1991-07-1017
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 10, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 a.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda ItemNo. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, and to accept
the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and
the motioncarried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Gas line easement for the Agnor/Hurt Elementary School,
authorize Chairman to execute. By the above recorded vote, the Board
authorized-the Chairman to sign a deed granting a 15 foot easement to the City
of Charlottesville to construct a gas line parallel to Berkmmr Drive within
the parcel adjacent to the Agnor/Hurt Elementary School. The deed is set out
in full below:
THIS DEED made this 10th day of July, 1991, by and between THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTES-
VILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, whose address is P. O. Box
911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00),
receiPt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby GRANTS and
CONVEYS with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the City a perpetual,
nonexclusive easement and right-of-way fifteen (15) feet in width and
approximately 469-feet in length, paralleling Berkmar Drive, as shoWn
on platlmade by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc., dated February 12,
1991, and revised March 29, 1991 and May 1, 1991, which plat is
attached (on file) hereto and made a part of this deed, to construct,
replace, extend, maintain, use and repair a natural gas line. Said
easement includeS the right to construct slopes, cuts, fills and
ditches in connection therewith, and convey natural gas across,said
property through said natural gas line.
The conveyance of this easement and right-of-way includes the
perpetual right of ingress and egress for the above-mentioned pur-
poses.
Said easement and right-of-way cross a portion of the property
conveyed to Grantor by deed dated October 5, 1990, of record in the
Clerk's0ffice of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1124, page 245. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid deed for a
more complete description of the property over which this easement and
right-of-way cross.
18
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
As evidenced by its acceptance and recordation of this deed, the
City covenants that it will perform the installation of the natural
gas line in a proper and careful manner. Disturbed portions of
Grantor's property will be restored to a condition comparable to that
which existed prior to such installation, except that no flowers,
shrubs or trees within the easement will be replanted or replaced if
damaged or destroyed.
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes pursuant to
Virginia Code Section 58.1-811(A)(3) and exempt from grantor's tax
pursuant to Virginia COde Section 58.1-811(C)(3).
IN WITNESS=WHEREOF, the-County of Albmmarle, Virginia has caused
this deed to be executed in its behalf by the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors; and
WITNESS the following signature.
The County of Albemarle, Virginia
By: (Signed) F. R. Bowie
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
Item 5.2. Request from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator,
Virginia Department of Transportation, for a resolution to add and abandon
certain sections on U. S. Route 240 occasioned hy the Relocation and Con-
struction on Route 240 project. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution toaddand abandon certain sections of U. S. Route
240:
WHEREAS, Primary Route 240, from 0.50 miles north east of Route
250 to 0.37 miles 'north east of Route 250, a distance of 0.13 miles,
has been altered, and a new road has been constructed and approved by
the State Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the same citi-
zens as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations,
these being shown on the attached (on file) sketch titled "Changes in
Primary System due to Relocation of Construction of Route 240, Albe-
marle County, dated at Charlottesville, Virginia, June 11, 1991."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Primary
Route 240, i.e. section 2 shown in green on the sketch titled "Changes
in Primary System due to Relocation and Construction on Route 240,
Project: 0240-002-102,PE101, C501,RV201, Albemarle County, dated at
Charlottesville, Virginia, June 21, 1990"~ a total distance of 0.13
miles be and hereby is, added to the Primary System of State Highways
pursuant to Section 33.1~229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended;
And further, that the section of old location, i.e. section 1,
shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.13
miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pursuant
to Section-33..1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Item 5.3. Authorize Purchasing Agent to sign Agreement for theBerkshire
Road Channel Improvement Project. The following memorandum dated July3,
1991, fromMs. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, was received:
"1)
The Berkshire Road Channel Improvement project was funded under
the Capital Improvements Program, There is a current allocation
of $17,000.00.
2)
Due to the development of Barclay Place and Solomon Court III, it
has become necessary for the developer, Westgate Limited Partner-
ship, to also improvethis channel to meet the requirements of
the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law as well as the
County Ordinance prior to development.
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
3)
19
Richard Moring and Don Wagner negotiated an agreement to have the
work accomplished by Westgate Limited. As this is a joint
public/private interest project, the County in the attached
formal agreement agrees to fund the construction cost up to the
County's allocated amount of $17,000.00. There are provisions
incorporated to provide backup documentation for associated costs
prior to payment.
4)
This is to request that both copies of this agreement be re-
viewed, executed, and returned to me for distribution.
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the Purchasing Agent to
sign the following agreement for the Berkshire Road Channel Improvement
Project:
AGREEMENT
Barclay Place (SDP-90'013)
Berkshire Road Channel Improvements (DIP-87-001)
This agreement dated 28 June 1991 is to formalize negotiations
between the CountyEngineer and Mr. Donald J. Wagner relating to joint
funding of a channel improvement project to the south of and roughly
parallel with North Berkshire Road. Westgate Limited Partnership
desires to finalize'its development of the~Barclay Place and Solomon
Court III project. Stormwater design requirements dictate off-site
Channel improvements downstream of this project in the natural drain-
age swale parallel and adjacent to North Berkshire Road from the
project limits to Ingleside Drive. That portion of the same channel
between Solomon Road and Ingleside Drive has been identified as a
Capital Improvement Project by the County of Albemarle. Based on this
identified joint public/private interest, the County of Albemarle and
Westgate Partnership have agreed to jointly fund that portion of the
channel improvement project between Ingleside Drive and Solomon Road.
The Albemarle County portion is limited to 50% of the actual cost but
not toexceed Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($17,000.00).
The following listed conditions are hereby understood and agreed:
The County will reimburse upon completion of construction ~based
upon the actual footage of channel improved between Ingleside
Drive.and Solomon Road that will be measured by County inspectors
excluding any pipe footage in place when the project is complet-
ed.
Westgate Limited Partnership must submit to the County.for review
prior to payment invoices for engineering design services, stone
deliveredto the site, and grading and stone installation by the
construction contractor.
The channel installation costs includes a filter fabric at the
interface between the existing ground and the rip-rap.
The stone tonnages per linear foot of channel will be re-computed
by the Engineering Department based on approved cross section..
Quantities delivered to the job site and installed must reason-
ably agree (±5%) with computed quantities prior to payment or a
satisfactory understanding of quantity variations, achieved.
Installation costs will be paid on a per linear foot basis as
measured in the field.
6. Engineering costs include easement plat preparation.
Payment willbe made when the project is complete and approved
for bond release including the 10% management fee.
County inspectors will have access to the job at all times to
determine conformance with approved plans and specifications~
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
2O
Preparation of the plans for this project will be the responsi-
bility of Westgate Limited Partnership. These plans will be
submitted to the County for approval through the routine site
review process as a part of the Barclay Place or Solomon Court
III development. Westgate LimitEd Partnership will be responsi-
ble for obtaining all required approvals, bonds and/or permits
just as if this project were completely privately funded. Costs
associated with plan preparation, approvals, bonds, permits, etc.
will be allowable project costs.
10.
The required easements will be obtained by Westgate Limited
Partnership. Albemarle County agrees to permit Westgate Limited
Partnership'torePresent to property owners that this is a joint
public/private venture in which there is a significant public
interest. It is recognized by Albemarle County that affected
property owners will receive a significant benefit fromthis~~,~'
Channel improvement project and would not bewitling to construct
this project with public funds unless affected property owners
benefiting from the project are willing to donate, required
easements.
11. The County will exercise no. control over Westgate Limited Part-
nershipor its contractors during the course of this project and,
'therefore, will incur no liability for the actions of Westgate
Limited Partnership, its employees and/or contractors. Westgate
Limited. Partnership hereby agrees to holdthe County of Albemarle
harmless from any such liability.
12. This work must be completed no later than June 30, 1992.
The opportunity to Construct these public improvements~as~a-joint
public/private effort is an unusual opportunity. Hopefully this
spirit.-Of cooperationwillcontinue with benefits accruing to all
parties. Please indicate your acceptance of the conditions of this
agreement as stated by signing below.
Signed:
CharlesM.'Rotgin~ Jr..~
General Partner, Westgate
Limited Partnership
Signed: Calvin S. Jones
Purchasing Agent, County
of Albemarle, Virginia
Item 5.4. Letter dated July ii 1991, from Mr. J. W. Wright, Jr., re':
Extension of Proffers'not implemented prior, to'Julyl, 1990,' Tax Map~32,
Parcels 41D and~'4lE,'was received as information.. The letter, is to serve as
written notice, pursuant to. section 15.1-491 of theCodeof Virginia,~that Mr.
Wrightintends to proceed with the implementation of such proffers and to
pursue the completion of the development of the property, was received as
follows:
"The undersigned is the owner of real property identified as Tax, Map
32, parcels 4iD containing 48.13 acres and 41E containing 6.650 acres.
In 1986 parcel 41D was rezoned from Rural AgriCultural to Light
Industrial and parcel 41E was rezoned fromRural Agricultural to
Commercial Office. In 1989 11.4 acres of parcel 41D was rezoned to
C-i, Commercial,~with specific uses, i.e., hotel, bank, restaurant,
skating rink and two other unidentified uses.
