Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-213-21-74 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 21, 1974, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Mr. Wood arriving at 10:08 A.M.) Absent: None. Offic.ers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The meeting opened with The Lord's Prayer led by Mr. Wheeler. On motion by Mr. Fisher the minutes of the meetings of December 12, December 19, December 20, January 9, January 17, January 23, and February 13 (afternoon meeting) were approved with the following corrections and additions: Page 496, bottom of page, motion should read: "Mr. Fisher offered motion to lift the building permit moratorium on Greenbrier and Peyton Drives, with the above stipulated conditions." Mr. Henley gave second to Mr. Fisher's motion and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Request was received from Mr. Parker Welch asking that roads in Arbor Park Sub- division, Earlysviile, Virginia, be accepted into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following sections of roads in Arbor Park Subdivision, Earlysville, Virginia: AUDUBON DRIVE - Point of beginning at center of Route 660 approximately .66 miles North of Route 676 - runs in an Easterly direction for 1,745 ft. to termination point at intersection with Dundee Road. DUNDEE ROAD - Point of beginning at cul-de-sac center 345 ft. South of intersection with Audubon Drive and runs in Northernly direction 1,792 ft. to center of second cul-se-sac, this cul-de-sac being the point of ending of Dundee Road. BE tT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 ft. unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 517, Page 352. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. 3-21-74 Mr. Warner said Mr. D. B. Hope, ~District Highway Engineer, will be present at the April meeting to discuss several matters with the Board. .... Na~.~report was received on the status of Jefferson Village roads. The Clerk was instructed to tell the Building Inspector that~the building permit moratorium imposed on vacant lots in Jefferson Village will remain, in effect. Mr. Warner said he will call the Board when sketches have been prepared on Old Route 53. The following communication was received from the Virginia.Department of Highways: "February 25, 1974 Routes 1427 and 1428 Northfields Subdivision County of Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville,_Virginia 22901 Attention: Mr. T. M. Batchelor Dear Mr. Batchelor: At the request of the Board of Supervisors our District Traffic and Safety Office investigated the possibility of a reduction of speed on the above stated roads. This investigation included a radar speed study, and from the investigation it was determined that it will not be possible to reduce the speed limit on either of these roads. The radar sample taken on Route 1428 indicated that the average 85 percentile speed is 41 mph, and on Route 1428 the average 85 percentile speed limit was 44 mph. In comparing these results with the speed study made in 1971 there shows an increase of the 85 percentile speed of 5 to 8 mph. Based on this information the District therefore concluded that the 35 mph speed zone is sufficient, and enforcement of the speed limit is the correct action to be taken. After reviewing all this information, we agree with our District Office; but along this same line, we feel that additional signs along Route 1427 will help make the driving public better aware of the speed limit. If you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please advise. Very truly yours, (Signed) R. G. Warner Resident Engineer" Mr. Batchelor announced that the Highway Department will hold a public meeting in Culpeper, at the District Office located on Route 15, on April 4, 1974, at 10:00 A.M. to hear comments from citizens and public officials in advance of preparation of tentative allocations of interstate, arterial., primary and urban funds for the next fiscal year. Mr. Henley said he has received many complaints about a road between Crozet and Greenwood because the pavement is too narrow. Mr. Carwile said a Mrs. Deaner, who lives in Canterbury Hills, has complained about a small piece of asphalt that is missing at the corner of her driveway. Mr. Warner said there is normal pavement and gutter at this corner and if the asphalt is installed and a weak place develops, it might cause water to run out into the pavement and create problems, but he would contact Mrs. Deaner about this problem. 3-21-74 Mr. Fisher said he had received a copy Of a letter sent to the Highway Department about the road entrance across from Glenaire Subdivision. Mr. Warner said utility people are supposed to meet with people from the highway department on Monday so telephone lines can be dropped and the trees cut. VEPCO and the Telephone Company will move their poles back from the right of way as soon as the weather permits. Mr. Fisher asked if the local Highway Safety Commission has looked at the ramp across from the entrance to Bellair Subdivision. Mr. Warner said he did not know if they had. The highway department is going to try some type of channelization with sandbagging before the actual improvements are made on a permanent basis. Mr. Fisher said in the question of obtaining rights-of-way for new acquisitions that Donny Woodson, a member of the County staff, is now a notary so he can notariz~e the necessary deeds. Mr. Warner said a survey has been started on the Mint Springs Road. Mr. Warner said a question had arisen concerning Route 758 near Critzer's Shop off of Route 637. The highway map indicates 1.3 miles as being state-maintained with another 0.55 mile from Route 637 to a cattle guard and the road goes no further. He said if the ro~d continues like this, the Board should proceed with abandonment. Mr. Henley asked if there is only one property owner involved. Mr. Thacker said it was Dr. John Lange. Mr. Henley said the Board might talk to him first. Mr. Warner said the highway department will investigate further and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Warner if he would stay for the discussion of Ednam Forest roads. Mr. Sam Robertson, County Dog Warden, was present. Mr. Henley said he has received many calls expressing displeasure at 'the way the dog leash laW is being enforced in Crozet. Mr. Robertson said he is also receiving more calls than he can handle, but he has not shut down on this. Mr.. Henley felt that since a suit has been filed by people who think that the county is not going to enforce the leash law, and if it is to stay in effect, the county should enforce the law. Mr. Robertson asked if this meant to enforce it before the suit is heard. Mr. Henley said yes. He had talked with the County Attorney and Mr. St. John has said that Mr. Robertson will not be in any legal difficulties by enforcing this law. Mr. Henley said there have been a lot of rumors and this will probably stop them. He asked that the Daily Progress run a story about this, stating that the Board is taking a firm stand on the enforcement of this ordinance. He said there have been a few citizens who dared the county to arrest ~hem, but this should not bother Mr. Robertson. Mr. Wheeler asked the press to give this coverage. Mr. St. John said the pending suit should be decided as soon as possible. If the suit is void, Mr. Robertson will know immediately. Mr. Robertson felt it might be better to await the outcome of the suit~ Mr. St. John said the law has not been declared invalid and there is no way to be sure it will be. Until that time, Mr. Robertson should issue a summons to those in violation. The 3-21-74 summons may come to court before the pending suit and it will then be up to Judge Pickford to decide if the law is valid. If this law is not enforced because ther~e is a suit pending, this penalizes the people who are obeying the law. Mr. Henley told ~r. Robertson to use his own judgment and let the people know that the county is going to make an effort to enforce this ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he had r~eceived calls from people in Bellair who are having~ trouble with dogs. Mr. Robertson said he is keeping informed of the situation. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Robertson had hired a deputy to help him. Mr. Robertson said yes. Mr. Herman Dorrier is working three days a week. Mr. Fisher said he hoped Mr. Robertson woUld.do.~his best to enforce this ordinance in the areas which have been so designated. Mr. Robertson said if the Board gave the go ahead he would be glad to enforce it. Mr. Fish.er~said it was the intent of the Board, at the time of adoption, that this ordinance should~be strictly enforced. .The Board continued with a discussion of a request for a resnricted roads system in Ednam Forest. Action on this matter had been deferred from March 134, 1974. Mr. Wheeler said since Mr. Warner had read the information on the traffic count from the county staff he would like to hear his comments. Mr. Warner said he no comments at this time. Mr. Fisher said basically ,the question the Board is faced with is an entrance traffic count during a non-peak season and with an energy shortage. The traffic-count is approaching ~1800 vtpd and faced with adding another 400 if the sub- division is expanded. He asked Mr. Warner what sort of road design would be necessary at the entrance to handle that much traffic. Mr-~ Warner said the whole system was underdesigned initially. The traffic count he had just read gave a 24 hour count of 566. Mr. Fisher said that is for the resi- dential section, but at the entrance the 24-hour vehicle count was 1773. That was taken over a five-day period during bad weather. Mr. Warner said he personally felt that the entrance itself should be expanded in order for the incoming traffic to be split so as to provide quicker movement. The entrance and the streets are narrow, so narrow that it would require a major Overhaul to bring them to standards. He said the streets appear to be no more than 16 feet wide. Mr. Fisher said it has been stated that they are 18 feet wide. Mr. Warner said they have very little shoulder, the 18 feet is almost.completely surfaced. Mr. Thacker said that further back in the subdivision there is also a deep gutter. Mr. Warner said the whole matter hinges on the fact that the roads were under- designed, as far as highway department standards are concerned, in the beginning. He said this is the bad feature of a restricted road. The people who are there initially may be satisfied but as the subdivision continues to develop and creates additional traffic, feelings change. The traffic from the new section, added to that already there, will be about 2500 cars. Mr.. Wheeler said it will.be more than that because they want to expand ~he commercial section also. He said that probably there is no way 3-21-74 85 the developer can do anything with the entrance road. Mr. Warner said with the way it is now built, there is no way, without an extensive overhaul of the existing facility. He said there is a turn lane on Route 250 for west-bound traffic. Trying to extend that further would overlap with the entrance to Farmington because there is a double left turn movement. Mr. Fisher said the way the entrance is painted now, there is an entrance and an exit from the~side toward Charlottesville, but there is only an entrance from the west side. If someone is coming out of Ednam Forest and wants to turn left, they must cross all the painted lines and cross all the traffic flow because there is no room for any other kind of a provision. Mr. Warner said that was his point. The entrance should be changed to channelize the traffic so there would be a left slot for west-bound traffic to pull out on the right side, in other words, a traffic island. There should be a left slot for people to go west and a right slot for people to go east. The left side of the island would accommodate five or six people. Mr. Warner said~he felt there is mass confusion there at times with the present conditions. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about the hazard that is going to be caused if the Board .allows expansion of the traffic on this road at this intersection without some improvement in the intersection. At least for a section of the road down to the end which has all the commercial traffic, the Sport's ~Club traffic, Ednam Village traffic and all the residential traffic. He asked if there was a question that there is not enough land to make this improvement. Mr. Thacker said he thought the la~d is there but the topography is such that it would be very difficult and expensive. Mr. Warner said the land is probably there, but he was not that familiar with the topography. Right now, at 250, it could be a little tight because of the commercial development which has taken place. Mr. Carwile said there is another problem in that Mr. Rogan does not own the property along both sides of the road from the end at Route 250. Mr. Thacker said the major problem falls with property to the east of the entrance road and he thought Mr. Rogan still controlled that land. Mr. Wheeler said this would not be the on!