1989-05-10May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 577
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 10, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie, C.
Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:09 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and
seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept Items 4.1 through 4.8 as information and to
approve Item 4.9 of the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. ~
Item 4.1. Memorandum dated April 21, 19!89, from Mr. Barry R. Lawrence,
Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties, concerning filing of
requests for VACo's 1990 Legislative Program, received as information.
Item 4.2. Letter dated May 2, 1989, fro~ Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., Assis-
tant District Engineer, Department of Transpo~tation, transmitting a copy of
the Policy and Procedures for the Control of Residential Cut-Through Traffic
adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board was received as information.
A copy is on file in the Clerk's office.
Item 4.3. Letter dated May 2, 1989, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Highway Engineer, addressed to Mr. W. Brand McCaskill, concerning Route 637,
with copy of letter dated April 24, 1989 from Mr. McCaskill, received as
information. Mr. Bain requested that this item be discussed when Agenda Item
No. 6g. Other Highway Matters, is taken up.
Item 4.4. Letter dated April 20, 1989, ~rom Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr.,
State Location and Design Engineer, Departmen$! of Transportation, stating that
VDoT has approved the location and design for~iilthe Route 20/Route 742 project
(Proj. 0020-002-S17, C-501), was received as i~nformation.
Item 4.5. Letter dated April 27, 1989, f~om Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive
Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, ~concerning proposed changes in
water and sewer rates effective July 1, 1989, ~was received as information.
Item 4.6. Notice dated April 25, 1989, ~f an application filed with the
State Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for an
expedited increase in rates, received as info=~ation.
Item 4.7. Memorandum dated May 5, 1989, !from Mrs. Roxanne W. White,
Management Analyst, stating that the 1989 Italian Student Exchange Program has
been cancelled due to a lack of interest by lo~al· students.
578
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.8. Notices dated April 20, 1989, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell,
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, stating that Woodlands,
Monticola, The Cedars and Cove Presbyterian Church have been placed on the
Virginia Landmarks Register and nominated to the National Register of Historic
Places, were received as information.
Item 4.9. Statements of Expense for the month of April, 1989, for the
Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail were
approved by the vote shown above.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 8, July 6 (N) and July 20,
1988.
Mr. Way had read the minutes for June 8, 1988, Pages 16 -31 and found
them to be in order with two minute book corrections on Page 17, Agenda Item
No. 6e. The word "said" should be included after "Mr. Roosevelt" on line two
of the first paragraph. The word "be" should be inserted before "a public
hearing" on line five of the same paragraph.
Mr. Way had read the minutes for July § (N), 1988, Pages 1
them to be in order.
12 and found
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for July 20, 1988, Pages 1 - 9 and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
the minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Route 660 over. the South Fork
Rivanna River project.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer for the!Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDoT), said a public hearing on this p~0ject was held on
May 4, 1989. At that hearing, charts showing three alternatives were pre-
sented, and Mr. Roosevelt had those available for the Board's review. He
explained that Alternative A goes across the river on a six degree curve east
of the existing bridge. He said this alignment would provide improved traffic
flow over the bridge and allow the existing bridge to be used during construc-
tion. Alternative B is shorter and carries the new bridge west of the exist-
ing bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said a sixteen degree curve, wl~ich is below VDoT
standards, would be necessary in Alternative B. He said ~e major problem
with this alignment is that it would cost about $0.5 million to relocate the
underground utilities. Alternative C crosses the river o~ an e~ght degree
curve with an alignment that falls between A and B. This ~ew bridge would cut
through the existing bridge and preclude use of the existing bridge during
construction because the road would have to be closed during construction.
Mr. Roosevelt said Alternative A would cost an estimated ~949,000. Alterna-
tive B would cost $1,429,000 because of the relocation of utilities. Alterna-
tive C is estimated at $802,000. He recommended Alternatige A.
Mr. Roosevelt said concerns raised by the public were-the number of
overweight vehicles using the bridge, unsupervised access !'~to the river, access
across the river during construction for emergency and local traffic, and the
effect of this project on the cabin that overlooks the project on the
Charlottesville side. ~.
Mr. Roosevelt concluded by asking the Board for a resolution of support
today so that this project could continue on schedule. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the design speed is for each?of the alterna-
tives. Mr. Roosevelt said the design speed is 40 miles per hour for Alterna-
tives A and C. The traffic volume of 1,100 cars per day i~dicates that this
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
579
is a collector road. He said the curvature-on Alignments A and C meets the
requirements of a collector road, while the curvature on Alignment B does not.
Mr. Roosevelt said a waiver could possibly be obtained from VDoT if alignment
B is approved by the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the design speed is for Alternative B. Mr.
Roosevelt said it was between 30 and 35 miles per hour. Mr. Lindstrom asked
what the posted speed limit is on the curve after crossing that bridge. Mr.