Proffers on above-mentioned properties are as fOllows:
1. Acceptance of applicant's proffer (outlined in the?attached staff'
report~ datedAugust 15, 1989, page 1, petition) inladdition to
proffers accepted under ZMA-86-02, subject to site review and
parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance;
Acceptance of the applicant's proffer of a 35-foot setback' from
Route 29 With landscaping;
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Acceptance of the applicant's proffer to work with staff in
developing a landscaping plan;
21
Access to U. S. Route 29 will be limited to one point, at a
proposed crossover, the approximate location as shown on the
sketch submitted with my zoning application prepared by Rouda-
bush, Greene & Gale, Inc., dated May 27, 1986. This location
will be coordinated with Hollymead Land Trust and the Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation. This connection will
not be made until the proposed crossover has been constructed;
Sanitary sewer will be extended to this tract prior to such time
that the cumulative total need for wastewater disposal exceeds
the quantity of wastewater that would have been generated by the
totaldevelopment of this tract into two acre residential lots
(i~e., 27 lots at 300 gpd, or 8000 gallons per day). The
Planning Commission may require the extension of sanitary sewer
to this property at any time they deem access to public sewer to
be reasonably available; and
Any other proffers or agreements that undersigned has committed
to relative to above mentioned rezonings.
The above-listed proffers were not implemented prior to July 1, 1990.
This letter is to serve as written notice, pursuant to Section
15.1-491 of the Code of Virginia, that the undersigned intends to
proceed with the implementation of such proffers and to pursue the
completion of the development of the property.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
J. W. Wright, Jr."
Item 5..5. Letter dated July 1, 1991 from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that Hawkwood'Court in
Laurel Ridge was accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads effective
July 1, 1991, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated May 8, 1991, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby ap-
proved, effective July 1, 1991.
ADDITION LENGTH
LAUREL RIDGE
Route 1093 (Hawkwood Court) - From Route 676 to 0.15
mile Northeast Route 676 0.15 Mi"
Item 5.6. Letter dated June 28, 1991, from Mr~ D~ S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, forwarding a list of current highway projects and projects under
constructiOn, was received as information. The following projects are under
construction:
Route No. Location Status
Est. Comp Date
631
660
880
250**
* Revised date
** New project
Rio~Road from Fashion
Sq. to Rt. 650
Bridge over S. Fork
Rivanna River
Entrance to Southern
Regional Park~
St. Clair Ave. to
Rt. 64
Construction *Jul 91
90% complete
Construction Nov 91
50% complete
Construction
complete
Construction Sep.93
started June 91
Item 5.7. Letter dated June 20, 1991, addressed to Mrs. Shelby J.
Marshall, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, State Location and Design Engineer, stating
that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the location and major
22
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
design features of the Route 654 (Barracks Road) project (Proj. #0654-002-242,
C-501), from 0.09 mi. W. of Route 656 (Georgetown Road) to Int. of Route 1406
(Surry Road/West Park Road), as proposed and preSented at the November 15,
1990, public hearing, was received as information.
Mr. Bain asked if the staff has looked at the location and design fea-
tures, and if they are in accord with the plans. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes";
the staff is in agreement withVDoT efforts in retaining as much landscaping
as possible. Mrs. Humphris expressed her hope that VDoT incorporated the
concerns addressed by the residents of Huntwood. Mr. Roosevelt said the
landscaping concerns expressed by the residents were addressed. One of the
main concerns, which has been eliminated, was a utility easement that would
have meant~cutting down' some trees at the entrance to Huntwood. A recommenda-
tion bythe Board that dual laning not be extended beyond the Georgetown Road
intersection was not adopted by the Transportation Board. Mrs. Humphris said
the Board's concern was' based on cars exiting Huntwoodhavingto cross two
lanes of traffic to make a left turn. Mr. Roosevelt said the Transportation
Board approved the plans with the dual laning west of the intersection up to
the Huntwood entrance. He thinks that the Board's concerns can still be taken
care of throughpavement markings and there will be additional pavement if
that road is ever extended in the future. Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board
can be assured that the problem will be taken care of through pavement mark-
ings. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he cannot assure the Board that the
problem will be taken care of, but he thinks that it is VDoT's job to see that.
if problems develop, that they are taken care of.
Item 5~8. Memorandum fromMrl Ray D.~Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia
Department of Transportation, noting a meeting to be held on July 31,. 1991~ at
7:00 P.M., in the VDoT Auditorium in Richmond, Virginia, concerning thecost
responsibility of vehiclesusing theroads of the Commonwealth, was received
as information.
Several Board members asked for a summary of the meaning of the letter.
Mr. Roosevelt said the General Assembly asked VDoT to study the allocation
process, to look at how much heavy vehicles pay with regard to road taxes,
taking into account the damage they do to the roads as opposed to damage done
by regular motor vehicles. VDoT's role is to gather facts, pass the informa-
tion on to the GeneralAssembly so that it can' then decide how the taxing
should be done to obtain a fair share from the trucking industry and from
motor vehicles.
Item 5.9. Copy of letter dated June 18, 1991, from Ms. Dolores W~
Tokasz, Real EstateSPecialist, United States Postal Service, addressed tothe
Planning District Comm~ssmon, concerning the' location of a new main post
office building in Earlysville, was received as information.
Item5.10. Memorandum from Mr. William S. Gordon, Chairman, Thomas
Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, enclosing a copy of their
1991-1992Annual Plant of Work, was received as information..
Item 5.11. Notice dated July 1, 1991, from Appalachian Power Company
that they have filed an application with the State Corporation Commission to
revise their fuel factor and cogeneration tariff, effective August 1, 1991,
was receivedas information.
Item~5.12. Letter from Mr. Peter Drenan, Race Director, ThrACAC Biath-
lon, dated~June 25,1991, giving details of a biathlon On public roads in the
Free Union area Which will be held for the benefit of the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Rescue Squad on August 10, 1991, was received as information.
Item 5~13. County Executive's Financial Report for May, 1991, was
received as follows:
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1990 TO MAY 31, 1991
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
23
LOCAL SOURCES
1990/91 RECEIPT'S BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
56,672,233 48,350,587 8,321,646 - 85.32%
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
4,285,269 3,320,300 964,969
166,900 55,462 111,438
530,135 0 530,135
61,654,537 51,726,349 9,928,188
- 77.48%
33.23%
0.00%
83.90%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION'
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
NONDEPARTMENTAL
TOTAL
SCHOOL FUND
REVENUES
3,757,870 3,254,770
1,287,796 1,166,824
5,692,600 5,197,145
2,344,922 1,580,556
3,572,977 3,062,182
28,974,085 26,287,582
2,073,318. 1,815,580
1,575,334 1,362,438
9,516,565 4,766,418
2,859,070 2,848,329
61,654,537 51,341,824
1990/91 RECEIPTS
EST. REVENUE YTD
503,100 + 86.61%
120,972 + 90.61%
495,455 + 91.30%
764,366 + 67.40%
510,795 + 85.70%
2,686,503 + 90.73%
257,738 + 87.57%
212,896 + 86.49%
4,750,147 + 50.09%
10,741 + 99.62%
10,312,713 + 83.27%
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURE~
702,995 465,247
20,006,716 16,610,776
431,775 134,080
29,114,923 26,280,498
50,256,409 43,490,601
237,748 - 66.18%
3,395,940 - 83.03%
297,695 - 31.05%
2,834,425 - 90.26%
6,765,808 - 86.54%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FIRfD
REVENUES
39,394,013 32,277,757
1,853,376 1,623,969
4,211,544 3,562,340
4,632,968 4,038,589
164,508 161,643
7,116,256 + 81.94%
229,407 + 87.62%
649,204 + 84.5.9%
594,379 + 87.17%
2,865 + 98.26%
50,256,409 41,664,298 8,592,111 + 82.90%
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS~IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITIm]~.E
291,800 253,867 37,933 - 87.00%
802,040 0 802,040 - 0.00%
17,676,682 6,861,639 10,815,043 - 38.82%
924,330 0 924,330 - 0.00%
6,500,000 2,000,000 4,500,000 - 30.77%
26,194,852 9,115,506 17,079,346 - 34.80%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE' EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS'
TOTAL
99,747 42,776 56,971 +. 42.88%~
1,403 0 1,403 + 0.00%
592,351 555,268 37,083 + 93.74%
3,039,413 745,903 2,293,510 + 24.54%
7,000 0 7,000 + 0.00%
18,304,918 13,963,267 4,341,651 + 76.28%
2,348,086 1,137,948 1,210,138 + 48~46%
301,356 56,272 245,084 + 18.67%
1,500,578 0 1,500,578 + 0.00%
26,194,852 16,501,434 9,693,418 + 62.99%
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day
(Page 8)
Meeting)
2¸4
OTHER FUNDS
REVENUES
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
0 197 (197)+ 0.00%
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION
CDBG-AHIP
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
SLIAG PROGRAM
CBIP SEVERE
E. D. PROGRAM
PROCESS APPROACH (PAL)
G E ELFUN
COMMUNITY, EDUCATION
SUMMER SCHOOL FUND
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE.TRUST FUND
A-H S FIRE DAMAGE
JOINT SECURITY
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
JOINT RECREATION'FACILITY
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
0
0
600,000
0
134,997
0
0
1,510,500
538,994
57,929
57,093
25,000
0
74,181
14,995
34,219
461,547
622,315
36,971
20,000
637,500
0
369,411
10,000
0
2,626,614
30,619
784,642
179,905
2,341,333
0
3,429~096
14,597,861
10,519 (10,519)+ 0.00%
1,057 (1,057)+ 0.00%
0 600,000 - 0.00%
869,459 (869,459)+ 0.00%
58,557 76,440 - 43.38%
404,077 (404,077)+ 0.00%
98,063 (98,063)+ 0.00%
1,368,247 142,253 90.58%
288,749 250,245 53.57%
21,607 36,322 37.30%
35,935 21,158 62.94%
0 25,000 0.00%
0 0 - 0.00%
35,540 38,641 47.91%
0 14,995~- 0.00%
5,917 28,302 - 17.29%
183,697 277,850 - 39.80%
165,338 456,977 - 26.57%
0 36,971 - 0.00%
20,000 0 + 100.00%
552,993 84,507 - 86.74%
0 0 0.00%
226,229 143,182 61.24%
8,221 1,779 82.21%
363,320 (363,320)+ 0.00%
2,286,680 339,934 - 87.06%
23,676 6,943 77.32%
785,949 (1,307)+ 100.17%
108,122 71,783 - 60;10%
0 2,341,333 - 0.00'%
62,090 (62,090)+ 0.00%
2,763,128 665,968 - 80.58%
10,747,367 3,850,494 - 73.62%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD -
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT
SOIL '& i WATER CONSERVATION
CDBG-AHIP'
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
GYPSY MOTH_AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING- EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER 'II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS
FED JOB ~TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
SLIAG
CBIP SEVERE
E D PROGRAM
PROCESS APPROACH (PAL)
G E ELFUN
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND
A H S: FIRE DAMAGE
JOINT SECURITY FUND
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY
0
0
0
600,000
0
134,997
0
0
1,510,500
538,994
57,929
57,093
0
25,000
0
74,181
14,995
34,219
461,547
622,315
36,971
20,000
637,500
369,411
10,000
0
2,626,614
30,619
784,642
179,905
7,063
28,135
910
0
772,765
88,642
167,000
95,995
1,284,471
426,348
48,546
48,934
22
2,669
0
55,991
29
13,665
438,807
494,697
10,381
4,481
632,745
224,409
8,221
258,329
2,255,198
23,676
727,145
130,142
(7,063)- 0.00%
(28,135)- 0.00%
(91o)- -o.oo%
600,000 + 0.00%
(772,765)- 0.00%
46,355 + 65.66%
(167,000)- 0.00%
(95,995)- 0.00%
226,029 + 85.04%
112,646 + 79.10%
9,383 + 83.80%
8,159 + 85.71%
(22)- 0.00%
22,331 + 10:68%
0 - 0.00%
18,190 + 75.48%
14,966 + 0.19%
20,554 + 39.93%
22,740 + 95.07%
127,618 + 79.49%
26,590 + 28.08%
15,519 + 22.41%
4,755 + 99.25%
145,002 + 60.75%
1,779 + 82.21%
(258,329)- 0.00%
37t,416 + 85.86%
6,943 + 77.32%
57,497 + 92.67%
49,763 + 72.34%
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
2§
2,341,333 32,212 2,309,121 + 1.38%
0 62,090 (62,090)- 0.00%
3,429,096 2,765,467 663~629 + 80.65%
14,597,861 11,109,185 3,488,676 + 76.10%
Item 5.14. Copy of letter dated July 3, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M. Patter-
son, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Forrest Hyre entitled "Official
Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1; Tax Map 7, Parcel 29 and
29A, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6a, Highway Matters: Commonwealth Drive vs. Peyton
Drive, Discussion of.