_y e~p~ansion, they also ~ant to expand e comm rczaz.area., ~nrough ~{r~ ~pvezopment oZ this property, the~~amost aeve±opeafto/~q~i-~ Ne said the Board f~dst either requi~e, no matter how' expensive it might be, that the road through the commercial part either be improv.ed or another way will have to be found to get into and out of this subdivision. He did not feel that the Board should require anything to be done to the roads back in the present residential secti~h. Mr. Warner said he thought this entrance should have minimum expansion because he did not think that it is built to commercial standards. He said at the time this entrance was built there were no restrictions imposed by anyone. He said as far as an additional entrance to the west of the existing entrance is concerned, his department had looked at this on March 13. He did not know if this entrance had been previously proposed, but felt it could have been dropped because of the fill that would be required from Route 250 back the length of the property. On Route 250 it would require widening the fill, providing turn movements and would be quite an undertaking, He said the developer may have been discouraged by this rather than the sight distance which Mr. Warner said was very good. Mr. Rogan had used the argument that the traffic travelling in the east bound lane is comjZ~ 55 m.p.h, and enters a 45 m,p.h, zone. However, with a turn lane and proper entrance, he could not see that this would pose a real problem. Mr. Thacker said the Board had primarily been discussing the wesn bound traffic turning into the existing entrance. He asked about the east bound traffic off of Route 250 since there is no deceleration lane at the present time. Mr. Warner said this is the reason there needs to be expansion to a commercial type-entrance. This would provide means of getting the east bound traffic off of Route 250. He said .although the traffic comes into a 45 m.p.h, zone, the zone is not observed. The minimum expansion would provide a good commercial entrance for the existing facility. Mr. Fisher said he always thought the highway department tried to discourage multiple entrances when one entrance can be designed to handle the traffic flow onto a major road like Rt. 250. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Warner said it would be better to have only one entrance. The traffic ~i~olume could be handled at the existing entrance if it were upgraded. Mr. Fisher asked about an acceleration lane entering the east bound lane of Route 250. Mr. Warner said the highway department had experimented with acceleration lanes for several years. In 95% of the cases, the acceleration lane caused problems ,and did not help the traffic flow. They had found, after studying locations where an acceleration lane was provided, that it was better to have the traffic come to a complete stop and then make a turn into traffic. Mr. Henley said this was not an important factor when the traffic-is moving at a slower speed. Mrs. Warner said that was true. Mr. Thacker said he did not know how the Board would vote on the request for restricted roads, but if the request is denied and the developer required to install these roads .to State highway department standards, would the highway department have any control over the entrance onto 250 or iB the only way the Board can control the entrance is to allow the restricted roads with that added condition. Mr. Warner said his department, in conjunction with the Board, can exercise control over any entrance across the right of way because there is supposed to be a permit for every entrance. Mr.~ Wheeler said if the Board approved the back section and required that the roads be built to State specifications, they have not done anything. There is no way to get from that back section, across state-maintained roads, to Route 250. Mr. Thacker said that was true. The highway department will never accepts:the new roads unless at some point in the future ther.e is an adjacent subdivision that these roads can be tied to. Mr. Wheeler said after listening to Mr. Warner he was led to conclude that the new roads be allowed as restricted roads, but built to State specifications initially so if another exit is found from this back section, the roads could be 3-21-74 accepted into the State system, and the commercial part from Route 250 back to the end be brought up to present commercial standards as laid out by Mr. Warner.. Certainly, as part. of the conditions of approval, the Board has the authority to do this. Mr. Carwile asked if Mrs. Wheeler meant that as part of approving the new restricted roads in the part of the subdivision, that the Board could require the developer to upgrade the entrance. Mr. Wheeler yes. He asked Mr. St. John if he would think about this. Mr. St. John said he would think about the question, but he did not believe that the question of whether or not the roads are to be restricted is the same question as what standards will be required for these roads. The question is whether as a condition precedent to approval of restricted roads in the new subdivision the Board could require some changes in the design and construction of the existing outlet from the Ednam .development. Mr. St. John said he felt the Board could so require, but he would look into it further. He said the Board has received a traffic count which involves potential traffic hazard according to the highway engineer and he is the expert. (Mr. Wood arrived at.10:08 A.M.). Mr. St. John asked if that was correct. Mr. Warner said when you generate three to four times what is already there, it will. Mr.. St. John said the Board has a traffic count on what is already there and a projection on what the new part of the subdivision will create on top of that. He asked Mr. ~Warner if, in his opinion, the present entrance will constitute a safety hazard. Mr. Warner said that was right. Mr. St. John said the Board certainly has the right to require that that be alleviated. Mr. Thacker asked if the question of subdivision approval is before the Board at this time or only the question of restricted roads. Mr. St. John said he was not sure how the matter stood, whether only the roads were before the Board or the entire plan for the subdivision. Mr. Carwile said the subdivision could not have been approved yet because the developer could not have put the record to plat. Mr. St. John said he knew it had not been put to record, but wondered if an application for approval was before the county. (Mr. Wheeler left the meeting at 1O:10 A.M.). Mr. Warner said the highway department can only require improvements up to the right of way, past that point~ the developer can say that his 18-foot road is adequate. But, the highway department could, after studying the projected figures for traffic volume, say that the entrance is not adequate to provide for safe movement in and out of this entrance and certain items should be done. Mr. St. John said there is a question of how the highway department can make somebody do what they think should be done. They cannot limit the number of cars going over the entrance as it is now. Mr. Warner said.the highway department cannot do that. But, if it is decided that the expansion of the residential as well as the commercial area is going to generate too much additional traffic, the highway department can make recommendations. Mr.. St. John said that was his point. The highway department cannot do one thing about restricting the traffic flow in and out of that entrance. They can. only recommend. It is up to the -8'8 Board to do whatever is going to be done. Mr. Warner said that is what he said in the beginning. The highway department only has control to the point wher.e they require the developer to have a permit to go across the right of way. Mr. St. John said you mean when the entrance is being built. (Mr. Wheeler came back to the meeting at 10:13 A.M.). Mr. Warner said that was correct, but they cannot limit the number of cars going out of that entrance. The kinds of restrictions that are imposed must come from the Board, but the highway department can certainly recommend what. they feel would be adequate. Mr. Thacker said he had just been handed a note that Mrs. Grady Covington called. She asked the status of her request pertaining to mass transportation to Scottsville/ ...... Esmont and/or Charlottesville. Mr. Thacker said he felt this was taken up on December 20 and~the Board took action at that time. He suggested that the Clerk send Mrs. Covington a copy of those minutes. Mr. Fisher said it might be well-for her to make known her wishes to the committee that is studying transportation prOblems for the City and the urban part of.the County and demonstrate a. need. Mr. Batchelor said the staff has contacted the bus carrier servicing that part of the County and he will be adding routes in the morning and evening~for the Scottsville/Esmont area to Ch~rt~ttes~itl~ Mr..~i.Wheeler asked that Mrs. Covington be notified that the private carrier has been ~contacted and has promised to get service into that area and other than that, at thi's time~ the Board does not forsee any other way to handle her request and it will not be placed on the Board's agenda in the future. Mr. Thacker Offered motion that Mrs. Covington be notified that there is a study underway regarding mass transit and this request should be turned over to them for their incorporation into that ~The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded study. vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. At 10:00 A.M., the Chairman called for a public hearing, as~advertised in the Daily Progress on March 6 and March 13, 1974, to correct, reenact and amend Section 6-3, Fee Schedules, Permit Fee Schedule of the Building Code, as set out below: Section 6-3, Fee Schedules, Permit Fee Schedule, Building Code Building Permit (Minimum.Charge) ........ $10.00 or $0 to $100,000 of value ............ $ 0.35 % of value $100,000 to S200,000 of value ......... $ 0.30 % of value Excess of $200,000 of value .......... $ 0.20 % of value No one from the public spoke for or against this amendment. Motion to adopt the foregoing amendment was offered by Mr~ Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. 3-21-74 ¸89 Mr. Batchelor said that some months ago, the School Board and the Board of Super- visors had discussed financing the new northside elementary school through the Literary Fund~and~the Supplemental Retirement System~ He has discussed this matter with the State Treasurer's 0ffice and the County's bonding attorney.~ They feel that the County may be able to borrow through the Virginia ,School Authority? The next. issue will be on April 4 and it is too late to become eligible for that issue. At this time, the staff r~equests an additional two months for study of this matter. It will be to the advantage of the County to borrow in this manner at the end of 1974 or the first of 1975. If this is done, the County will have to borrow in anticipation of a bond issue in the interim to pay the costs of construction. The County has received $750,000 from the Literary Fund at 3% interest. The County's capital reserve is not sufficient to carry the other $t million needed. Mr. Batchelor said the Board will have to pass a resolution to come under this authority, and if they are accepted the staff will request authority to borrow. Details on this must be worked out with the bonding attorney~and the County attorney. The staff does not feel that it is advisable to borrow from the Supplemental Retirement System since it will save the taxpayers money by borrowing from the school bonding authority. Mr. Carwile asked if the County can borrow in anticipation of a bond issue before they have been accepted by the Virginia School Authority, Mr. Batchelor said the Board must pass all necessary resolutions and be accepted first. Mr. Fisher asked if the County borrowed in anticipation of a bond issue and delayed the bond issue to obtain a more favorable rate, if the County. would have to pay a considerably higher rate for the anticipated bond. Mr. Batchelor said not appreciably. Mr. Batchelor said that many years ago there was a program in Albemarle County whereby orchardists were assessed taxes for cutting of cedar trees. This program ended in the late thirties. Currently, on the County books, there are unpaid taxes in the amount of $220.31. The auditors, several years ago, tried to write off these accounts but this was disallowed by the State Auditor. Mr. Lincoln G. Dulaney, present County auditor has recommended that the Board pass a resolution to have this account removed from the books. Mr. Wood offer~ed motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to write off Cedar Rust Warrants in the amount of $220.31. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Request was received to charge off the balance of the "Over and Short" account in the amount of $18..00, said balance being a shortage in cash for the 1972-73 fiscal year. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. 90 3-21-74 Mr. Batchelor said that the City and County own the Joint Health Department and for a number of years have allowed the Clay Broadcasting Corporation of Virginia to share the entrance with the Health Department and to have an underground electriC cable crossing the property. They have requested that this agreement be extended. Mr. St. John has approved the agreement which states that these rights across the property are permissive only and will be terminated in the event there is any change in the use of Clay B~oadcasting's property. Mr. Thacker asked if there is a possibility that this cable would be in the way of any expansion of the Health Department. Mr. Batchelor said if it is, they will have to move it at their expense. Mr. Thacker offered motion to allow the County Executive to sign this agreement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carriedby the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher~ HenlEy, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to authorize the Chairman to sign the following contract for anEmergency Preparedness Office with the City of Charlottesville: THIS CONTRACT entered into this (21st day of March, 1974,) between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, acting by and through its Director of Emergency Services, hereinafter referred to as County and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Vir~ginia, acting by and through its Director of Emergency Services, hereinafter reffered t~o as City. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Virginia has adopted the Emergency Services and Disaster Law, Title 44, Chapter 3.2, Code of Virginia (1950), as mmended requiring that "(e)ach political subdivision within the State shall be within the juris- diction of and served by the Office of Emergency Services and be responsible~for local disaster preparedness and coordination of response..." Sec. 44-146.19(a); and WHEREAS, the County does not at present have a capability for satisfying the afore- mentioned requirement; and WHEREAS, the Emergency Services and Disaster Law states that "(i)f two or more adjoining political subdivisions find that disaster operation plans and. programs would be better served by interjurisdictional arrangements in planning, for, preventing, or respond- ing to disaster in that area, then direct steps may be taken as necessary, including creation of an interjurisdictional relationship, a joint emergency services Operations plan, mutual aid, or such other activities as necessary for planning and servzces." Sec. 44-146.20, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and WHEREAS, the County adopted a Resolution on May 17, 1973, requesting that City join with County in forming a aombined Emergency Service office; and WHEREAS, both City and County agree that City's existing Emergency Services Program is capable of providing the. required and desirable planning for emergency services operations for both City and County. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained, City and County agree as follows: City will provide the. planning for all emergency services for County as outlined and specified in Title 44, Chapter 2.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, such planning to be provided on an annual basis. City and County, however, recognize that the need for planning for emergency services may arise suddenly during the course of the contract year. The planning for the aforementioned emergency services will b.e provided by and will be under the direction of the Emergency Services Coordinator for City. (2) 3-21-~4 9i (3) (4) (5) (6) The Emergency Services Coordinator will report to and be under the joint direction of the Director of Emergency Services for City and the Director of Emergency Services for the County. Operations of the,office of the Emergency Services Coordinator will at all times be open for inspection by the Director of Emergency Services for County. Ail recommendations for change in said operations made by the Director of Emergency Services for County shall ~be mandatory, insofar as they affect the County. The Director of Emergency Services for County will make any recommendations 'for change in Operations to the Director of Emergency Services for the City. The Emergency Services Coordinator will provide annually on December 1st to the Director of Emergency Services for County a detailed description, including estimated gross cost, of the planning for the aforementioned emergency services for the interjurisdictional area for the forthcoming contract period, and a complete accounting of the gross cost of the planning for emergency services for the contract period ending December 31st. The Emergency Services. Coordinator will also provide to the Director of Emergency Services for County, at the same time he provides to the Director of Emergency Services for City, a detailed description, including estimated gross cost, of the planning for aforementioned emergency services whose need arises suddenly during the contract year. The County will review the detailed description and estimated gross cost of planning for emergency services as presented by the Emergency Services Coordinator. (7) (8) The Director of Emergency Services for County will report to Director of Emergency Services for City and to Emergency Services Coordinator any changes which th~ County recommends be made in the planning for emergency services for the contract period and in the estimates of gross cost for said planning. Any changes recommendedby the Director of Emergency Services for County, insofar as they affect the County, shall be mandatory on the parties. By January !St of ~ontract~period, the Director of Emergency Services for City and the Director of Emergency Services for County will agree upon a mutually acceptable description, including estimated gross cost, of the planning for emergency services for forthcoming contract period. (9) County will pay fifty percent (50%) of the gross cost of the entire planning for emergency services, such payment to be made to City annually on or before January 15th of the year following the end of the foregoing contract period. (10) County has the option at the end of each contract period to discontinue without prejudice or liability the contract for any or no reason if the following provision is satisfied to discontinue the contract County must nbtify City no less than ninety (90) days before the end of the contract period of County's intention to discontinue the contract. (11) City has the option at the end of each contract period to discontinue without prejudice or liability the contract for any or no reason if the following provision is satisfied: to discontinue the contract City must notify County no less than ninety (90) days before the end of the contract period of City's intention to discontinue the contract'. (12) Either City or County has the right to immediately discontinue without prejudice Qr. liability the contract if the obligations of the other party set forth in the contract are not fulfilled. (13) The contract period will run from January 1st through December 31st of each year in which the contract is in force. (14) The contract will be automatically renewed each January 1st unless one or both parties take such action to discontinue the contract as is outlined in Articles 10, 11 and 12 above. (.1.5) Any and all provisions contained in the contract may be altered without prejudice to the remainder of the contract if such alteration is agreed to in advance by both parties to the contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their proper officials on the date and year written above. Gordon L. Wheeler, Director Cole Hendrix, Director 3-21-74 Mr. Thacker's motion was seconded by Mrf Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to authorize the Chairman to sign the following easement for the Ri~anna Water~ and Sewer Authority: THIS DEED made this (25th) day of March, 1974, by and between the County of Albemarle, hereinafter called the Landowner, party of the first part, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, hereinafter called Authority, party of the second part; W~I T N E S S E T H : That for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) in cash paid and other valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Landowner hereby GRANTS and CONVEYS with GENERAL WARRANTY unto the Authority the perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install and maintain a'sewer line consisting of pipes, and appurtenances for the transmission of waste water in and upon ~he LanRowner's lands lying in Albemarle County, Virginia, which lands are shown and designated as Parcel 135C on Section 61 of the Albemarle County Tax Map. The location of the said easement is more exactly shown on one plan and profile sheet, Project Number 2186, sheet 3 of 15, prepared by John McNair & Associates, Consulting Engineers, Waynesboro, Virginia, which sheet is attached to and is a part of this deed. The easement hereby conveyed is 20 feet in width and the location thereof is shown by a line outlined in RED on the said plan and profile sheet, hereto attached. As a part of the said easement, the Authority shall also have the right to enter upon the Landowner's lands for the purpose of installing, constructing and maintaining said waste water line and for making connections thereto. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within said easement, the Authority hereby agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore the surface condition as nearly as practicable to the same~condition existing prior to excavation. There is also granted an additional temporary easement 30 feet in width for the use of the contractor during the installation of said waste water line. This easement will terminate upon completion of installationthereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of Albemarle has caused its name to be signed hereto by Gordon L. Wheeler, its Chairman and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed and attested by Lettie E. Neher, its Clerk, all as of the day and year above written. Mr. WoOd's motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messr~s. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (At this time, the Board took a two-minute recess.) Request was received from W. M. Collins asking that the Board reconsider vote taken on SP-310. Mr. ~Collins said when this special permit was denied, it had been requested that he plant six-foot pines all the way around the site. At that time, he thought it would cost too much. He did not realize, at the time, 'that the request had been denied and he made an effort to see if he could locate some pines at a reasonable price. Since then he has planted pines along two sides and lacks about 20 trees of having the planting completed. Mr. Fisher asked how many trees have been planted. Mr. Collins said he was not sure. Mr. Fisher asked the height of these trees. Mr. Collins said some are six feet, some, are less, and some are eight feet. Mr. Fisher said when this came to the Board the first time, there were certain conditions which the Planning Commission had recommended and one was that Mr. Collins plant trees. Mr. Collins was worried about 3-21-74 whether he could provide the trees andWhileJ~eworried, the Board took action to deny the request. He has.now planted the. trees and Mr. Fisher had suggested that if he wanted the Board to reconsider the petition, that he make a formal request to the Board. Mr. Fisher said at the time the Board denied this request, they gave orders that two trailers located in violation of the permit.~ be removed from the property and he asked if this had taken place. Mr. Collins said they had not been removed. Mr. Fisher said one of the conditions recommended by the Planning Staff and Commission was that the two trailers be included in the six additional that would be allowed under this permit. Mr. Fisher said he felt Mr. Collins has made an honest attempt to comply with the conditions tha~t were stated and he asked that~the~Board reconsider their vote on SP-310. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to suspend the Board's rules of procedure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile~ Mr. Fisher asked that the condition regarding the trees be read. Miss White said the staff had recommended two staggered rows of evergreen trees, minimum height of six feet, where indicated on the plat prepared by Warren Wade. Mr. Fisher said he thought Mr. Collins had planted only one.row. Mr. Collins said that was what the plat showed. Mr¥ Wheeler said the Board was not considering the conditions, If this is reheard, theB ~is will be part of the public hearing. Mr. Wheeler said he would like to comment. He had no objections to the Board reconsidering, but felt that there should be some consistency. He said the Board has been on record for the last slx months as refusing to rehear such-petitions. He said one of his constitUtents had written a letter asking that a matter be reconsidered and it was not. He did not see how it can be so easy to reconsider petitions in some locations and ~refuse to reconsider others in areas wher~ there are quite a number of people affected by the petition~ Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher then offered motion that'the Board reconsider SP-310 and that it be readvertised for a public hearing at the owner's expense.. The hearing to be for this Board only and not to be reheard by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Wood said he would be consistent and vote no. Mr. Thacker said he agreed with Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Wood that the Board should be consistent. He was concerned that this would set a precedent for reconsideration and he would also vote no. Mr. Wood said he felt that if this motion passed, the Board would be obligated to go back and reconsider the other permit which was mentioned. Mr. Wheeler said while there have been some reconsiderations, he questioned going back and reconsidering this motion. But, he felt the Board should keep their options open so that when a decision is made and at a later time they think som~ correction should be made , they could do this. Vote was taken at this point and recorded as follows: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher and Wheeler. Messrs. Henley, Thacker, and Wood. 3-21-74 Mr. Wheeler said he thought reconsideration is not something that should be done constantly, but the Board should always keep their minds open so they can take the steps necessary which are in the best interests of the citizens of the County. He said most of these reconsiderations do affect .quite a large number of people. This particular petition affects quite a number of people in that area. He said he. would hate to have to call in the tie breaker to straighten this out. Mr. Wood said he would agree that the Board does. not need a tie breaker, but he was not convinced the Board should rehear this petition. He said the Board had asked a good straight forwar.d question of Mr. Collins. There has been only one row~of trees planted and he felt that by the time the Board reconsidered the petition, there would still be only one row. He said Mr. Collins has the right to bring this request back to the Board in one year. He said on another situation, with which he is more familiar, he might vote another way. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. St.. John to advise the Board of their~position. Mr. St. John said the Board could move to reconsider, their last decision. Any member can. make such a motion.. Mr. Wheeler asked, he someone would make a motion to reconsider. Mr. Carwile offeredmotion to reconsider the last vote taken. He said that if the Board has a poligy, in ~the name of consistency, which does not take into account working equity for the people involved or a change in circumstance, it would be a bad policy. Mr. Wood gave second to the motion. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following r~ecorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fishery Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. St. John said the Board would now need a motion to set this on the agenda. Mr. Fisher offered motion that the Board reconsider SP-310 and that it be readvertised for a public hearing for this Board only, at the owner's expenses. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Henley and Mr..Thacker. At this time, the Boardcontinued with a discussion of a request for a restricted road system in Ednam Forest. Action on this request had been deferred from March 13. Mr. Robert Stroud, attorney for Mr. John Rogan, was present. Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Stroud had received a copy of the traffic count taken by the county's staff. Mr. StroUd said no. Wheeler: May I furnish you a copy? Now you may proceed. Stroud: (I) would like to make some brief comments of what I think are important. The aspects of this matter have had fairly full explanation over the past several meetings and (we) will be prepared to stand for any questions the Board may have. Our request is for final approval on Section 5 and preliminary approval of Section 6; there already being in existence approved and recorded plats for Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. Within the sections for which we are requesting approval, the applicant has stated that he will comply with all the applicable requirements relating to roads and other matters as interpreted by the County Engineer~, so I don't think there is any issue there within those Sections 5 and 6. As I understand it, there has been some question raised about the adequacy of the roadway into Section 5 and 6 which passes through properties, many of which now do not belong to the developer. Whether something should be done, then I suppose, if so, who should do it. At the last meeting of this Board, the developer presented information which suggests that its legal position is that over the course of time that the planning authorities have been supervisin~t~e overall scheme, n~ong approving speCific plats except as they go to record. Over the same 15 years that that has been going on there has been, and more than half of the development being completed, there is legal authority to indicate that the developer should be allowed to continue development in accordance with that plan unless as Mr. St. John suggested, there is some extraordinarily o~erriding consideration~ But, you would have to recognize that in denying the developer this property it would amount to virtually a confiscation since he could not develop it according to a plan that he has worked towards. There has been no suggestion that I am a~are of that, no facts, that would support the confiscation of the property in this case, although it would amount to a virtual confiscation. There have been questions about whether or not a second entrance could be had out there or not and you heard Mr. Rogan, at the last meeting, in the presence of the man from the highway department, discuss their prior conversations and heard Mr. Brown confirm that he heard the conver- sation wherein the developer had been discouraged from insta%ling further entrances at a time when it could perhaps have been done. To go back now, again we think, to say this is a requirement in order to get something that does comply with our requirements, again we suggest does amount to c'onfiscation, in the setting in which~ it occurs, that is this long history. I would simply point out that we are not at the same posture? I don't think we would be in if we were coming in from scratch again. At which time I think you might be able to look more broadly than the Board is able to do now. We did submit a letter documenting this position and showing some cases in Virginia that would confirm the position that I have given to you in other counties where a similar, but not identical, issue was raised. We have gone to the Sheriff's Department to inquire about the safety of the roads ~-out there in terms of the accidents which are reported. We are unable to produce any records of accidents in the property. I can't say there haven't bee~. Information from the developer (shows) there haven't been and the Sheriff in his official records got of accidents so that over a course of time this would tend to discredit the suggestion that the roads there are unsafe. They have also checked with the Virginia State Police and their records would indicate that there have been some accidents on Route 250, but interestingly, they occurred near the Gulf Oil place which is one of the points .where it has been suggested ~that an alternate exit be installed, so that would appear to be a~dangerous location; and at the Farmington entrance. It would appear that with/it~e property itself, which is all that we have any concern about, the records and facts don't seem to support the implic-ation that roads there. What is true out on Route 250, I think is clearly beyond the control of the developer. Perhaps the 3-21-74 State highway department should do something else about that entrance out on 250 .which is where the accidents seem to occur, but we don't believe that is something over which we have control and if it were suggested that we try to do it, I think we would respond with the same argument that we ~oppose that requirement now in order to gain approval of Section 5 way back in the property would be an unreasonable requirement in face of the period of development that we have accomplished. Within the property itself, the question of what the people want who are there, there are several property owners here today, perhaps any one or more of them would be willing to answer your questions or offer a statement indicating that arrangement between them and the developer has been resolved so that they are satisfied with each other in the scheme of development out there and don't want to see something in the.nature of highways passing through the property and greatly increasing the speed out there that would flow from widening it if you were to make such a requirement and the developer were able to build it. Part of the reason for their buying there was the quaintness and attractiveness of the setting and they do not want that destroyed and do not want to see a second entrance required so I don't want to speak for them but will leave any of them to pursue those comments or answer questions along that line. I think that picks up the salient points that we want to emphasize. I have just been handed a traffic count and find myself in a somewhat awkward position of not being able to comment on it until I have had a chance to read it. Wheeler: I think it shows, that the four day count, this is the commercial part from 250 back to the end, averages about 1773 vehicles per 24 hours. What's the pleasure of the Board? Wood: What are we considering? The restricted roads. '(Yes) I move that we grant the request '. Carwile: I will second the motion for the purpose of discussion, but this does not mean that I will support the motion. Fisher: Seems that we have only two choices and that is to either approve the request for the restricted roads as presented or to deny it. The approval of Such a request for an additional 59 dwelling units is certainly contrary to the policies that we have been working on and would seem not to be in the best ir~mrest of the future land- owners in the area and the existing landowners~ over a long time period which is what we have to worry about, not just the next two or three years, but the next 25 to 50 years. The Highway Engineer has advised us that the traffic problem at the entrance is severe primarily because of the increased commercial traffic and I am very reluctant to see us go ahead with approving restricted roads through here for another 59 units; adding another 400 vehicle trips per day to the nearly existing 1800 that we have gotten a small sample ~during bad weather and during an energy crisis. It seems to me that we are very likely talking about creating a traffic count on the entrance road that exceeds 2000, perhaps exceeding 2500 vehicle trips per day in the next few years and the road is definitely not to the standards that the State would require for such a road. I think it does constitute a traffic hazard. If inot tod~y, it does for the people who will be living there in the next few years. Wood: The reason for the motion i~ the same that I stated at the last meeting. It is obvious that Ednam Forest was there long before we had our current policy. Obviously, Ednam Forest was there and set it's own atmosphere that they choose to live in. I am not concerned about the 1700 or 2000 per day. Those roads are about the same standards as Rio Road which has about 3500 cars a day, except that this services a residential area that I think the people choose to live in. I think for us to change those standards now after some 15 years would be a detriment to Ednam Forest Village and I think we would be doing an injustice to those people who live there now, as well as the people who wish to live there, as well as the people who own lots there and hope to build a home as soon as they can, which I have had calls from. I have had calls from people in Ednam Forest asking that this thing be approved. They don't know how it got to be such a big issue to start with. I am not making the motion to support restricted roads in the future. If this were coming before the Board today under today's standards, there would be no question that the streets and roads would have to meet the standard that we are dealing on day. I think we would be doing an injustice to require this of that neighborhood at this time, to change that and that is my reason for the motion and I would like to see that take place. Thacker: One further point I don't think either Mr. Fisher or Mr. Wood have touched on~.~ It is of Concern to me. We spoke of the safety and welfare of ~the residents of Ednam Forest and those people using those roads. Very frankly, I am concerned about the welfare and safety of those people using Route 250 and the potential hazard that would certainly be increased with the additional traffic at the entrance, .Which is something we have to address outselves to as well as the question of restricted roads. Fisher: I could support a motion for restricted roads in this new section~ ~but not to the standards that we have adopted for ten or less dwelling units. We set that because we realized the problems that exist in the county in areas that have a high traffic count on gravel roads, or small gravel roads, and I can only support restricted roads in this area if they are built to State standards in the initial layout, design, and construction, with plans that are acceptable to the highway department so that in the event that it was possible at some future time to connect with an existing State road or if people in the existing Ednam ForeSt area wimh to upgrade ~their roads so that they could be taken in, that this road would possibly ..... qualify. I just do not feel that we should put another 59 units on a road standard we have set to be for less than ten .dwelling units. I am concerned about the entrance at 250. About the increasing commercial development along the road on the stretch from 250 to the dam, essentially, which includes all the commercial traffic, the Boar's Head traffic, the Sport's Club traffic, the Ednam Village traffic, etc., in addition to the residential traffic. It would be my feeling that if the Board could work out an agreement with the developer, to get t,hat road improved from the 3-21-74 highway back to the dam, to get the entrance improved, to get both of those accepted into the State system and then to build the roads through the new subdivision to State standards, with the homeowners agreement to maintain it, I would be willing to break our policy on restricted roads and allow it to be done. But, otherwise, I don'~ feel it is in the best interest of the people~who are going to live there for the next 50 years to allow them to continue to develop on substandard roads. Thacker: One thing that should be mentioned is that the Board has discussed this with Mr. Warner and Mr. Perry not realizing that they would be here at the time the developer was scheduled to be here and we had ben~fit of their comments concerning this. I don't know if we would like to have those repeated at this time or not. Wood: I would. I didn't hear all of that discussion and I feel it would be very beneficial.