Roosevelt said it was less than 30 miles per hour. Mr. Lindstrom said it is
dangerous to encourage drivers to travel at a speed approaching the bridge
faster than the road could handle when the driver came off the bridge onto the
next curve. Mr. Roosevelt acknowledged the need for improvements to Route 660
beyond the bridge, especially on the curve to which Mr. Lindstrom referred.
He said to extend the improvement to that curve would cost an additional
$330,000, which would change the nature of the improvement from replacing a
substandard bridge to improving a section of road. He said an unfortunate
problem encountered when improvements are maze to sections of roads is the
disparity between portions of the road.
Mr. Lindstrom said in order to leave the utilities undisturbed and to
have the bridge open during construction, the obvious choice would be Alterna-
tive A. However, that would mean increasingi~the radius on the curve. Mr.
Lindstrom asked how a design speed of 30 miles per hour would affect the cost
of the project for Alternative A. Mr. RooseVelt said unless the structure
could be shortened, he did not think an alignment change in A would reduce the
cost. However, the negative aspect is that ~here would be a curve which would
be less than standard. He pointed out that the only justification for a less
than standard curve along the B alignment was to keep from closing the exist-
ing bridge during construction.
Mr. Bowie asked if the main difference between A and C was whether the
bridge stayed open during construction. Mr. ~iRoosevelt said there is a differ-
ence in cost as well because the bridge is s~orter on the C alignment. Mr.
Roosevelt said the bridge should be kept open~ during construction because
1,100 cars per day use that bridge. He said l!the majority of that traffic is
between Cooper Industries and Charlottesville! or subdivisions this side of
Cooper Industries, and those folks would hav~ to go around construction and
through Earlysville for about nine months.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that ~ignment A calls for a substan-
tial cut into the steep bank at that locatio~ and he suggested that a retain-
ing wall would substantially minimize the poslsibility of erosion and allow
less cutting into the bank. .il
Mr. Eric Kaplan, neighboring property ow'~er closest to the existing
bridge, said there is no need for a 40 mile p~r hour bridge because it is not
safe. He said the rest of the road is 35 mil~s per hour, and the curves are
treacherous. He said the bridge should be engineered in a way that would not
invite accidents. He feels it is imperative ~hat the bridge be kept open
during construction for the convenience of th~ people who live in the area and
for access by fire and rescue facilities. Re!~arding cutting into the bank,
Mr. Kaplan said the retaining wall makes sense from an erosion and aesthetics
point of view. The last issue Mr. Kaplan mentioned was the problem of unau-
thorized access to the river. He said there ~s a tremendous dumping problem
in the area by the river. Such items as abandoned cars, mattresses, tires,
cans, bottles and other trash are dumped here~. As a result of the trash,
there have been fires by the river. He said ~he smoke is sometimes so thick
on his property when people are d~own there burning mattresses and tires that
it is hard to breathe. He said the noise is ~ problem almost 24 hours a day
in the summer. People have camped down by th9 river and played radios all
night. He said he was assaulted one night whgn he went down and asked that
the radio be turned down. He said there is a~tremendous amount of disrespect
for the land and the river.
Mr. Kaplan pointed out that he has been Working on this problem for five
years. He said he has talked with people fro~ the three public agencies in-
volved, as well as Sheriff Hawkins. He said ~'he only solution to date has
been to post the land from 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. He said the police have
been cooperative about chasing people away wh~ n they are called to do so. He
said he came before the Board today because h~ thinks now is the time to do
58O
May 10, 1989 (RegUlar Meeting)
(Page 4)
sOmething about this problem. He said he raised the issue at the Highway
public hearing, and Mr. Roosevelt said his department would be willing to
cooperate with the County. Mr. Kaplan suggested that either a recreation area
be created with proper maiqtenance and policing, or that access be completely
prohibited to avoid the noise and nuisance problems. Mr.'Kaplan said this has
been a problem for twenty years and is becoming more of a problem because more
people are moving into the vicinity.
Mrs. Priscilla Rappolt, owner of a cabin on top of the hill overlooking
the river, said Alternate A would require grading right next to her septic
system. She showed pictures of her property and a rendering of how her
property would look should Alternate A be built. She said she hoped a retain-
ing wall would be installed so that grass and trees could be replanted. She
said people drive 50 to 60 miles an hour along this road. She invited the
police department to bring radar and monitor traffic speed past her driveway.
Mrs. Rappolt said she felt Alternate C would be more advisable. The
Earlysville Fire Department has already solicited the help of the Seminole
Fire Department to help with calls on this side of the reservoir. Regarding
the interruption of traffic, Mrs. Rappolt said it was just as easy for people
to go on Route 743. She concluded by saying that Alternate C would be
cheaper, there would be a retaining wall to prevent erosion and washing into
the reservoir, and the inconvenience would be negligible compared to the money
saved.