Mr. TUcker said several months ago the Board asked staff to develop
construction cost.estimates for the extension of Commonwealth Drive in lieu/of
upgrading PeytonDrive. The County Engineering staff recently completedi~s
cost estimate for extending Commonwealth Drive which amounts to approximately
$365,000. Improvements to Peyton Drive are estimated at $330,000. The
adopted Capital Improvements Program budget for FY 91-92 allocates $376,298
(including a prior allocation) to this project. Mr. Tucker recommended that
the Board'request the Planning staff and Commission to review both alignments
for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan under'Stats Code Section 15.1-456
and make a recommendation concerning these alignments. Staff opinion is that
the Commonwealth Drive extension is the most logical improvement.
MOtion ~asoffered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to request the
Planning Commission and staff to review the extension of Commonwealth Drive
and the improvement of Peyton Drive for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
in accordance with Va. Code Section 15.1-'456 and-make a recommendation to the
Board concerning the alignments. Roll was called and the motion Carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Noting that Item 6b is scheduled for public hearing at 9:30 a.m. and.the
applicant, was not yet present, the Board took up Item 6c at this time.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Tucker recalled that several years ago the Board discussed obtaining
afinal engineering alignment for Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road'~ The
project was put to bid and Sverdrup Corporation was selected to determine the
aligument. After awarding the contract, the project was put on hold because
of the-potential conflict with Sverdrup working on the Route 29 North DEIS.
The staff now requests that the project move forward. The money for the
projeCtwas previously allocated and appropriated. Motion was offered by'Mrs.
HumphriS, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to authorize Sverdrup to proceed with
determining a final alignment for the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been receiving calls about the entrance at the
Colonnades on Barracks Road. There is a great potential for an accident.
There is a large amount of traffic entering and exiting thestore across tha
road, and a lot ofthe elderly people turn slowly into the entrancewhich is
hazardous. Mr. Roosevelt said the road is being widened to create a left turn
lane. Other than marking the pavement to create a left turn lane, he does not
know what else can be done.
At the same location, the entrance at the Colonnades, Mrs. Hump~is said
when the contractor meshed the new asphalt with the old asphalt, a real
problem was created because cars traveling east on Barracks Road hit a rather
large bump with the change in asphalt. She hopes that when they start working
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
on the permanent turn lane that this will be improved.
that it was not well done and would be looked at.
26
Mr. Roosevelt agreed
Mrs. Humphris asked what is occurring on Route 606. Mr. Tucker related
that the project is the realignment of Route 606 near North Pinea Subdivision.
There has been concern expressed about some of the fill material being conta-
minated with building materials and other products, and this was referred to
the Zoning Administrator for review. The Zoning office is continuously
monitoring the project.
Mrs.' Humphris said she has been speaking to Ms. Babs Huckle, the Jack
JOuett representative on the Planning Commission, about her environmental
concerns with the construction of the Route 660 bridge project. Ms. Huckle
reported that the way YDoT is handling the project is outstanding. .She ·
thanked %fOoT for its supervision and contrOl~on the project.
Mr. Bowie complimented YDoT for its handling ofthe trafficon Rio Road
during construction.
Mr. Roosevelt said the credit for traffic control on Rio Road goes to ,the
inspector for the project, Mr. Kenney Teal. He is hopeful that the, Department
will use that experience for the planning of work on Route 250 East.
For information~ Mr, Roosevelt said theRoute 660 project is on schedule
for completion in November. He is aware that there is a lot of concern with
the project.
Regarding Rio Road, Mr. Roosevelt said the contractor has asked for a
final inspection for Friday, July 12. He anticipates there will be some
punchlist items', but to the public's eye, the project is near completion.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT is starting work on the intersection atthe
southwest corner of the Charlottesville~Albemarte Airport, Routes 743/606.
Hal~y, Chisholm & Morris is the contractor and they have a reputation for
working speedily.
~, ~Mrs. Humphris saidthe right turn lane from Barracks Road to Georgetown
Road has started to break down again, particularly at the far end of the turn.
She asked if anything can be done. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department needs to
paint a white line to try and convince people to stay on the actual pavement.
The Department will continue to put a wedge of asphalt in there to try and
protect the shoulder until the white line can be painted. He hopes that will
improve the situation.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Public Hearing: Request to abandon public rights in
road running from State Route 717 through lands of Charles Clinton Morris and
Coleman R. Morris and Sarah L. Smith to State Route 712. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 1991.)
(Mr. Bain abstained from discussion on this item because his firm repre-
sents oneof the property owners. He left the room at 9:30 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker said on May 8 the Board set'for public hearing this request to
abandon public rights between Route 717 and Route 712. Staff determined that
there was no public need to maintain the roadWay and recommended that it be
abandoned. In a letter to the Board dated April 24, 1991, representatives of
the property owners affected by the right-of-way all concurred with the
abandonment.
Mr. Matthew B. Murray, representing Mrs. Sarah L. Smith, indicated the
area on the map before the Board and said the area marked in red is the
approximate location of the old road, but if someone was to walk the ground
27
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
today, they would not be able to find it. On the right hand side of the map
if the Board will follow the red line inward, there is a little spur that
comes up from existing Route 717. That spur is not in existence, but was at
one time. He asks that the Board also delete that spur. There is a juncture
where two roads cross and go off into Charles Morris' and Coleman Morris'
property. He also asks that those two spurs be deleted. Mr. St. John asked
Mr. Murray's meaning of the word "deleted". Mr. Murray said he thinks those
areas should be removed from the map to accurately reflect what is on the
ground since there is no visible evidence of those roads. He asked that the
Board approve the request for abandonment.
There being no one else present from the public regarding this item, the
publiChearing Was closed.
Mr. Bowie asked if it is necessary to readvertise to abandon those
additional locations requested by Mr. Murray. Mr. St~ John replied"no", he
thinks that~the map before theBoard is in substantial accord with the adver-
tisement.
Mr. Perkins commented that the spurs Mr. Murray refers to are on the USGS
maps and he ~thinks they are accurate. The area may. be overgrown, but atone
time ~those roads~.did exist.
Mr. St. John did not think that. clarifying the tax map should be consid-
ered by the Board. He thinks that the .Board should abandon what is shown in
red and which was advertised for this public hearing.
Mr..'Bowie said he is not comfortable with taking action on the appli-
cant's additional request to abandon those other roads.
Mr. Murray said pertinent to the description in the advertisement~ould
include the abandonment of the little spur that goes down to Route 717. Mr.
St. John said there is no evidence that the spur is or ever was a public road
and the applicant wants it abandoned simply because it is shown as a blue line
on a tax map. Mr. Murraysaid a witness stated that the spur was used as a
cutoff ,to reach Pinkerton's field. Since it is on the tax map, he thinks it
could arguably he.included in the description.