~ Wheeler: Mr. Warner, I wonder if you, ask you to stand and make your comments on what you feel about the entrance and the road from 250 back to the dam site, so Mr. Rogan and Mr. Stroud can hear them. Warner: Basically, what I stated earlier was based on the information I had gvailable as ~ar as future expansion in the~ development. It was my feeling that in the commercial area itself and the additional traffic going to be' generated that the entrance to the complex should be made to commercial nature to more adequately handle the increased volume of traffic that would be generated by the future expansion. In my opinion, this would necessitate the widening of the existing entrance to accommodate the smooth flow of traffic onto 250 and provision of a deceleration lane for east bound traffic on 250 to get off to turn in to the complex in order to not impede the through traffic moving on 250 itself. That is basically the main point that I brought up. Wheeler: You made a comment about the road from 250 to the dam. Warner: t commented to the fact that I did not feel that due to the current width of the road that it was not, according to. our standards, adequate to handle that type of increased traffic. The point is argumentative, because there are many roads that handle that volume, but under current standards, it would not meet the need to handle that volume of traffic. Stroud: I would like to make certain that I understand that the issue the Board is debating is the same issue we think we are presenting, just a procedural question. I understand that the developer is not asking that the roads in Section 5 deviate in any material respect from standards that you set. I am not entirely certain, and I have an engineer here today, but I think we ought to be clear that we are not asking for material deviation on the roads that we are now to build so we are not coming in and asking for restricted roads as it where. It is just that in order to get to our property one must travel over restricted roads which this Board~through your predecessors~ have.previously approved and the issue is2can you or should you, in the face of the legal position which we present, attempt to require the developer to go and do something over again that was done the way your predecessors previously approved, but I would like to ~ake clear that we are not asking for restricted roads in Section 5 which I think was the 3-21-74 suggestion Mr. Fisher put and I would like to get that confirmed. There may be some question on the sight distance. There may be some deviation in the strict sense, but I would like to have the issue cleared. Wheeler: I think Mr. Fisher commented in our discussion with Mr. Warner this morning,that, first of all, it is the_feeling that the roads in Section 5, even though they would be restricted roads, still be put into State highway requirements so that if later on, if you wanted to bring them into the State highway system, that they would be such that you could bring them into the system. In addition to that, we are concerned about the entrance to the Boar's Head Complex and that portion of the road that runs from 250 to the dam and I have a feeling, I agree with Mr. Fisher that that entrance should be improved and that section running back to the dam ought to be brought up to commercial standards that would, Mr. Warner would feel, is satisfactory under today's conditions. It is not my intention, not the Board's intention, that we disrupt the Ednam Forest Complex or change these other roads. But, those two things~ I am concerned about and I think that is what, probably something worked out along those lines is going to be needed to get my support. Stroud: Could % just clarify one further point, and I assume this is going on the record. Is there any suggestion that the road from 250 to the dam was built to any standards less than what was approved at the time the original plan was submitted. T~ere is no suggestion that it was not built to the standard that was approved, just question of whether to apply a new standard now. Wheeler: I'm not suggesting that because I do not know what~ standards were required at that time. Fisher: The only statement that we are making now is that the traffic that presently exists seems from our own observations and from what the highway department says, is at or exceeding the.capacity of that road and any further extension of its use now would create a hazard. That's what we are saying. Stroud: Even though it was built to standards which increased use in when approved in 1960. Fisher: I can't speak to how much they knew at that time about what the traffic was going to be. Stroud: I just want to be sure we have on record what the actual issue is. ~St. John: I get the feeling that a record is being built here. It is already'in the record what Mr. Warner said this morning, but if this record is to be utiliZed for any-purpose later, it may be said that what is in the record this morning, when you gentlemen were not here, cannot be considered in this matter. It was not formally and properly before this Board this morning because it was scheduled for 10:45 on the agenda this morning, and I will put this in the record now, iproperly. Mr. Warner not only stated that this highway's recommendation, etc., with respect to what Should he done with the entrance, he said that if Section 5 is approvedjregardless of the kind of roads, restricted, or otherwise, the roads could be made of pure gold in Section 5 and yet the traffic to be generated by new Section 5., using the present entrance as it is will constitute a severe traffic hazard, a danger to people's safety. This was stated by Mr. Warner and if that is not correct)Mr.. Warner you correct me,and state into the record what you .do think on that subject~ because this is important Stroud: Is that subject to cross-examination at this point? St. John: I don't think that is the Procedure. I think you can state anything you want to into the record here, but I don't think you have cross-examination, etc. I am not trying to state the thing in the best .light for or against the developer. It has not become an adverse situation. But, this is what Mr. Warner said this morning and I feel it ought to be properly part of the record. The issue here, it seems to me, is not whether these roads will be restricted roads in Section 5 because, for Mr. Stroud's clarification anyway, restricted roads, no matter what standard they are built to, if they can never become part of the State system, ~then they are restricted. That has to do with the means of maintenance and upkeep rather than only the standards under which they are built, so if they are right in accord with State standards and the State won't take them over because there are private roads between them and the nearest public road they are still going to be restricted roads. _Whether or not those roads are restricted, I get the sense here that it is likely to be the Board's position that as a condition precedent to approval of this subdivision at all, something is going to have to be done to improve this entrance to the point where it is at least not a severe traffic hazard. That is where the record stands here although the subdivision is not even before the Board at this time. It is a question of restricted roadS, is the only qu~estion before the Board, but by granting approval of the restricted roads, if the Board intends tO do that, I do not think it should be allowed to appear that this is approval of the sub- division pe-r se with the entrance as is, if it is the Board's feeling that that should not be allowed. Now is the tire, to put it clearly into the record, if~:~_,,: adverse to having the subdivision approved with the entrance as it is. Fisher: That's my feeling, St. John: Another thing I would like to point out now is that I understand tha6 perhaps some members of the Board have knowledge of the layout of the roads in this area. Some members of the Board, maybe all members of the Board have personal knowledge of the character of the roads and that entrance. If you do have that knowledge and you want it to be considered as far as this record, you have to state it into the record, state whether you have this personal knowledge, or whether your judgement in it or any vote take, here is based purely and only on the matters that have been brought before you and are in the minutes of this meeting and other hearings that we have had. Fisher: I have some knowledge of the roads as they exist and have some knowledge of the traffic as it enter~s and exits onto 250 because I drive that road at least twice everyday. I am familiar to some extent with the internal network of roads as they exist, and the size of the pavement and the radius of the curves, etc., and these are matters which lead me to have such strong concern for adding additional volume of traffic to the existing roads. 3-21-74 iOi Thacker: I do have knowledge of the entrmnce and the internal road layout. It is knowledge that has been developed over the past number of years. For approximately a year and one-half I have utilized that entrance twice daily during the normal work week, and I am aware of the traffic situation. Wheeler: Mr. Wood, you have any comments you want to make? Wood: I wonder if you could get everybody in the record and then let me say something and maybe amend my motion? Wheeler: I would like to state that I have full knowledge of the roads. Certainly that portion that we are discussing, affecting the entrance on 250 and going back to the Boar's Head Complex and any decision I might make on any vote will be from that know- ledge, plus any information that, and the advise of Mr. Warner, the Highway Engineer. Carwile: I also have knowledge of the internal road sitation of Ednam Forest and the entrance at 250. Henley: I don't claim to be an expert. I have been in there a number of times. Have some knowledge. Wheeler: Mr. Wood, you have some comments you want to make? Wood: I, like the other Board members, have personal knowledge, from traVelling the roads and also what has been presented here. I intend to base my decision upon those facts that I have personal knowledge and also what has been presented. Mr. Chairman, I think it might be appropriate at this time, in order to get us off center here, that maybe I could state an amendment to my motion, rather than just approval, it be approval based upon certain conditions and those conditions be: that the entrance is improved with proper deceleration lanes and acceleration lanes so that it can adequately and in a safe manner handle the traffic that is existing there now, as well as traffic that might be~generated, and that the road that they are asking for to service the new areas, the new homes, meet our standards for restricted roads, and maet all the requirements for homeowners parti- cipation and maintenance and all of those requirements. I would like to stop there, I don't want in my motion, I don't want to say that the road be improved from the entrance to the lake. I think that once the person gets off of 250 and through the entrance, the speed, the manner in which they travel, it will be a safe manner. I think you could destroy the whole image and atmosphere of Ednam Village and Ednam Forest by making that a large commercial road from the entrance down to the Club or the entrance-down to the lake. I think we can solve with this motion,the problem of restricted roads in'the new section. We can solve the safety hazard by correcting the entrance. I believe, at this time, that would be sufficient to do the job without maybe doing away with the atmosphere that is already there. I personally think it would be a shamme to tear up what is already there to put in a major commercial entrance all the way down to the Club. It does have great historical significance. If I remember when the thing was built, it was moved here piece by piece and constructed out there and I think, it means a lot to me, I would like to see us correct the entrance and require the other restrictions on the new roads and. Fisher: The intent of your standards for the new section is to meet our Class A County standard and not State highway department standards? (Several people talking at once). Henley: I don't like the description of what they should do to the entrance either.