseen items or may be allocated to desig- nated items if no unforeseen needs are encountered. The funds remaining should be allocated to major improvements. have designated these priorities: Past plans 1. Route 601 - Mechum River Bridge 2. Route 743 - Hydraulic Road 3. Ruute 631 - Park Street Bridge 4. Route 631 - Meadow Creek Parkway 5. Route 660 - Bridge over South Fork of Rivanna River Because of increases in estimated costs of all construction and the need for replacement of the bridge on Route 671 over Moorman's River, it is recommended that the Route 665 bridge be deferred and that the Route 671 bridge be substituted. This plan continues the philosophy adopted in 1977; that is, emphasis on improvement funding is given to high-volume, hard-surfac and gravel roads. Improvement of low-volume, hard-surface roads will be accomplished through signing and pavement marking. Improvements to low-volume gravel roads will be limited to maintenance activities. Improvements to bridges are limited to those which are on roads subject to roadway improvements or when the condition of the bridge warrants replacement. Major Projects: Route 631 (Meadow Creek Parkway) (621,000~additional funding will be needed) Route 743 (Hydraulic Road~ Route 601 (Mechum River) Route 631 (Park Street Bridge) Route 671 (Milli~gton Bridge) First Priority: GraveledRoads on which ri Route 7'17 From Route 719 to Route 712 Route 618 From Route 729 to Fluvanna County line Route 729 from Route 728 to Route 618 Route 693 FromRoute 635 to Route 695 Estimated Cost 3,525,000 3,000,000 900,000 420,000 410,000 ght-of~way 200,000 200,000 180,000 134,000 Allocations Previous and 80-81 280,000 2,045,000 546,175 224]000 has been ob~ 100,000 88,100 100,000 81-82 12,300 475,000 167,100 196,000 ;ained. 100,000 77,500 80,000 82-83 SIX-YEAR PLAN 83-84 160,400 480,000 210,000 34,400 134,000 750~400 100,000 84-85 850,400 85-86 850,400 Oc~pber~~(Afternoon)~A(~Journed from Se~l~.~ 118 [ Allocations i! Estimate~ Previous ! SIX-YEAR PLAN ~ ~ ' . ~and 80-81 81-82 i 82-83 83-84 184-85 185-86 Second Priority: Routes within the urban or village areas wkere the traffic count is more than 50 vpd. Route 764 From Route 663· i I 1 i ito 0.09 mile west 11,500 ! - - ll,500 - I - ~ - Route 702 From Route 820 ! i~~i - , - t 00,000, 00,000t - to dead end 400,000 - [ ~ =om to 1.0 mile east 182 000 i - , - ~ 77,600i 104,400 - I - I · I ! I to Route 712 73,500 ! - - i - I 73,500 I - f - Route 712 From Route 29 [ I~ I 2 to Route 692 112,500 - - I - I $9,600 3 .,~900 - Third Priority: i I i Three of the four highest volume gravel roads in the County. Route 769 From Route 20 i' i [ i to .25 mile north I 50,000 1 -1 - i - _ 50,000 - Route 785 From 2 mile11 Ii I ii ii' north o$ Route 649 to I ! i · dead end 140,000 - ! - I - - ~ 7 ,6 0 65,400 Route 727 From Route 627t I i i to i mile south I 200,000 138,700 , i I 92,100 Railroad Crossings i i50,000 i 50,000 I 50,000 i 50,000 ~ 50,000 50,000 Plant Mix 15% Total ~70,600 I 65,600I 65,600 I '~65,600 65,600165,600 Rural Additions ~ 20,000yr~20,000 i 20'000 I 20,000i 20,000 20,000120,000 C~unry Wide 20,000yr.20,000I 20,000 20,000 I ~B0,000 20,00.0120,000 Unde~iE~ed ~50,000yr~50,000 .~,000 _~_~ 50,000 Total 1,473,6001,a13,500_j 1,313,500 1,313,500 1,3~3,50e · 1,313~500 ~313~500 (Mr. Dottier returned at 4:32 P.M.) Mr. Roosevelt said inflation and the'cost of construction have combined to increase the cost of road projects to a point where two years ago there were 36 separate projects in the Six-Year ~lan and the plan presented for approval today will contain only 17 projects. 4~ He then noted that of the 36 projects in the 1978-1979 Six-Year plan, seven projects have been completed; four projects are under construction; one project is scheduled for advertise- ment; one project has been financed completely but has not been started; twelve projects are being financed and the planning will continue, six of these projects pertain to railroad cross~ ings; the projeCt for Georgetown Road was revised and the financing has been completed; ten projects have been dropped from the Six-Year ~lan. They are: Route 660 - Bridge - South Fork - Contract Route 631 - Rio from 29 to Hydraulic - Contract Route 651 - Dead End in Northfields - Contract Route 637 - From 682 to 689 - St~ Force Route 640 - From 20 to 784 - St Force Route 640 - From 641 to 747 - St Force Route 643 - From 1.3 M. E. 29 to 649 - St~ Force Route 631 - 5th Str. Extended from 1-64 - Contract Route ~49 - Airport Road - Contract Route 637 - From Ivy To 1-64 At this time the Board became engaged in a rather lengthy discussion of inflation, its effect upon the highway system and funding for the highway system. Mr. Dorrier asked if the funding for Route 717 means that it will be paved during the year 1981. Mr. Roosevelt said if this project is included in$hhe plan, work could begin dur- ing the 1980 construction season, but since the project is funded over a two-year period, it could be as late as 1981 before it is paved. Dr. Iachetta noted that the project for paving the gravel section of Rou~e 643 has been dropped. He asked if this was because of right-of-way problems. Mr. Roosevelt said it was dropped because the traffic count does not bring that road into the top four, high volume, gravel roads in the County. By the time funds had been allocated to roads where the right-of- way is already available, and funds had been allocated to gravel roads in the urban and village areas, there were only enough funds left to finance three of the first four, highest-volume, gravel roads in the County. Mr. Dorrier asked when there will be a public hearing on this plan. Mr. Roosevelt said that is the decision of the Board. He has been requested to have an approved Six-Year Highway Plan by the end of 1979. Mr. Roosevelt said since he drafted this plan, right-of-way has been obtained on Route 808 located off of Route 250 East, east of Shadwell, the road going into RuSnmng Deer Subdivision. He now~ recommends that this road be added to the Six'*Year plan and that the allocation for gravel road improvements be adjusted during the first year of the plan to allow this additional cost of $65,000. Mr. Fisher said this will 119,! _O_c~.~b_e__ber ~ 19~9__~After_~oon) (Ad.~ou~rned from put five roads in the first priority category. He asked if all of these roads have ~ehicle counts of over 100 per day. Mr. Roosevelt said that Route 717 does not have the h~gher traffic count, but received its first priority status because the right-of-way has been donated. Mr. Fisher said he felt Highway funds should be spent to provide improvements for the roads that have the highest traffic counts and from which the most service will be received. Mr. Roudgbush asked if there are significant number of roads in the Urban Area that meet the criteria set out in the plan. Mr. Roosevelt said there are only one or two that are not on this list and were not included because they have special problems; one is the SPCA road. It was not included because if a western Route 29 North by-pass is built,-~it will impinge on the road. Dr. Iachetta asked about improvements to Georgetown Road. Mr.~R~osevelt sald Georgetown is not included in the plan because the improvement that has been agreed to by the Board has already been funded. Mr. Lindstrom said that he thinks the citizens feel there has been a major improvement ~o Georgetown Road by just the resurfaclng that has taken place. Mr. Roosevelt said that is true and is one of the reasons why he feels a certain amount of money should be put into plant mlx each year. Mr. Roosevelt said one other problem has arisen. Route 729 was included in the Six-Year plan because the right-of-way had been obtained from all property owners other than West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company and Continental Can. Continental Can had a policy in past of donating right-of-way, but have now adopted a new policy saying they will donate the land but they want to recover their administrative costs. In this case, there costs amount to $260. If the Highway Department were trying to obtain the right-of-way, the administrative costs would be paid. The only difference here is that the citizens along this road have approached the Highway Department and will give the right-of-way. If Continental Can is paid their administrative costs, a precedent will be set. It was the general consensus of the Board that the Highway Department should not pay the administrative costs for Continental can and that the property owners trying to obtain the right-of-way should be told of this fact in the event they will agree to pay Continental Can the requested amount. At this point, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to set a public hearing on the Six-Year Highway plan for November 7, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorri~r, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. At 5:20 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adJmm~ned.