Mr. Perkins asked if it is a problem to include the spur in the abandon-
ment. Mr. St. John said if nobody objects to it, then the Board could go
ahead and do it. Mr. Bowie asked if that was legally included in the adver-
tisement, Mr. St. John said the proper course would be to abandon what was
shown on the red line only.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to abandon
the public rights in road 'running from 'State Route 717 through lands of
Cha=les Clinton Morris and Coleman R. Morris and Sarah L. Smith to State Route
712 as outlined in red on the map. At the suggestion of Mr. Way, Mr.
Cilimberg identified the map by initialing it VWC, dated 7/10/91. Roll was
calledand the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr.~Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen to abandon section
of an old roads not in the State Highway or Secondary System; and
WHEREAS, the Board, on May 8, 1991, ordered that this matter be
advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virginia Code Section
33~1-157; and
WHEREA~, after holding a public hearing on Julyl0, 1991, the
Board finding that the said section of road serves no public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the public rights in a road running
from State Route 717 through lands of Charles Clinton Morris and
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
28
Coleman R. Morris and Sarah L. Smith to State Route 712 (outlined in
red on map initialed VWC, dated 7/10/91) be abandoned to public use as
per the following description:
A road starting at State Route 712 on Sarah L. Smith's
property (Albemarle County Tax Map 111, Parcel 41), thence
northeasterly in a straight line for 4000 feet; thence in an
easterly direction an additional 4000 feet to State Route
717.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 9:44 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Request to set a public hearing to vacate a portion
of a plat of Mill Creek PUD, Phase 1, Section 1.
Mr. Cilimberg presented~ the. follOwing staff report, followed by a letter
dated June 26, 1991, from Mr. George H. Gilliam, addressed to the Board:
"Attached (following) is a copy of correspondence to the~Board of
Supervisors from George Gilliam regarding plats in the Mill Creek
P.U.D. Allplats were correctly approved by the County. However,
because'the original Lots 36-39 of Phase I, Section I, existed under a
homeoWner's association, the homeowners in Phase I, Section I, have an
interest in those lots and their disposition. Those lots were effec-
tively, eliminated when they.were combined with Parcel G1 in July,
1988. However, other lots in Phase I, Section I, had been sold at
that time. Therefore, the State Code, under Section 15.1-482, re-
quires Lots 36-39 be vacated. Two options exist for the owner to
accomplish this. The first'would require an 'instrument in writing
agreeing to the vacation signed by all the owners of lots shown on the
plat. and also signed on behalf of the governing body'. The second,
which has been chosenby the owner, allows such vacation to occur by
ordinance of the governing body.
Staff supports the requestedvacation as being consistent with past
County action regarding the subject parcels. Staff recommendsthe
Board of Supervisors proceed to public hearing to vacate Phase I,
Section I, Lots 36-39. Mr. Gilliam has been requested to draft the
appropriate oMdinance to accomplish this action."
!'The referend~d plat, dated October 6, 1986, last revised June 4,
1987, was approved by the Board in 1987 and recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the'Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book
9443 page 695. The plat shows, among other things, four lots on the
south side of Mill Creek DriVe, numbered 36, 37, 38 and 39. Those lots
were.shown as single family lots.. Acopy of the relevant portion of
the plat is attached as Exhibit A. Virtually every lot in Phase I -
Section 1. of Mill Creek has been sold; however, lots 36~39 (inclusive)
have not been sold as a part of that Section~
In t988, by Plat dated April 13, 1988 and recorded in Deed Book 1002,
page 719, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, Lots 36, 37, 38
and39 were combined with other property on the south side of Mill
Creek Drive, to form parcel Gl. At the time of such combination, the
four lots -- 36, 37, 38 and 39 -- should have been vacated off of the
plat o£ Phase I, Section 1, but were not.
The developer is now bUilding 'VillageHomes' in the. area south of
Mill. Creek-Drive.~ The Village Homes area comprises multi-family
housing and the lot configuration is different from that of single
family homes. A portion of 'old' lots 36-39 is now traversed by new
Creekside Drive and another portion now is in Village Home lots. The
Village Homes at Mill Creek subdivision plan has received all neces-
sary approvals, andvplats showing certain of the Village Homes lots
have now been recorded. A portion of a plat dated May 13, 1991,
showing~open space and easements for the proposed ¥illageiHomes lots
is also attached, as Exhibit C.
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
29
To complete what should have been done in 1988 when the parcel G1 plat
was approved, it is necessary to vacate that portion of the 1986-87
plat showing 'old' Lots 36, 37, 38 and 39. The practical effect of
this plat vacation would be to remove those four lots from Phase I -
Section 1 of Mill Creek. By virtue of the subsequent plats, the land
which makes up those four lots will become part of the Village Homes
area.
I have discussed this with Mr. Cilimberg, and we agree that the
procedure provided by §15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia for vaca-
tion of a portion of a plat after certain of the lots shown thereon
have been sold is the appropriate procedure.
As provided by the cited statutory provision, I request that this
request for a partial vacation of the Phase I - Section 1 plat be
placed on your agenda, and that notice as required.bY§15'~l~431 ofthe
Codebe given."
Mr. Bowie asked who would be notified should the Board decide to proceed
to public hearing on the request. Mr. Cilimberg suggested all of the property
owners in Phase I, Section I, be notified. Mr. Bain felt that the more people
notified the better.
Mrs. Mumphris asked if Parcel G1 is already built upon. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that Parcel G1 is currently being developed as duplexes. Mrs.
Humphris recalled some complaints from residents of Mill Creek and asked if
the concern, was that some people had purchased lots with the understanding
that they were in single-family detached and their neighbors would also be
single-family detached. Mr. Cilimberg said the original approvalfor Mill
Creek showed this area for multi-family. He does not know if there was any
misrepresentation to the property owners.
Mr. St. John said there have been some other major relocations of
multi-family in Mill Creek which was the basis of the concerns expressed to
Mrs. Humphris. In explanation of the request to the Board, Lots 36-39were
transferred out of the platted subdivision over into Parcel Gl, but their
identity as lots'were never obliterated. They are still shown on the plat as
four separate lots. His understanding is that the topography is such t~mt the
applicants want to relocate the multi-family lots. Mr. Cilimberg said a.site
plan has been approved for this development and some construction is underway.
Mr. Bain asked who was notified in 1988 when the County approved the appli-
cants request to take these lots and add them to the residue. Mr. Cilimberg
thought that was handled administratively and there was no notification
process. When the site plan was before the Commission, the property owners on
all surrounding properties were notified. He would suggest notifying all
property owners in Phase I, Section 1, as this directly relates to their
interests. Mr. Way suggested that the Mill Creek Homeowners Association also
be notified.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public
hearing for August 21 to vacate a portion of a plat of Mill Creek PUD, Phase
I, Section 1, andrequested that all of the homeowners in Phase I, Section 1,
and the Mill Creek Homeowners Association be notified. Roll was calledand
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-102, Centel. (Defer to August 14, 1991,)
The Chairman noted the following letter dated June 12, 1991, from Mr.
Will Ferrence, Centel Cellular, addressed to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of
Planning, was received:
"With regard to Albemarle County's concerns pertaining to Centel's
request for a Conditional Use Permit, it isapparent that there are
two distinct issues at hand. The first issue concerns thenature of
the cellular industry and requirements for quality service. The
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
3O
second issue concerns the specifics of Centel's need for a tower site
in Northwest Albemarle County; specifically, the Crozet area.
In answering the question of the cellular industry's nature and
requirements, I would refer you to the letter and attachments provided
during our June llth conversation. This package provides a general
outline of the concepts of cellular telephone communication. I have
attached a copy of that letter and a list of the attachments that were
furnished. Using this package as a basis for discussion, Centel
Cellular is committed to working with the County of Albemarle in
clearing up any questions or concerns related to the placement of
cellular communiaation towers.
Ithas been determined that in order to address the issue of tower
location requirements in Albemarle County, further exploration ~by
Centel is necessary. Centel wishes to ensure that ali site possi-
bilities are researched in an effort to fulfill Centel's needs and
best serve Albemarle County's desire for limited tower proliferation.
Therefore, Centel requests this decision be deferred until AugUst."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer SP-90-102
to August 14, at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think the issue before the Board is what
Centel appears to be addressing. He thought the Board asked the applicant to
address the issue of the height of the tower and how many towers the applicant
needs. He does not think the Board is concerned about the competitiveness of
the cellular market. Mr. St. John said the Board expressed concerns about the
precedent that this one tower could set and the proliferation of towers in the
County~ which then brought up-the issue of whether federal regulations-prohi-
bit more than one company using a tower. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. St. John.
Mr. Bowie said he does not want to know the reasons that several companies
cannot use a tower, just "yes!' or "no" on whether it is allowed by federal
regulations. It was suggested that the applicant forward whatever information
it intends to present to the Board by August 7 so that if additional informa-
tion is needed, the applicant can be so notified prior to August 14,
Mr. Perkins suggested the staff identify the best sites for towers in the
County and look at the possibility of the County leasing these sites. He also
suggested, that a location in Mint Springs Park be reviewed as a potential site
for towers.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenaat
Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration" of the Code of~ Albemarle setting the
Compensation of the Board of Supervisors for Fiscal Year 1991-92. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1991.)
Mr. Bowie said the Board's salary was incorrectly advertised.. The Board
can decide not to change its salary or readvertise the correct amount for
another public hearing. He suggested holding the advertised public hearing
and then deciding how to proceed. He opened the public hearing. There being
no persons from the public present to speak on this item, the public'~hearing
was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public
hearing for August 7 on an ordinance to amend and reenact Article I, Chapter
2, "Administration" of the Code of Albemarle setting the Compensation of the
Board. of Supervisors for Fiscal Year 1991-92 at $8819.16.