~ I think it should prObably be based on the highway department's recommendation rather than us trying to say. [_j Wood: I agree with that. Whatever the highway standards are, highway recommendations to make it a safe entrance to people in and out. Henley: I think this part of the sub~[ivision should be to State standards which is a better quality of road and will last longer. ~ Wood: I will agree with that. Fisher: Are you amending your motion to that effect? Wood: Yes, sir. Wheeler: Let me get straight what your motion is, Mr..Wood. You are changigg your motion, see if Mr. Carwile will agree That you are recommending that the Board approve restricted roads and they be to State highway standards and that the entrance be changed to meet requirements which Mr. Warner thinks are necessary and needed for the safety in that area. Wood: Yes, and not requiring that the section from the entrance to the lake be made into a commercial road. I would like to delete that. Thacker: You are saying from the right-of-way back. Wheeler: Mr. Carwile, you seconded the original motion, is this acceptable to you? ~ Carwile: I w,ould like to hear from Mr. Warner as to whether he thinks that just going back to the right-of-way will be satisfactory from a safety standpoint. Wheeler: Can you ~address that? Warner: Of course, that is the only thing that we have any direct control over,is from, is 'back to the right-of-way and it could conceivably need to go further than that. I don't 'say necessarily all the way, but if may require 100 feet further than that, or something of this nature. Wood: My intent, I think I stated that so it is a safe entrance. I am not talking about just on the right-of-way. I think it may be another 25 feet in there to make it work, this is the intent of my motion. I don't want to see us destroy what is there and run a four or six-lane, highway all the way down to the dam. Fisher: I don't think anybody is talking about a 70-foot highway. Wheeler: Mr. Carwile, are you going to accept that motion? ~_] Carwile: No, sir. Wheeler: We still have your original motion before us Mr. Wood, do you want to vote on that motion? Wood: I withdraw the motion. --~ Wheeler: Carwile :. Wheeler: Mr. Carwile, is that acceptable? Yes. Mr. Snow, you have been holding your hand up. Rogan: I would like to have one thing clarified, as to what you mean or did mean before by highway standards. I don't know whether I really appreciate that wording or -- whether I understand it. We certainly intend to d. omply with any restriction which the County has set up for subdivisions. If you want a 20-foot road,,-~we will have a 20-foot road. I assume that is base, you get it. I don't know whether they are the same t-hings that the highway standards. Wheeler: We use the highway standards, sir, other than. Rogan: These are built in accordance with the little sheet we received from the - Planning Commission. Carwile: Road standards. Wheeler: You understand, Mr. Snow? Snow: What we are talking about in Section 5 is that Mr. Rogan has no objection whatsoever to base and width of pavement and width of shOulder, but what the highway department would require for this class road which would be Category 1, would be a certain sight distance when you go over hill and a degree of curvature. If this type of thing out there is going to destroy the whOle thing. You will wind up with cuts and fills that just are not going to look like Ednam Forest. We would like. to comply, we have submitted a set of road plans to the County Engineer and the comments we got back from him is that we would have no objection whatsoever to comply with. We would certainly like to get some variance on the sight distance, vertical sight distance and curvature that the highway department requires of Category 1 roads. Thacker: Mr. Snow, on plans presented to the County Engineer',. were vertical sight distances, vertical alignment and horizontal alignment, indicated? Snow: Surely they,..were, they were as-built, a complete set of road plans. Wheeler: But', they still would not meet Category 17 Snow: No, sir. Because of sight distance and the degree of some curves. Henley: Did the base and width meet Category 17 Snow: They did. Wheeler: If you don't meet the sight problems, we have that on some roads that we can't get in now, Bedford Hills, for instance, that cannot be brought into the St-ate system. If you don't require those sight alignments now, then ten years from now, if you get another entrance in, you want to bring this into the State system, it can't be " done.' Unless you go back, and I know what they are going to say then, we don't want to L tear our roads up, so we either require this Section 5 so that somewhere along the line · ~tate system or we forget about bringing into the State system and it can be broughtZ~o he that is exactly before us. I am~ not willing to forget about at some time, bringing into the S~tate system. Batchelor: Mr. Warner, have you seen the plans and specs? Would the sight distance and curvatures under the new high~ay standards for mountain property, hilly property, change from the old requirements that might allow for this? Do the new ones make that much variance? Warner: Depnds on how liberal ~an interpretation you want to put on the new' standards. The -way I interpret~ and the way it has been interpreted to me, the new standards, baa~cally apply to short cul-de-sac streets that will not have any future through traffic. Only go to a certain point and stop. Some consideration can be given to variances and sight distances and this sort of .thing in these streets that won't ever generate this much. That's the interpretation. It specifically states in there, been other, certain other interpretations applied, tried to extend it to a lot of situations, but it speCifically states in the last paragraph that it refers to short sections or cul-de-sacs that won't be extended any further. Fisher: I think the question of the roads that have been built in the proposed Section 5 and 6 of the subdivision are ~ot the question that is before this Board. The questiOn is what we think ought to be there. The roads that have been built have been built at the owner's risk. Wheeler: That's right. Can we have a motion of some kind? Wood: I don! t think the intent of this is ~to ever get those roads into the system. I think the homeowner's agreement, and the maintenance agreement that is there now is going to be I would like us to see put into proper standards as far as depth of sub- material, so there is an adequate maintenance situation there and. not chuck holes. I believe it is Mr. Henley's intent in this, and I agree with that. I don't think we should~ disrupt the atmosphere that has been created there so that someday it might come into the systerm. I think it is thoroughly understood, and the intent is, to never come into the system and it be created as private roads in the existing .... I think you are going to destroy something there that's good if we require that. ~Wheeler: I Would request some type of motion so that we can get on with business. Rogan: May I make a statement before you do that? Wheeler: Yes. Rogan: If the question boils down to the entrance, I would like to go back and review the history on that. Our conversations with the highway department and how it's grown, and deceleration lanes and accelerations lane. If that is not the question and I don't see how it can be relative to the back por.tion. In the first place Ednam Forest does not own that entrance. It is completely under another entity. The Boar's Head Inn owns it, and that is composed of quite a bunch of stockholders now and we would have to go back to them to get some sort of approval, so we (are) talking about two separate entities we have to deal with. If it is just the back portion, we want to do what you all want us to do. Fisher: Mr. Rogan, it is honeStly both the question of the roads in the back section If and the entrance. /We are going to add 400 or more vehicles to that traffic, then we must consider that. Rogan: We don't want an unsafe situation and I hope you understand this. Nobody, the owners, the people who live there, the Boar's Head Inn, or anybody else. So that something will have to be done if it reaches a point where it is unsafe. The problem now is getting off and onto 250 and there are lots of situations where getting onto and 3-21-74 i05 off the State high~ay are dangerous situations and that is something the highway has' not only to take care of, but tell us what to do to help. We have requested a lot of help there in the past and they haven't seen fit to give us decelerations until traffic came up to a certain point. Now. they/say coming toward the east, they say another one should be in there. When we made our first application for slow-down lanes in there they thought we were off-base and said no thank you, and waited four or five years before they did it. That wasn't built up, I don't thin.k, by the owners living back in Ednam Forest. There are a lot of people in and out of there, but I don't think it is all created by the homeowners and I personally feel the issue is the roads back in the subdivision and not somebody~else's land over which they are travelling. I do think it would spoil the subdivison to make highways back through there. I think our owners feel the same'., way. ,Wheeler: Can we get some motion? Fisher: I would like to-make a motion to the intent that I stated previously that in order to get approval for Section 5, ~.fina'l approval for Section 5, and preliminary approval for Section 6, that we state that the roads in those sections will be built to standards of the Virginia Department of Highways for roads in residential character and the traffic load that will be expected to be generated. That the plans for those roads be developed and approved by Mr. Warner, if he will do so at our request, and that on completion of those roads, they be inspected by the County Engineer. I don't think we can ask the highway departmentoto inspect those roads. But, to see-whether they comply generally with the plans that have been submitted and approved. 2) ~That the entrance from 250 to Ednam Forest, back to the dam, be redesigned and constructed~'to approval, of the Virginia Department of Highways for inclusion into the State highway system in order to handle the traffic that P=esently exists and is anticipated to exist. Wheeler: You have heard the motion, do I hear a second? Carwile: I could support a motion along those lines with the exception that from the 250 entrance back be designed and constructed in a fashion to satisfy the highway department. As for saying how far back it goes, I would rather leave that to the highway department rather than our being arbitrator of that and that if constructed to the highway department satisfaction that it is the option of the developer as to whether or not he wants to put it into the system. Wood: I could support a motion along those lines if you dealt with the entrance and not all the way back to the dam. My concern is the safety of the entrance and not restricted to the right-of-way. Wheeler: Mr. Fisher, I have no second to your original motion. Do you want to restate a motion or does somebody else want to make a motion. Wood: Let somebody e!me.I tried, and Jerry tried. · Henley: I've been trying to. get Stuart to do it. Carwile: I will make a motion that will include Mr. Fisher's first condition with Cespect to Section ~5 and Section 6 and as to the entrance from 250 that it be, that the highway department, that our approval of Section 5 and preliminary approval of Section 6 be conditioned upon the developer agreeing to take such steps and do Such construction as is necessary, at his expense, as the highway department recommends to the County and --] the deVeloper in order to meet the safety criteria and objectives of the highway department Wheeler: How far . . . ? Carwile: No, not limit it. Wheeler: Do I hear a second to this motion? Henley: I will second the motiOn. Fisher: Can I ask some clarification? You are going to leave it entirely up to Mr. Warner tO decide what is going to be a safe situation on the stretch between the entrance and all through all the commercial property? Carwile: I, ~!frankly, think Mr. Warner is in a better position to jndge that. than the Board is, being an expert in highway matters. Not only Mr. Warner, but the high- way department. Fisher: What if Mr. Warner said it had to be constructed to State standards all the way back to the Sport's Club, or something like that? Henley: I'm thinking of the entrance there. Carwile: I am only thinking with respect to the entrance road as it goes down to the dam. I'm not speaking with reference to any other road in the Boar's Head Complex. Fisher: Mr. Warner, you have the ,full intent of that motion? Carwile: Are you~ willing to undertake that Mr. Warner? Warner: I am in a position where I will offer on behalf of the department, with department comments, or recommendations to the Board. I want to make it clear right now that it will be the Board's decision as to how you react to the recommendation that we might make. I will be willing to advise the Board and make recommendations. As I understand the motion as just made, that it involves the: entrance and not the total road. Carwile: How long will it take you to be in a position to make your recommendations? Warner: I could have them next week. Wheeler: There is a motion on the floor and I think it is a reasonable motion and I think that with Mr. Warner's recommendation and we can have our own engineer take a look at it, I think the motion, once this Board gets a recommendation from Mr. Warner, this Board can take a look at it and set it as our requirement. --~ Carwile: I would like to change my motion to the extent that Mr. Warner advise the Board and County Engineer and the determination of it be made by the Board. Wheeler: O.K. Wood: We are not taking any action today? This is just to get the information in? Wheeler: NO. We will approve the motion, but the approval is conditioned on our approving that the entrance coming to this Board and we will tell them our requirements. Carwile: It puts Mr. Rogan in the position of know~ing if he is willing to comply with the conditions, that he would have approval on the restricted roads and eliminate that degree of uncertainty. 