Mrs. Babs Huckle, a neighboring property owner, said~.her property is not
physically affected by this bridge. However, she has been concerned for many
years about protecting the reservoir. She said that although this is referred
to as a river, it is just upstream from the reservoir and!.iwhat goes in here
goes into the reservoir proper. She said the reservoir i~ already filling in
with sediment. Although Mrs. Huckle said she uses this bf~idge frequently, she
would be willing to postpone using it for the time necessary if the Board
chose Alternative C. That alignment would be the cheapes~I and would do the
least environmental damage because it requires the least d~tting of the bank.
She said some time ago the bridge was repaired and could ~t be used for about
a week. Everyone managed to find an alternative route at ikhat time. Regard-
ing fire protection, she said this area did not have much ihelp at present from
the Earlysville Company. If Alternate A is chosen, Mrs. ~ckle urged the
Board to install a retaining wall. She pointed out that ~,~e Highway Depart-
ment had built a steep bank at the Ivy Creek Natural Area~.~.'~i! Several years
after construction, after heavy rains, great chunks of theilbank fell into the
road and also into the reservoir. With the best of intent.ions, the ability to
stabilize a bank in erodible soil is very minimal.
Mr. Horne said representatives from the Planning DepaZtment and Mr. Pat
Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, visited the si~te yesterday. He
said they looked at the location in terms of river access i~nd from the trans-
portation point of view. In terms of controlled access through local or state
funding, Mr. Horne said Alternate A would appear to providD the easiest access
for a regulated boat launch area. He said Plan C would make access available,
although it would be less convenient. In terms of State £hterest, representa-
tives from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries sta~ed an interest in
helping to establish a formal boat launch area should the ~ounty be inter-
ested.
Mr. Mullaney said his department had been looking fori!fishing access for
sometime for the reservoir. He said the reservoir is the ~est fishery in the
County by far, and there is very little public access to i~. The State is
interested in funding a capital improvement there, and hisi!Department would be
in charge of maintaining it once those improvements were m~de. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if the Department of Parks and Recreation would be aple to police the
area. Mr. Mullaney said it is not easy to police fisherie~, but he felt his
department could do a better job than'what is currently be~ng done. Mr.
Lindstrom said if the Department of Parks and Recreation i~~ going to urge a
certain almgnment because mt would mncrease the f~sh~ng aceessmb~lmty, then
they should be prepared to provide funds to police the are41 and to keep it
clean.
Mr. Lindstrom asked who owns the property. Mr. Roosevelt said all of the
land on the Earlysville side of the reservoir is either State Highway property
or belongs to the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Kaplan interrupted to Say that
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
581
was incorrect. He said he had researched the land records thoroughly in order
to acquire it himself to obtain control of access. He said there is a small
strip owned by the estate of Frank Milton Miles. The property is under the
control of Sovran Bank. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that strip is where most of
the activity occurs. Mr. Kaplan said the activity is spread out. He said Mr.
Miles' land lies between the road and the river. He said under the bridge the
land is owned by his neighbor, Mr. Conley.
Mr. Bowie said he believes that before ~he County could do anything about
the access, land would have to be purchased if it is privately owned and that
could not be resolved today. He asked if a causeway would have to be built to
bring in the construction equipment. Mr. Roosevelt said the causeway is not
intended to go across the river. It is intended to go out into the reservoir
far enough to serve as a work area for setting concrete piers and steel beams.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that a quick cost estimate for a retaining wall
on Alignment A would be from $200,000 to $300~000. He said a retaining wall
would be about 15-feet high and would save about ten feet of trees. Mr.
Lindstrom added that the wall would serve to:stabilize the bank.
Mr. Bowie asked what the design speed would be on Alternate C. Mr.
Roosevelt said it would be a 40 mile per hour"design speed. Mr. Bowie said he
felt that access to the river is a different problem than the design of the
bridge. He said Alternate C seems to have th~e advantages of less disruption
to traffic and no loss of design speed.
Mr. Lindstrom said the bridge improvemen~ts should be as compatible as
possible with the rest of the road. That rafses the question of what the
typical existing section is like leading to a~d from that bridge. Mr.
Roosevelt said the pavement is between 18 and~.~ 20 feet wide. Shoulders and.
ditches are two to three feet.
Mr. Bowie said he preferred Alternate C because it is the cheapest and
does the least damage to the area. Mr. Linds~rom said he would support
Alternate C, but he would like to see a reduced design speed. Mr. Bain said
Alternate C does not come nearly as close to the bank as Alternate A. Mr.