Mr. Bowie expressed concern about the salary of the vice-chairman. He~ ~.
thinks the vice-chairman is asked to do a lot of things other than chair
meetings. He would support allowing compensation for attendance at functions
that the Chairman is unable to attend. The Code allows for a stiPend of upto
$100 per-month.
31
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Way said when he became vice-chairman he did not feel a stipend was
necessary, since he chaired a meeting seldom. That is the reason he made the
recommendation to reduce the stipend.
Mr. Tucker said the ordinance allows the vice-chairman a stipend for
serving in lieu of the chairman. Mrs. Humphris said that seemed appropriate.
Mr. Bowerman said he would rather the stipend be a set monthly amount which
would require less administrative work. He thinks $50 is a reasonable sum.
Mr. Bain said it is part of a Board member's duties to attend various
functions and serve on committees. He does not think that the vice-chairman
does any more than the other Board members.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:~Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr.~ Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Crozet Recyclers.
Ms. Polly Buxton, a resident of Crozet, said this spring, the Crozet
Women's Club decided to sponsor a recycling day. The idea caught fire and
they were joined in the planning by various other organizations in the area.
Ms, Kelly Anderson of Trash Rehash, a local recycling business, volunteered
her truck and her time. On Saturday, April 6, they held the recycling day.
They filled up the Rehash truck and trailer and all other vehicles that were
available. They collected a total of 6000 pounds. They were elated by the-
response and decided to try a pilot project to run the first Saturday of each
month through December. They thought this would give the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority time to plan drop-off centers and provide education about recycling
for the community. In May, 3500 pounds were collected.
Ms. 'Buxton said, in the meantime, the Women's Club appealed to the County
for financial assistance using a figure of $40, quoted by Ms. Anderson for use
of her pickup and trailer, to cover the cost of gas and unloading. The County
granted this request and allocated $240 to fund the program through the~end of
the year. Mr. Randy Layman, a Batesville trash hauler, volunteered for the
Mayand 3une recycle days. In June, they recycled 6500 pounds and again they
had to use private cars to carry away the excess. The Crozet Lions' Club
provided volunteers for June. In July, the Jaycees and Girl Scouts volun-
teered and again the materials generated 7000 pounds and they had to use
private cars and pickups for hauling. They were then informed by Randy LaYman
that he could no longer volunteer and would need $250 per Saturday.. He brings
a truck, a trailer and a pickup. Some of the materials are taken to Coiner's
and some to Bryant's Salvage in Fisherville. He has not received any profit
from recycling these materials. They then decided to pay Mr. Layman the
entire amount that the County had given them and hoped that the Board would
provide additional funds so they can continue throughDecember. They have
recycled 11 to 12 tons of material. The Charlottesville Recycling Program has
figured that it costs them $280 per ton to recycle. If the Board uses that
figure, it can see that what they have done so far could be valued at $3080.
It would cost the County $1150 to help them out through the end of the year.
They have staffed the Saturdays with volunteers, made posters, written arti-
cles, xeroxed, etc., at their own expense. Windham has allowed them the use
of its parking lot and. The Bulletin has provided articles and reminders for
each week. If the County cannot help them Out, they will have to close down.
Mr. Way asked the total amount being requested from the County. Ms.
Buxtonsaid $250.
Ms. Florence Massie, a memberof the Crozet Moonlighters Homemakers Club,
said they are very concerned with the waste generated in homes, businesses and
the impact this is having on the landfill. The Club appointed a committee to
study what they could do. The recycling effort is going very well in the
community and has grown. Local haulers cannot continue their generous donated
service. ,Bryant Salvage indicated that they could place a bin, with divisions
in it, in the community somewhere, but would haveto limit the number of
recyclables that could be taken. The rental fee for~the bin. would be $75 and
32
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
$75 for each time emptied. There are problems asmociated with the bin such as
supervision and preventing it from becoming a dump site. Local service
organizations have generously contributed time and volunteer help, but do not
have the money or means to get the quantity of recyclables to Coiner's or
Bryant's Salvage. They appeal to the County for help.
Ms. Jo Ann Perkins, a member of the Crozet Comm~nity Association, said
they have thus far volunteered 190 man hours on this project. They have
handled all of the costs with publicity and posters. Mr. Randy Layman, who
has been working with them since the project began, predicts that their volume
will double in September. They are taking over one-half of household recycla-
ble waste. They are also getting recyclables from other places in the County
and~from the City of Charlottesville. They are also getting children involved
andplanning activities for them. She hopes that the Board will consider the
time and effort they have put into this project and help them.
Ms. Mary Caudle, a member of the Moonlighters Extension Homemakers of
Crozet, said in four months their efforts to educate and get people to recycle
have grown from serving approximately 60 families to more than' 150 families.
All containers were full by 10:30 a.m. on July 6 and people continued to come
and had to be turned away. They have over 400 signatures from people in
Crozet, White Hall, Batesville, Greenwood, North Garden, Ivy and Charlottes-
ville, who have signed a petition supporting recycling in Crozet. It is their
hope and desire that recycling cancontinue in Crozet, but they cannot dorit
without the' Board's support. The problems they face are: 1) no money because
they are not a fundraising group; 2) they have grown faster than expected; 3)
theyserve not only Crozet citizens, but also Surrounding areas; 4) present
haulers have established, a pricedepending on the present market, but the
markets have fluctuated so much since they started and itwill probably take a
drastic change when Charlottesville releases its recycling contract; 5) those
turned away had some ill-feelings and there may be some more ill-feelings when
the program is abruptly stopped. They are asking the County for help and. want
to be able to recycle at least half of the household waste so it will not. have
to go to the landfill. By December it'is their hope that the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority will have something in place to take recyclables to relieve
them of this burden.
Mr. Bowie said yesterday he spoke with Dr. Tony Iachettaof the RSWA~ and
theproblem they are having at the landfill is that nobody wants the material
that is being recycled. They are having to pay to haul it off which is going
to be a problem County-wide. His concern is what happens if citizens from
other sections of the County come in and make a request for funds.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board needs to give some direction and make
some decisions on whether it is going to put funds into recycling, what it
will Cost and how it will be done. The RSWA has been in existence for a year,
but extremely little education has been forthcoming. It is costing the City
of Charlottesville $340 aton to do their 1000 household recycling project.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Board will ultimately have to decide
whether it wants to subsidize recycling, whether it will provide for curb-side
collection or drop-off centers or whether to include it as part of the tipping
fee at the landfill.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels the Board needs a much stronger, more direct
relationship with the RSWA. She took it upon herself to have a meeting with
Dr. Iachetta, Mr. George Williams and the new director and they came out of
that meeting with a good understanding that their educational program isnot
succeeding~ that the problem with the education of the haulers and the custom-
ers isdismal and that the haulers need to get themselves in an active organ-
ization so they can be educated and Work within the system. A lot of atten-
tionis being given to recycling and nobody is giving any attention to making
a market. The RSWA uses only recyclable paper. If the County is ~going to be
a part of the solution, even though it may cost a little more to do it, she
feels that it is the County's obligation to create a market. The CoUnty has
not made a big enough effort. It is this Board's obligation to push the RSWA
hard. They must do more faster about a materialS recovery facility or what-
ever.
Mr. Bowie said a lotof money is being, spent to recycle materialsand
those materials are still ending up in the landfillbecause nobod~ wants them
and they are not being separated properly.
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Tucker said the RSWA is moving as fast as it can because it takes
time to get things started. They intend to start the pilot curb-side recycl-
ing project with haulers for a six month period to see how successf~ul it is~
He thinks the pilot project will be successful and that more households will
want to participate. The question then will be whether the County will
subsidize the funding.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Board needs something definitive back from
the RSWA on what is going to happen and when it is going to happen.
Mr. Bain said he wants something from staff on what the County should be
doing. If the RSWA does not have the money, then maybe the County will have
to consider funding.
Mr. Perkins said regarding the request before the Board, he thinks these
volunteer efforts are much cheaperthan what anybody else has been doing. Mr.
Bowie said. he supports granting the request at least until something comes
backto the Board on what the County intends to do.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. N-~phris, to
approve a request from the Crozet Recyclers to fund its recycling program
through December, 1991, at a cost of $250 per month.
Mr. Bowie said he would support the motion, but would not support an
additional request for funds. Mr. Bain concurred.
Mrs. Humphris said the only thing that is going to save the commUnity is
source reduction. These organizations are in the perfect place to do that.
Mr. Perkins said he'works for Westvaco, a paper company, and they have
five paper machines and make about 2000 tons of paper per day. One of~the
machines is running entirely recyclable paper and he thinks that is:the trend
throughout the industry. A lot of the other products they make cannot use
recyclable materials because that paper is used for food containers and the
Food and-Drug Administration will'not'allow the use.
-~. .Thece.~being no~0ther discussion, roll was'calted and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Way said he has concerns about the availability of the trash pickup.
He still thinks trash is going into the ravines and alongside the road. He
thinks there needs to be awork session to discuss this issue. Mr. Bain
agreed. He would, like information on the RSWA's advertising and education
budget. Mr.-Bowie also agreed. He suggested that if individual Board members
have specific concerns to be addressed, that they berelayed to the County
Executive's staff.