3-21-74 They Thacker: That is an amendment of your motiOn?- Carwile: Yes, restating of my motion. Wood: You are saying to the fullest, highest, State standards on the back roads. can't have those to a restricted road area. Fisher: They are restricted to a standard, state highway department standards, as I understand it. Wood: I feel that we are making a mistake there. If they are going to be restricted and can never be taken in anyway, I don't think we should destroy the atmosphere of it. Wheeler: Unless Mr. Carwile wants to change his motion, or there is another comment, I am going to call for a vote. Carwile: I would just like to say that the reason for stating my motion as I did is the concern I have heard on behalf of several of the Board members earlier~ this morning, plus statements from Mr.. Rogan that he was willing to comply with whatever standards we set for Section 5 and Section 6. Fisher: Is it also the intent of your motion that all the other parts of our policy of restricted roads be incorporated into Section 5 and Section 6, for the maintenance and upkeep of those roads? Carwile: Yes. I think that was part of the application that was made to the Board, that it would be done in that fashion. Wheeler: Further discussion? St. John: Could I ask that something be clarified? The requirements that the interior roads in Section 5 be to State standards, mean all standards, including those with respect to sight distances and cuts and fills or With just respect to the composition of the roads? Don't want to leave that ambiguious. Carwile: My motion was with respect to all standards. Rogan: I didn't mean to comply with that. You quoted me that I Would, but ! don't think we can comply with all of that. ~eeler: That will be for you to decide, if this motion passes. Henley: That's not really my, I don't know if we ought to, I was thinking of the base and width. Maybe that's alright. St. John: I don't want to speak out of turn, but you asked my opinion on this. ThiS was the subject on which you asked my opinion before, ~when the matter came up and I gave you my opinion. I still feel that opinion is my opinion on the qeustion of these interior roads, not on the question of the entrance. I think we ought to keep those separate. ~The first opinion that I gave you on this with respect to the character of these interior roads, I still feel this is right. Wt~eeler: Mr. St. John, this motion does not change any of the roads that are there at the present time. This is just in Sectior~ 5 and 6. Carwile: Which is to say,Mr. St. John, that~you think the requirements with respect to fills, slopes, sight distances, you want based on previous actions of this Board? 108 St. John: I don't feel that strongly about that as I did about the requirement that you go back and change the existing roads. Carwile: That is not part of the motion. St. John: I feel they are sort of in a gray area here. There is a question in my mind as to whether we can do this. Wheeler: As I understand, Mr. Carwile's motion has nothing to do with any roads that are there now. Mr. Henley, are you going to accept this change? Henley: That's not really what I thOugh we were going to do. Wheeler: Do you want to second or do you want to withdraw your second? Carwile: I am willing to further amend my motion to ~eliminate the requirements as to sight distances, slopes, curves, and in all other respects' t~ be the highway department. Wheeler.: Mr. Henley, do you accept that amendment? Further discussion? Wood: I can vote for that motion. Henley: I think that this thing has been established. I think 'it would be nice if eventually it could be hooked into another system, that one little piece. I think we are going to end up in a law suit and we have too many of those now, so I don't believe it is worth requiring that. Wood: I call for the question. Wheeler: Any further discussion? Call the roll. Wait one minute. Thacker: Just for the record, I would like' for Mr. Carwile to restate the motion so there is no question what we are voting on. Carwile: I will incorporate the first part of Mr. Fisher's motion ( In~-order to get approval for Section 5, final approval for Section 5, and preliminary approval for Section 6, that~ the roads in those sections will be built to standards of the Virginia Department of Highways for roads of residential character and the traffic load that will be expected to be generated. That the plans for those roads be developed and approved by Mr. Warner, and that on completion of those -roads they be inspected by the County Engineer. to see if they comply generally with the plans that have been submitted and approved.) and the r~finfg part of my motion would be as to the entrance from Route 250 Wheeler: Can I interrupt? That isn'-t right Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher's motion was that they be to Category 1 and that isn't as I understand Carwile: Can I finish? Wheeler: Alright, go ahead. Carwile: That as to the entrance that they be from 250 back, that the roads be, that the developer, agree to construct the roads in such a fashion as this Board may hereafter approve after consultation with the highway department and from the County Engineer. It not being my intent that the construCtion be back to any specific point, but to such point as the highway department and the Board may decide the interest of safety may require and that we only are speaking with reference to the entrance road off 109' of 250 and not as to any iother road with respect to the upgrading of the entrance; and that the construction of the roads in Section 5, for final approval, and Section 6, for preliminary approval, be to highway department standards with the exception of sight distances and slopes. Fisher: Are they to meet any standards? Carwile: Approved by the County Engineer. Vote was taken at this Point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr~ Fisher and Mr. Thacke~. Mr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Albemarle County schools was present to request that the Board fund Distar Aides for the balance of the 1973-74 school year. He said that these aides will have to be terminated at the end of March in order to stay within the budget which the County has now been allotted for the school year. The' School Board has approved, and he would ask that the Board of Supervisors grant $20,000 to finish this ~program through the end of the fiscal year. He said,at the beginning of the year~ allotments were made on the basis of new census figures. The School Board was told that they would receive~ $23 Federal government before on all but only committed $210,000. ThE In November, they found that ins~ At that time, they cut everythin~ the program. They stated, at thal positions if the money was not f~ impounded money, and because the money, that they could probably Department of Education and the they found that the allotment ha ,000 to fund this program. Having dealt~with the tments, the School Board made a proposal for $237,000, ~y felt this would be sufficient to cover the program. :ead of $237,000, the Coun~ty would receive only $190,000. that was not personnel and not absolutely essential to time, that they might have to terminate the Distar aide rthcoming. They were told that due to release of SchoOl Board had a few thousand dollars in carry-over mke it through the year. Mr. McClure called the State '~chool Board did receive additional funds. Two weeks-ago been reduced to $170,000. Mr. McClure said the aides are an important factor in the p~'ogram. groups which show up Poorly on r~ are receiving. Mr. McClure aske~ places within._ the present school assured him that if any money is. is a possibility that all of the today. Mr. Carwile asked if the been appropriated to continue th~ would have to make an appropriatJ category. Mr. McClure said the and many localities lost money. After the allotments were made, which were brought on them. The groups are relatively small, ~ut they have ~adiness tests and need the individual attention that they for authority to take the necessary funds from various ~udget. He said the State Department of Education has returned, Albemarle County will received preference. There money will be received. He said a decision must be made School Board has money available in what has already .s program. McClure said yes~ At a later time, he .on request ~for transfer of funds into the teacher-aide !irst allotment for this year was made on the 1970 census These were localities who~ also lost Iow-income children. :ongress went back to the 1960 census because of pressures They now have a different bill in Congress and there seems to be more certainty. Based on the 1970 census, Albemarle County received students, but did not receive the money. Also in the program is a forward-funding feature ~hat would give guarantee~Lof the monies to be received a year in advance. Mr. Wheeler said he had been contacted by several people who explained the program to him. He felt it ia worthwhile and should be carried through the r.emainder of the school year. Mr. Fisher said there had been a very well organized campaign to make sure that he understood the problem. Mr. Thacker offered motion that the program be continued and the Director of Finance be authorized to transfer these funds, upon recommendation Of Mr. McClure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:. AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Allen Kindrick, Chairman of the School Construction Committee, was present to give a report. Copy of the Committee's report was handed to the Board of Supervisors on February 21 and is copied out below: Introduction. At its regular monthly meeting of May, 1973, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requested the Albemarle County School Board to set up a committee to study and investigate methods and materials that might result in savings for the construction of school buildings. The Board of Supervisors also asked this committee to study the possibility of using standard plans as one means of reducing architectural fees. The committee was appointed by the School Board chairman and was composed of the f~ltowing persons: Allan B. Kindrick, Chairman, Mrs. Mary Jo Ayres, Mr. David Gibson, Mr. R. E. Lee, Jr., Mr. Vanzy Wood, Mrs. Mattie Logan, Mr. William Roudabush, Mr. C. B. McCormick, Mr. Clarence McClure. The committee met on September 26, 1973, to discuss its assignment. The committee selected the areas in which it felt the greatest potential of saving existed., Various members were asked to study these areas, and gather information which could be used in determining construction criteria for future building programs. The committee met subsequently to discuss the information returned by the various members. The information and the discussions of the committee are summarized below: Standardized Plans. that under certain conditions the use of this type of planning would be advantageous. example-, where several schools were to be built simultaneously for the same purpose, standardized plans would have cnnsiderable advantage if all projects were being bid at once. This Would not only result in some savings in architectural fees but would also reduce cost due to volume purchases by the contractor. However, this condition does not appear to apply to the immediate future in Albemarle County. Standardized plans were discussed at length and the committee agreed For Since approximately one-third of an architect's fee is for supervision which would apply to each project, there would be no savings in this portion of his work. Other items which could also erode any expected ~ings in the architect's fee would include such things as site adaptation, and build/6~Rfiguration for traffic flows. The committee concluded that the use of standardized plans could in some instances result in savings, but such a plan could only be used over a short period of time or changing requirements and construction techniques would absorb the savings, in change orders and redesign. Walls Systems and Roofs. A study of Sweets' catalogues and other construction data available was presented by members of the committee. This study did not supply any new or revolutionary construction concepts which are not already readily available to the architects in our area. Pre-engineered buildings (metal buildings)' were discussed for the possibility of cheap space. This type building has not been in use long enough to determine its life. This type of construction would definitely cost less for the shell but the architectural treatment for exterior appearance as well as interior~ finished, subdividing, lighting, and comfort conditioning would bring the price to near that of conventional construction. Any savings that might result would be questionable due to the unknown life expectancy for this type building. 