Mr. Bowerman Said he thinks 'a lot of people want to recycle, but there
must be a market for the recyclable materials. He thinks it is the obligation
of the City, County, University of Virginia and major businesses in the area,
where possible, to only deal with manufacturers who accept recyclables back
for reprocessing. He suggests that the County attempt to come up with some
method where the purchasing can be coordinated with manufacturers that do
this, that the County not buy from companies that use only virgin paper. He
feels there is no need to use bond paper such as that given to the Board. He
thinks the County needs to take the initiative and force industry through its
own purchasing to make certain steps because they are not going to do it on
their own.
Not Docketed. Mr. Bowie acknowledged the presence of students from Fork
Union Military Academy and their instructor, Mr. JohnMarston. The students
are present as part of the summer school gove~t and social studies class.
The Chairman called a-recess at 10:48 a.m. The Board reconvened at 11:05
a.m,
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 11. Lickinghole Creek, Pro Rata Share Policy, Discussion
of.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated July 2, 1991:
"The Albemarle County Department of Engineering drafted a 'Policy
Governing the Calculation and Collection of Fees for Development of
Land that Lies in the Drainage Basin of Regional Stormwater Management
Facilities' which was approved by the Board on February 13, 1991. In
the application of this policy to a development project in the drm~n-
age basin of the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin, it
was brought to the attention of the County that the adopted policy was
not completely consistent with Title 15.1-466(j) of the Code of
Virginia.
The County. Attorney has worked with the Department of Engineering,
Office of Water Resources Management, and Planning Department to
develop a revised policy. The revised policy is consistent with the
Code and is attached for your approval.
Theresult of this revised policy will be a calculation of pro rata
share contributions based solely on increases in the volumeand
velocity of runoff which occur as a result of development in the
Lickinghole Creek watershed. This will yield a substantially lower
return of reimbursement funds for the Lickinghole Creek project. The
Engineering Department estimates that the funds potentially recover-
able from future development represent approximately 34 percent of
project construction costs."
Mr. Tucker said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and theCorps-
of Engineers will be making a decision on whether to permit the Lickinghole
Creek project so that it can go forward. There are still some wetland issues
that have not been resolved. These organizations could still prevent the
project from being constructed. As further information is received, it will
be provided to the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked how much is anticipated to be collected from developers
for the project and if there are some other means to protect the watersheds if
this project is denied. Mr. Tucker said soil erosion protection methods are
currently in place. The staff is taking into consideration that the project
may be prohibited. They have asked the developer, who has concurred, to go
ahead and develop plans for on-site runoff control facilities in the event the
basin is not built.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr..Bowerman, to adopt the
"Policy. Governing Calculation and Collection of Fees for Development of Land
thatLies in the])rainage Basin of Regional Storm~ater Management Facili-
ties'' set out below.
Mr. Perkins said he is concerned that if the County is only going to
recover 35 percent from the developers, then it would possibly be better to
require developers to build on-site retentiOnbasins. Mr. St. Johnsaid that
option would still be available on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Perkins said he
thinks the need for~ the Lickinghole Sedimentation Pond has already been
addressed by the sewer interceptor line. He does.not think there is a need
for thebasin. It would be much cheaper to require developersto put on-site
basins. Mr. Bowie said he basically agrees with Mr. Perkins, but that can be
addressed with the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Tucker said the Board
has already appropriated the funds necessary to construct the Lickinghole
Creek-Basi~n. Afte~a~uling ha~been received~from~EPA~ if-it is the~Boa~d's
desire .t6~again~-discuss the'issue ~ith. regard-.toYfunding, then'that would~be
scheduled for diScussion:immediately.~:It~.woUtd~not-come back ~during the~CIP
pr~cess~' Mr, Perkins said he thinks that it should be discussed. Mr. Bowie
said he would also support discussing the issue again. There being no other
comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
POLICY GOVERNING CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF FEES
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND THAT LIES IN THE' DRAINAGE BASIN
OF REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
35
July 10, 1991
Where the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors determines that
the public interest is best served by a regional stormwater management
facility (for runoff control or stormwater detention), and appropri-
ates public funds for the construction of the facility with the
express understanding that a fee will be assessed for the development
of land within the drainage basin of the facility, a subdivider or
developer shall be required'to pay a pro rata share of the cost of
such facility. Such pro rata share shall be limited to the proportion
of such total estimated cost which the increased volume and velocity
of stormwater runoff to be actually caused by the subdivision or
development bears to total estimated volumeand velocity of Such
runoff from such area in its fully developed state (Code of Virginia,
Title 15.1-466j). Total cost shall include: 1) any engineering study
for the watershed of a regional facility; 2) design costs; 3) land and
~asement acquisition; 4) construction costs; and 5) construction
mmnagement and inspection fees.
Calculations of increase in runoff shall be submitted to the
Albemarle County Department of Engineering for review and approval.
Documentation must accompany any development proposal within the
watershed of a regional stormwater management facility. Following
approVal of runoff calculations, the pro rata share contribution for
the facility must be made prior to any issuance of permits for land-
disturbing activities.
In such case that a regional stormwater management facility has
been proposed, but final cost estimates are not yet available or
construction of the facility hasnot commenced, the following options
shall be available to meet the terms of this policy:
The developer may make a contribution based on the best
available cost estimate of the regional facility at the time
of the site plan submittal for the project. The County
Engineering Department shall use the projected cost of such
facility to develop a formula for calculation of pro rata
share contributions in accordance with Title 15.1-466(j) of
the Code of Virginia.
2~
The developer may provide an acceptable form of surety to
cover their respective pro rata share of the cost of a
regional stormwater facility and proceedwith such project
subject to County Engineering Department approval of runoff
calculations and County Attorney approval of surety.
In any case where a regional stormwater management facility has
been proposed but is not constructed, the County Engineering Depart-
ment may require such facilities or pro rata share contributions to
control runOff'as necessary to meet the requirements of provisiOns of
the Albemarle County Code in order to provide for the health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of Albemarle County.
Lickinghole Creek Regional Stormwater Management Facility
Until thetotal cost of the facility has been determined, pro
rata share contributions shall be determined in accordance with the
formula below. This calculation is based on the bestavailable cost
estimate of the facility and establishes a pro rata share contribution
for offsite drainage facilities based, on the increase in the volume
and velocity of stormwater actually caused by a particular project.
The pro rata share is determined by the following:
Increase in Runoff x
Volume (cfs)
$428.85 per cfs increase
in 10 yr. runoff
(based on best available
cost estimate)
= Pro Rata
Share
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Increase in runoff volume shall be determined for any proposed
development and shall be based on the increase in runoff volume and
velocity resulting from the project in its fully developed state.
This determination shall calculate increase in runoff volume and
velocity from the point at which runoff leaves the property boundary.
Agenda Item No. 12. Meals Tax Referendum, Discussion of procedures.
Mr. St. John said the language in the Code of Virginia that authorizes a
meals tax and a referendum is confusing. The Board can "doctor" the language
to make it plain. He has discussed this with the Attorney General and Secre-
tary of the~State Electoral Board.. The Code states that a county can impose a
meals tax which when added to the State sales tax does not exceed eight and
one-half percent. At this time, the State sales tax is four and one-half
percent. The Board could put on the November ballot the question as: "Shall
Albemarle County be authorized to levy a tax on meals, with an appropriate
description~ not to exceed four percent?" The other alternativeis to use the
exact language of the statute as follows: "Shall Albemarle County~be autho-
rized a'meals tax in an amount which when added to the sales tax shall not
exceed eight and one-half percent?" He thinks it is simpler to understand
when the amount of four percent is included in the question. For a referendum
there are steps that have to be taken and deadlines to meet. If one of the
steps is flawed, it is too late to correct after the fact. The Circuit Court
judge must sign a Writ of Election which orders the Electoral Board to put the
question on the November ballot. That must be done no later than 60 days
prior to the election. The procedure is for the Board to direct him to file a
Petition for a Writ of Election.
Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that the referendum should state as
clearly as possible what the Boardis doing and not be designed for misUnder-
standing. Mr. St. John said although he received instructions from the State
thattheCounty could use the four percent language~ they think the County
should use-the language in the Code. Mr. Perkins asked if language in. the
Code has.~changed from when this question came up several years ago. Mr. St.
John replied "yes". The section of the language reading "when combined with
the sales tax not to exceed a total of eight and one-half percent" is. new
language.
Mr. Bain said he wants to make sure the language is "attack proof". He
thinks it is up to the Board members to sell the idea of the meals tax,
Mr.~ Tucker asked if the County could not clarify in a parenthetical
comment the language. Mr. St. John said there are ways it can be clarified.
Mr. Bowerman thinks it is up to the Board to educate the public,and the
Board should use the language in the Code. Mrs. Humphris agreed. Mr, Way.
said he is still debating the issue.
Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that there should be some simple
language that could be put on the ballot to clarify the Code language. Mr.
St. John said he would draft something and bring it back-to the Board at its
next.meeting on July 17. Mr. Bowie reiterated that the Board wants to comply
with State Code, but wants the language made as simple as possible. There was
no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 13. Letter from Accomack County Board of Supervisors
asking the Board to join in requesting the right of participation in the
Virginia Retirement System for members of city councils and boards of Supervi-
sors in the Commonwealth.
Mr. Bowie said this has been before this Board previously. This Board
has never supported the request because the amount of five percent of the
salarymust be contributed for five years in order to vest and if this option
is available the supervisors would not be eligible for Individual Retirement
Accounts (IRAs). If the Board concurs, he will write a letter explaining the
Board's reasons for not supporting the request. There were no objections from
the Board. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:33 a.m.)
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
37
Agenda Item No. 14a. Work Session: Blue Ridge Neighborhood Study.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following memorandum dated July 5, 1991:
"The Blue Ridge Neighborhood Study is the fifth of eight Area 'B'
studies undertaken by the Plarming and Coordination Council (PACC) in
accordance with the City/County/University 'Memorandum of Understand-
ing.'