3-21-74 !11 Wiring and Light Fixtures. Our committee, including one local electrical contractor, who ~tudied some previous electrical work in our building programs, offers the following information. Two areas which could lend themselves to cost reduction would be the use of aluminum conductors in place of copper conductors and the selection of light fixtures. Regarding aluminum conductors, this material can only be used with special type of connectors and there is some question as to its reliability at the connector, due to atmospheric conditions. And in the event of failure the long-range cost of using this material could easily exceed the initial cost of using copper which is our present practice. Light fixtures are a large cost item in the electrical work and should receive considerable study during the design stage of any building plan to determine that the most efficient arrangement is being utilized for the purpose required. Other possibilities discussed were that of using skylights and windows to decrease the amount of arti£icial light required; however, the committee agreed that this would be false economy since the increased window area would only increase the cost of comfort conditioning equipment and its operation. Mechanical ~quipment. Two mechanical engineers were consulted and they provided a comparison of the commonly used mechanical systems. The point was made that the heating- cooling requirements of the various types of spaces in a school building can best be met through the use of the appropriate mechanical system. In addition to first cost, efficiency, maintenance and performance, there are other factors which must be considered in selecting an appropriate system. Some of these are listed below. 2. 3. 4. The size and type of space to be heated and/or cooled. The number and type of control zones. Rooftop units as opposed to indoor type central equipment. Type of fuel to be used. Exhibit A. No. 1. Dual Duct. The system consists of four major components :~ ('a) A central air handling unit; (b) two supply ducts; (c) a mixing box; and (d) a return air fan and duct or plenum system. The air handling unit supplies one stream of hot air and one stream of cold air. The hot air and cold air is ducted to each spare in separate ducts and mixed in the mixing box which is controlled by the room thermostat. Hot air and cold air is mixed in the proper proportion to condition the space. Heating and cooling is supPlied from external sources (boiler and chiller) and piped to the unit. No. 2. Reheat. The system consists of four major components: (a) A central air handling unit; (b) one supply duct; (¢) a reheat coil and/or box; and (d) a return air fan and duct or plenum system. The air handling unit supplied one stream of cold air through a single duct system. Air is ducted to each space and under the control of the room thermostat is reheated to the proper temperature to condition the space. Heaiting and coOling is supplied from external sources (boiler and chiller) and piped to the unit. No. 3. Variable Volume Induction. The system consists of four major components: (a) A central air handling unit; (b) one supply duct; (c) a variable volume box with a reheat coil; and (d) a return air fan and plenum system. The air handling unit supplied one stream of cold air through a single duct system. Air is ducted to each space and under the control of the room thermostat is mixed with return air which is returned through the light fixture. When a preset maximum of return air is mixed into the system, additional heat is added through a reheat coil. The amount of air supplied by the central air handler is a variable amount and varies as the system load changes. Heating and cooling is supplied from external sources (boiler and chiller) and piped to the unit. Multizone. The system consists of three major ~omponents: (a) A central air handling unit; (b) a supply duct system; and (c) a return duct system. The air handling unit has a set ~of hot and cold duct dampers for each zone which are controlled from the room thermostat. A separate supply duct is run from the unit to each zone. Heating anld cooling is suppled fromm external sources (boiler and chiller) and piped to the ~nit. ~ No. 5. Hydronic Unit Ventilator. The system consists ~of two major components: .(a) A classroom unit ventilator and (b) a piping system. The unit is located zn the space, usually under an outside window, and is controlled from a room thermostat. Heating and cooling is suppled from external sources (boiler and chiller) and piped to the units. No. 6. Self-Contained Unit Ventilator. The system consists of one major component, ~e unit. The unit is located in the space, usually under an outside windowF and is controlled from either a room thermostat or unit mounted thermostat. Cooling is suppled from a built-in compressor iand hea~ing is electric resistance type or supplied from an external source (bOil!er) and piped to the unit. 112 Exhibit B. Performance First Operating (Controll- System Cost Efficieqcy ability) Dual Duct F D B Reheat E F A-~ Variable Volume B A C Multizone D E D Hydronic U.V. C B E Self-Contained U.V. A C F *Note: Ail room noise is wihin accepted standards. Maintenance *Room Sys tern Noise Life A C '~ 30- 40 A B -30-40 A D 30-40 A A 30-40 B E 30-40 C F 10 Fan room noise is based on the assumption that the proper attenuation can be built into the duct system. The most desirable rating is indicated by the letter "A". Other Considerations For Savings. Various sources were contacted for additional informa- tion regarding school construction and related costs. No one area stood out as being a major area for savings. It appeared that if savings are to be made, they will come from many and'.varied places and in small amounns. The following ideas ~should be considered as school buildings are Planned in the future: The life expectance of the building should always be considered and then the original cost as well as the operation and maintenance cost should be combined to ~arrive at the most economical overall building cost. Design building shapes which get the greatest usable space with the least amount of perimeter walls. Continue to use a very minimum of windows, this will reduce the initial cost of climate control equipment as well as the annual operating cost. Fast track construction management was discussed as a method of managing school construction. This plan would allow construction to begin as soon as space requirements are determined and final design would overlap some parts of the early construction. The big savings of this program results from the fact that the overall construction time is greatly reduced. While this method of construction has its merit it would not be possible to use it for school work where total design must receive approval by the State Board of Education as well as the fact that all work must be awarded on the basis of competitive bids. Conclusion~ There are ways to control the cost of construction of school buildings, but there is no single method or material Which would be of any great savings and each item must be studied for its overall effect on the building and the budget. Based on present construction cost per square foot, Albemarle ranks among the lowest in the State of Virginia at this time. Since the total, savings will haver to come from the combination of many small items the Board will have to be very diligent in its efforts during the planning stage of the b ui 1 ding. The greatest emphasis which we can give to the reduction of cost is that of allowing adequate planning time, so the Board can study in detail the plans between their design stage and the preparation of working drawings. Mr. Kindrick said there might be a savings, but from close scrunity of the next set of plans. The saving would be only a small amount here and there. The committee went further then they were charged and have arranged with the architectto use the committee to assist him in reviewing plans for potential cost savings. The committee plans to have public work shops. Mr. ThaCker said what the committee had done was certainly a start into what he wanted to see accomplished and he was happy to hear that the committee will continue. He said that he did not know exactly which structural systems had been investigated, but this is a start in the right direction. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Kindrick to express the Board's appreciation to the committee for the work they had done. Mr. Wood asked that the Board be given notice when the committee is meeting with the architect. 3-21-74 113 Mr. ~neeler told Mrs. Grady Covington, who had just arrived, that she would received a letter from the Board in answer to some of her questions. At 12:05 P.M., the Chairman requested the Board to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters and the purchase of land. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened at 1:40 P.M. Appointments to the Equalization Board, the Economic Development Commission and the Historic Landmarks Commission, were ordered carried over to another agenda. On motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, the Board concurred in the appoint- ment of Mr. Milton Atkins and Mr. C. P. Noel, as members from Louisa County to the Region X Community Mental Health & Retardation Services Board. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wood offered motion to reappoint Mr. Robert P. Englander to the AlbemarIe County Service Authority Board of Directors. Mr. Fisher offered motion to reappoint Mr. Myron E. Tremain to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, said terms expiring on April 16, 1978. The motions were seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. On motion by Mr. Thacker, Mr. George R. St. John was reappointed as County Attorney for one year from April 1, 1974. '~:The motion was seconded by Mr. CarWile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. On motion by Mr. Carwile, the County Attorney's salary for the months of March, April, May and June, 1974, was set at $3,000 per month. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wheeler said the staff is working on a recommendation for the Board for the future operation of the landfills. He said there should be input from the Board and asked that Mr. Thacker and Mr. Fisher work with the staff designated by Mr. Batchelor, and make recommendation to the Board for operation for a few months and recommendations for permanent operations. He asked that a tentative report be given on April 18. Statement of expenses of the Director of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and the Office of the Commonwealth's AttOrney for the month of February, 1974, were presented. 3-21-74 On motion by Mr. Wood, these statements were approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. _~ NAYS: None. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance of the County Jail for the month of February., 1974, was presented. Statement of the Jail Physician in the amount of $89.'00, of which two-thirds is reimburs~able by the State was presented. On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, these statements were approved by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Report of the County Executive for the month of January, 1974,.was received as information. Mr. Batchelor said the next agenda will carry a request that the Board readopt anticipated revenues for the 1973-74 year, this being an adjustment caused by the Supreme Court decision in the Perkins case. On motion by Mr. Fisher, Check No. 1-001683, dated December 28, 1973, in the amount of $7.45, payable to William C. Brown Company Publishers, returned and marked duplicate payment, was ordered cancelled. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the fOllowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None, ~ Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Ralph Hudson for one (1) pig ~ killed by dogs on February 25, 1974. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker, Mr. Hudson was allowed $25.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from W. G. Dickie, Chiswell Farm, for two (2) lambs and one (1) ewe killed by dogs on February 25, 1974. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile, Mr. Dickie was allowed $60.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vOte: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher offered motion~to appoint Miss Sylvia Lea Culp as a member of the Thomas ~ Jefferson Planning District Commission's Drug Abuse Council, for one year from this date. Miss Culp was recommended for this appointment by Student Council of the University of Vi=ginia. Mr. Fisher's motionwas seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. m~_~ NAYS: None. 3-21-74 115 Mr. Fisher said he had sent a memorandum to the Board members concerning performance bonds versus certificates of occupancy. This is a continuation of the staff request for new legislation, Which was unsuccessful in Richmond. Also included was a copy of an opinion of the County Attorney and the County Planner as to what .might be done 'under the existing laws to solve this problem without State legislation. He .requested that the Board members review this material to see if the Board should take action to start this as a change in the existing ordinances or whether theBoard would like to wait and instruct the Planning Commission to consider this in the new ordinance or whether the matter should ~be dropped. He felt this should be placed on the agenda for discussion. At 2:05 P.M., the Chairman requested that this meeting be adjourned until 7:30 P.M., Monday, March 25, 1974, for anothe=' work session on the 1974-75 budget. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Chairman