The main Blue Ridge Neighborhood Study area consists of 857 acres and
includes the Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC), Blue Ridge
Hospital, Tandem School, Thomas Jefferson Visitor's Center, Cavalry
Baptist Church, Lakeside and Willow Lake Subdivisions and the
Hillcrest and Soil Conservation Service properties. The study also
includes a separate 38 acre area south on Route 20, the University of
Virginia Health Science's Support Facility.
The PACC, at its meeting on May 30, 1991, endorsed the Study and
forwarded it to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for
review and approval. The Planning Commission held a June 4, 1991,
work session on the Study.
This Study makes a number of recommendations (Executive Summary) which
will require amendments to both the Comprehensive Plan text and Land
Use Map. These changes will be reviewed at the July 10 work session.
No action is necessary to amend the Plan at that time. After your
review and comment, the Plan will be returned to the Planning Commis-
sion for public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
Commission will then forward .its recommendation to the Board."
Mr. Cilimberg then presented a slide presentation on the following
Executive Summary outlined in the Study:
A~ GENERAL CONDITIONS
The Blue Ridge Neighborhood Study area consists of 895.2 acres
and is located along Interstate-64 and the city limits to the
north, Avon Street Extended (Route 742) to the west, the Hill-
crest,and Tandem School properties to the south, and Blue Ridge
Hospital and Soil Conservation property located along Route 20 to
the east.
The study area also includes the University of Virginia Health
Sciences Support Facility's property located off of Route 20 and
3.7 acres of land owned by the City that was split when the
right-of-way for Interstate-64 was dedicated.
The study area consists of facilities such as the Piedmont Virgi-
nia Community College (PVCC), Blue Ridge Hospital, Health Scien-
ces Support Facility,. Cavalry Baptist Church, Tandem School,
Thomas Jefferson Visitor's Center, and the Inn at Monticello.
The study area also includes two residential developments, Willow
Lake and Lakeside.
B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Land Use Change (Blue Ridge Tract): Expand the Growth Area
boundary south across Interstate-64 and east across. Route 20
to coincide with the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) jurisdictional area located cn the BlueRidge Hospi-
tal tract. This expansion is based on the conditions that
the area be designated for public/semi-public use and any
development be consistent with the Master Land Utilization
Plan for the Blue Ridge Hospital-tract dated May of 1991.
Mr. Bain said he uses the Route 20/I-64 interchange frequently. He
thinks thatthe traffic configuration is extremely poor in the area. He is
concerned about traffic coming west on 1-64 to get onto Route 20 South.
38
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Traffic must exit 1-64, stop, cross two lanes of on-coming traffic, turn left
and then merge onto Route 20. He thinks staff should look at a different
configuration to alleviate this traffic problem. Also, there is no decelera-
tion lane for traffic coming east on 1-64 to get. onto Route 20 South. Mr.
Kenneth Baker of the Planning staff said Recommendation #13 in the Plan is to
study the impact and the feasibility of constructing some type of acceleration
lane. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff did not study the other suggestion made by
Mr. Bain.
Mr. Cilimberg said the principle issue is related to land use, particu-
larly with the Blue Ridge Hospital tract. A lot of effort was put into
working with the University of Virginia to come to an agreement on the best
deVelopment Scheme for the tractand, also, to meet the interests of the
University for future development of the tract to avoid controversy. The
overall intent was to look at the study areas as one general neighborhood that
would be amended into the County's Comprehensive Plan for variousland use
changes.
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 11:40 a.m.) Mr. Way asked why the study
did not include property across the road from Tandem School. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that the study area was established in 1986 and that was the area
used. Mr. Tucker commented that the property is owned by the University.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Committee felt that there needed to be a defini-
tive conceptual plan from the University on how they expected to develop the
site. The ComprehenSive Plan amendment to include this area in Neighborhood 4
of the urban area should be based on the University complying with that
accepted plan as part-of the study. He then outlined the plan which included
various notes that will guide the development of the property. (Mr. Bowie
returned to the meeting at 11:46 a.m.)
Mr. Bain asked about the area east on 1-64 coming north on Route 20 and
if the Committee had any discussions about that section of highway. Mr.
Cilimberg said that traffic movement was not discussed~ Mr. Bain said traffic
coming out of Blue Ridge Hospital has about 100 feet to go, must cross two
lanes of traffic, merge into the left lane and then cut across the southbound
lane and traffic has no place to stack. There is already a loop east on t~64
for going north into town and he does not think it should be problem to
connect it to 1-64. The terrain has already been graded toallow this to be
done. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 11:55 a.m.)
Mr. Perkins asked if this Plan recommends that the Forestry Department be
allowed to build on the Blue Ridge site if it develops another plan. Mr.
Cilimberg responded "no". The University stated that its use of the property
would only be for University-related uses. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:58
a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris asked about utilities imposing on the buffered areas. Mr~
Cilimberg couldnot say what may be necessary in terms of utilities serving
the site. It may be necessary to do some advance planning of utilities during
the site plan process, but usually utilities are discussed late in the pro-
ject. The staff has in the past tried to require additional planning when
buffers are disturbed~ In this situation, along Route 53, he thinks there
needs to be a note made to advance plan utility provisions aspart of the
overall development of the site. Mrs. Humphris said she and members of the
public perceive this issue as a major loop hole in the Zoning Ordinance that
definitely needs to be dealt with. She asked about the possibilities of
disturbing the buffer if a parkway on Route 53 were constructed. Mr.
Cilimberg said he does'not know how much of the buffer would be disturbed for
a parkway. The parkway concept recommended in this Plan is similar to that
approaching Mount Vernon in Alexandria. It would be envisioned to have grass
shoulders and a pathway for potential bikers. They do not have a cross
section plan.of that idea. It is something that Monticello wants to work with
the Countyand University in developing. Until the staff sees the concept and
talks~with VDoT, they would not know how much effect it would have on the
buffer. The buffer is measured from the right-of-way of Route 53 so it is the
staff's expectations that anything occurring on Route 53 in the.way of improve-
ments would occurwithin that right-of-way. If that happens there would be no
need.to disturb~the buffer. Mrs. Humphris asked what the Board needs to do to
make surethat buffers not be intruded on by easements for utilities, road-
ways~ etc~ 'Mr. Citimbergsaid he would need to discuss that with the C~unty
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Attorney. The Board could, of course, pass a resolution of intent. He thinks
the best approach would be to handle the issue in site plan provisions, to
have the review at the beginning of site plan review and identify the utili-
ties needed relative to the buffer. Mrs. Humphris said she finds it discou-
raging to adopt such a plan and then find that mai or loopholes have been left
open. Mr. Bowie agreed that it may be necessary to amend the language in the
ordinance. He asked if language could not be included in this Plan that it is
the intent of the County that the buffer along Route 53 not be cut for utili-
ties or anything else. A separate issue is a change in the Zoning Ordinance
to locate utilities outside of the buffer area. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Committee did not discuss utilities. Mr. Bowie said he thinks the buffer on
Route 53 is important because it is the entrance route to Monticello.
Mr. Cilimberg said this effort with the City, County and University
ultimately worked out to be a good relationship. It was good to get the
cooperative effort.
Mr. Cilimberg then continued with the slide presentation and the recom-
mendations concerning land use changes for the Hillcrest tract.
2 Z.
Land Use Change (Hillcrest Tract): If the Forestry Depart-
ment undertakes its proposed office development, change the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of approximately 30
acres in the northern portion of the Hillcrest tract from
low density residential to public/semi-public and replace
the residential holding capacity lost as a result of this
development.
Mr. Way asked why.the residential area needs to be replaced; why not just
omit it from the Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has always tried to keep
the residential holding capacity in the urban and growth areas as muchas
possible to relieve the growth pressures for residential use outside the
growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff will be-bringing to the Board a
status report on the Comprehensive Plan and will show where the County has
lost holding capacity due to some other things that have happened.
Land Use (Health Sciences Support Facility): Allow expan-
sion of existing facilities at the Health Sciences Support
Facility that are consistent with the rural character,
non-intensive and supportive of the current use.
Land Use (City Parcel): Ensure that the parcel is developed
in 'a manner that is consistent with the surrounding land use
designations.
Commercial Service: Allow commercial service within certain
portions of the study area under a Planned Unit Development
(PUD).
6. Expansion of PVCC: Expand PVCC in a manner which is sensi-
tive to the surrounding area and based on the master plan
for the site.
(Mr. Bain left the meeting at 12:11 p.m.)
Protection of Routes 20 and 53 as Entrance Corridors:
Preserve the character of the area by implementing design
and building standards for development along Routes 20 and
53.
Parkway to Monticello: Construct a scenic and protective
Parkway to Monticello that allows for safe and efficient
traffic movement and preserves the rural character of the
area-.
Routes 20 and 53 Intersection Improvements: Work with the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to consider
additional improvements which would improve the safety of
this intersection.
4O
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
10.
Blue Ridge Hospital Entrance: Relocate the present entrance
to the Blue Ridge Hospital directly across from the
PVCC/Thomas Jefferson Visitor's Center entrance to coincide
with major development of the Blue Ridge tract.
11.
Transit Service: Assess the feasibility of expanding
transit service to PVCC and Blue Ridge Hospital and consider
providing future service to other portions of the study
area.
12.
Bicycles: Provide a safe and efficient bicycle transporta-
tion system within the study area.
Interchange Improvements: Evaluate the possibility of
installing an acceleration lane on the eastbound Inter-
state,64/Route.20 South exit.
14. Interchange: Evaluate the need and feasibility for an
interchange at Interstate-64 and Route 742 (Avon Street).
15.
Fire Station and Rescue Station: Locate a joint fire and
rescue station in or near the study area to reduce response
times and increase fire fighting and rescue capabilities.
(Mr. Bain returned at 12:14 p.m.)
16.
Street Lights: Add additional street lighting along the
Route 20 corridor near the PVCC entrance, at the Routes 20
and 53intersection, and at other areas of need to improve
safety in the study area.
17.
18.
Regional Stormwater Management: Implement a regional
stormwater management approach in the study area.
Viewshed Protection: Regulate development on the Carter's
Mountain ridgeline to ensure the preservation of the study
area's viewshed~
19.
Streams and Wetlands Protection: Implement protection
measures for streams and wetlands consistent with Chesapeake
Bay Act preservation goals.
Mr. Way asked where the City parcel (#4)is located. Mr. Cilimberg said
it is an undeveloped tract on the southside of 1,64 and was cut off when 1-64
was actually built. This is currently zoned for business use. The City
stated that it does not really want to use the property for. business use and
they committed the property to the open space area. The propertyis owned by
the City.
Mr. Bowerman asked if, during review of the COmprehensive Plan in 1989,
this area and the Hillcrest property were discussed as commercial. Mr.
Cilimberg said he does not think there was a discussion of incorporating
commercial uses in general in residential areas. The Committee felt that if a
PUD were done, the staff Wouldhave the opportunity to incorporate a small
scale level of commercial support use (#5). Because of the potential for
several, hundred homes here, it may be necessary to have some level of support-
ing commercial to avoid people having to leave the development and adding more
traffic to Avon Street. That is the idea behind the commercial service in
Hillcrest. Mr. Bain asked if the recommendation (#5) had to be part of this
Study. Mr. Bowiesaid he remembers some discussions although they may not
have been held during the Comprehensive Plan discussions. Mr. Way also
remembered some discussions about a connection with Mill Creek. Mr. Cilimberg
said he thinks commercial use was approved for 60,000 square feet. Mr. Bain
said he would rather it, (#5), not be a part of the Study. Mr. Way said he
supportedthe commercial as part of Mill Creek because there is nothing south
of town, but he thinks that is enough. Mr. Bain said he thinks it should be
left alone until there is a need.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a recommendation was deleted from the Study if the
Study would have to go back to the PACC. Mr. Cilimberg said this plan needs
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
to be adopted in some form into the Comprehensive Plan. The Board could amend
the Comprehensive Plan to include those aspects of the Blue Ridge Study that
it feels should be in the Plan and delete others that it feels are inappropri-
ate.
Mr. Way agreed to delete recommendation #5. Mr. Bowerman said his
concern is that the recommendation is almost a different policy statement in
stating that if there are 200 homes in a development there needs to be some
commercial support services. He is not sure the Board ever said that. Mr.
Cilimberg said the PUD provisions in the Zoning Ordinance allow so many square
feet of commercial per residence.
Mr. Perkins asked if P¥CC does not want to have a connection to Avon
Street. iMr. Cilimberg responded that is correct. Mr. Perkins thought it
would be favorable to keep that connection, that it would give more "clout" to
possibly getting an interchange on I.-64, Mr. Baker said the reason PVCC did
not want the connection was because they did not want the traffic using it as
a cut through to Route 20. Mr. Perkins said there are ways to deal with' cut
through traffic. Mr. Cilimberg suggested contacting Dr. Poole, who was on the
Committee, and find out PVCC's reasons for not wanting this connection. Mr.
Bain said he understands Mr. Perkins comments, but he would rather this be
left. alone. He would prefer that PVCC have one access. Mr. Bowie asked if
PVCC can be required to open that access. Mr. Tucker replied "no".
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Work Session: The Bike Plan for the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County, prepared by the City of Charlottesville
and Albemarle County for the Metropolitan Planning Organization, dated May,
1991.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Bike Plan was deVeloped in conjunction with the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the City of Charlottesville, the
County, the University of Virginia, the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDoT), area bicycle clubs and bicycle shop owners~ The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on .Julyg, 1991, endorsed the Plan as an amendmentto the
Comprehensive Plan. The Bike Plan is regional and .incorporates facilities in
both the City and the County. The City Planning Commission has also recom-
mended the Plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg then reviewed the basic facilities involved in the Plan, as
outlined on pages 3 through 5 of the Plan. The Plan includes the following
four goals, with objectives: 1) Provide a comprehensive and coordinated
regionalbikeway system which is responsive to a wide range of bicyclist
characteristics; 2) Provide a bikeway system that is safe and convenient for
all users; 3) Inform and educate the general public of bicycle advantages,
bicyCle facilities and regulations; and 4) Provide a comprehensive bikeway
system that is feasible and cost-effective. The Plan includes financing
alternatives, with the primary sources being VDoT funds, new construction road
projects, and the City and County Capital Improvement Programs.. Page 15 of
the Plan includes three priorities. He then summarized the first priority
Which.includes: linkage of major trip attractor areas; linkage of City and
coUnty bikeways and/or linkage of the County urban and rural areas and utili-
zation of other programs for capital improvements or road construction in
providing bike facilities; and designating popular bikeway sections where high
potential exists for bicycle/vehicle conflict.
Mr. Cilimberg said most of the remainder of the Study concentrates the
specific facilities, which are numerous, involving both~ urban and rurat compo-
nents of the County. He then reviewed the following action agenda:
Develop bikeway facilities in a manner that is based on the. priorities
indicated in Section VII;
Incorporate bicycle facilities.as part of road improve~ents from design
to construction as recommended in this Plan;
3~
Provide ann~,m] funding in the Capital Improvements Program for bikeway
improvements. -These funds would be targeted to improvements outlined in
this Plan;
42
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
4. Utilize outside funds including State, Federal and private funds for the
construction of bicycle facilities in the City and County;
Explore possibilities in providing bicycling educational programs to all
age groups;
Continue regional cooperation with neighboring localities and the State
in planning and development of bicycle facilities; and
Investigate alternative alignment for the-Interstate Bicycle Route-76.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission wanted it expressed to the
Board that ~any of'.maps t~hat are produced for the public and used to promote
bicycling have the proviso that some of the routes as shown are future routes
and currently may not be safe for bicycle travel.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he thought the methodolOgy used for this Plan
was excellent. He thought the cooperation of everyone involved was excellent,
as were the priorities. He was impressed with the overall document.
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Cilimberg about not encouraging these bike
routes at this time.
Mr. Perkins thought it may be a good idea for the County to identify
roads that are not suitable for bike travel. Mr. Bain did not think that any
of the roads were safe for bike travel. Mr. Perkins said there are different
ways to raise money to implement the plan. Perhaps bikers should think about
a tax on biCycles or.a bike~decal. Mr. Cilimberg said registration of bikes
was discussed by the Committee. For the Board's information, VDoT secondary
improvement funds include a 50 percent match on building bikeways, if the
County wants to use it.
Mr. Bowerman also thought that registration of bikes is a good idea
because it would also help law enforcement in terms of thefts of bikes and
obeyance of traffic laws. Mrs. Humphris thought that enforcing registration
would cost more money than could be brought in. Mr. Cilimberg said that was
also the Committee's thinking~
Mr. Bowie commented that the P~lan has been advertised for a public
hearing before this Board on July 17 and no action is required from the. Board
at this time.
Mrs. Bowie said he thinks that it will be decades before this Plan can be
implemented. There wasno further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD-.
Mr. Tucker said pursuant to the requirements of the Community Development
Block Grant Project, an environmental review is required for the proposed AHIP
hOusing~rehabilitation project. The Board must appoint an Environmental
Certifying Officer to be responsible for conducting this review. It is
recommended that the Board appoint Mr. David B. Benish, Chief of Community
Development as the Environmental Certifying Officer.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint
Mr. David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development, as Environmental Certify-
ing Officer for the proposed AHIP housing rehabilitation project. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins andMr~ Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins said he. has received some requests from landowners concerning
the Water Resources Protection Ordinance and, whether there are provisions or
plans to inform people on what they have to do to be in compliance with the
'regulations. Mr. Tucker said information is being provided by Soil Conserva-
tion Service. He will find out what kind of educational program they intend
to put in place.
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mrs. Humphris said she received a call from someone who expressed concern
about Ivy Creek being mud-filled. As she was passing by a construction site
on Route 250 West, she went over to look at the silt fences and saw that they
were covered with mud. and foliage was growing on top of the mud. If the
County has regulations to keep mud out of the reservoir, they should be such
that they work.
Mrs. Humphris said the contractor had bulldozed the Albemarle High School
site for improvements before the last heavy rains occurred. When she went
over to look at the site, the overall control measures had been successful,
although not 100 percent. She think~ they did a fairly good job.
Mrl Tucker said the Water Resources Committee is working on a stormwater
policy that will be coming to the Board next month. The policy has gone to
the Planning Commission for review. He intends to ask that the Board direct
the!Water Resources Committee to start developing ordinances and suggested
mmendments. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 12:45 p.m.)
At 12:49 p.m., motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain,
to adjourn into Executive Session for discussion of personnel issues under
Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1. Roll was called and the motion carried.by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:31 p.m. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain, seconded by'Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the~following Certification of
Executive Session:
C~TIFIGATION OF EX~CI~M~TING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE: IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisorshereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting-requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meet~g-t~iwhi~h ~thi~ ~ertific~a~i'~esolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABS]~IT DURING VOTe: None.
ABSENT DURING ~TING:
NOH~.
:Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting, immediately adjourned.
CHAIRMAN