Roosevelt said there would be some grading in~o the bank further up the road
which could be taken care of by a retaining wall and reduction of shoulders
and ditches, if VDoT would agree to waive the~iwidth standards.
Mr. Bowie thought that Alternate C couldi~be built with retaining walls
wherever the banks had to be cut and still hage a less costly project. It
would also be more compatible with the area. ~IMr. Roosevelt pointed out that
Alternate C closes the bridge for nine months~ and he did not think it would
be possible to put a temporary bridge across ~o maintain traffic. The
requirements of the Corps of Engineers and th~~ State Water Control Board with
regard to crossing rivers would not allow a t.~/~.~porary structure at this
location.
Mr. Bain said he is inclined to support ~'!ternate C, although the bridge
would have to be closed for nine months. Mr. iPerkins asked if it would be
possible to begin the bridge construction on ~he Charlottesville side and
complete that portion before the existing brid~ge is taken out. The delay
might then be reduced to three to four months.~'~ Mr. Roosevelt said the possi-
bility could certainly be looked into.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like a reducfion in the design speed on the
cross section and on the curve if possible in ~Alternate C. He said it would
mean less environmental disturbance, possibly ~a shorter bridge, and certainly
no loss in safety.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and s!
the resolution set out below in support of Alii
of $802,000. Mr. Lindstrom added that Mr. Pez
lent one to minimize the time of closure.
Roll was called and the motion carried by
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
~conded by Mr. Bowie to adopt
~nment C for an estimated cost
,
~ns suggestion was an excel-
the following recorded vote:
and Way.
582
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a
Location and Design Public Hearing to consider the proposed location
and design of Route 660 from 0.13 mile south of the South Fork of
the Rivanna River to 0.18 mile north of the South Fork of the
Rivanna River in Albemarle County (Project #0660-002-187, C-501,
C-502);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse
Alignment "C". In endorsing this alignment, the Board acknowledges
that the bridge structure has to be closed, but asks that the
project be designed to minimize that closure time. In addition the
Board requests a reduction in the design speed to 30 miles per hour
to:
1. reduce the impact of the project;
me
reduce the cross section to do less damage to the slopes
especially on the Charlottesville side; and
Be
to attempt to make the road compatible with what exists
there now.
AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that if there has to be g~ading of
slopes, that retaining walls be used to cause less environmental
disturbance. "~
Mr. Bowie said he would like staff to see what could~be done to get
better public access to the river and proper law enforcement. Mr. Lindstrom
asked that the information be presented in written form. !i
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Board would, receive a response
from VDoT concerning access to the river. Mr. Roosevelt said his understand-
ing was that the County would inform V DoT at a later datel-what their plans are
for access. He said unless the County wants to use the ekisting roadway for
access, he does not see a problem with VDoT revising the ~tans for an entrance
to the river area between the roadway and the reservoir.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought it would be reasonableilto consider making
the same facade available for this bridge that he hopes will be decided on for
the Moorman's River (Millington) Bridge Project.
(The Board recessed at 10:24 A.M. and reconvened at ~0:33 A.M.),
Not Docketed: Mr Way recognized special guests from Albemarle High
School who were in attendance for Youth In Government Day.i He said the Board
was looking forward to having lunch with'the students tod~y. Since most of
them lived in the Samuel Miller District, Mr. Way asked Mm.~ Bain to introduce
them to the Board. The students were Ginny Peavy, Kathryn Maresi, Mark
Farish, Allison Petty, Windsor Taggart and Rob Filmore.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Route 654/656 project.
Mr. Roosevelt described the spot improvements for the~ two projects and
asked the Board for its recommendation. He said a public hearing had been
held on April 24, 1989, at Jack Jouett School. He said the new construction
for Route 654 would consist of widening the existing pavement to provide for
an eleven-foot wide right turn lane into Route 656, George'~own Road. This
improvement would have a six-foot wide shoulder and a fourg~foot ditch. He
said a permanent easement would be required for sight distance on the east
side of Georgetown Road. ~
He said the new construction for the Route 656 projecti would consist of
providing two eleven-foot wide through traffic lanes with curb and gutter on
both sides throughout most of the project. A five-foot wid~ walking trail
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 583
(Page 7)
would be retained on the west side of the project. New construction would
provide left turn lanes into Route 1411 (Inglewood Drive) and Route 1472 (Old
Forge Road). In addition, the curb and gutter and storm sewer would improve
drainage along the roadway through this area.
Mr. Roosevelt said citizens at the public hearing were concerned about
the increased flow of traffic passing the entrance into Hessian Hills and the
increased speed and traffic on Georgetown Road.
Mr. Roosevelt recommended the approval of the spot improvements as
presented by VDoT. He said the improvement on Barracks Road at Georgetown
Road would increase the capacity of the intersection and would improve the
safety of the turns by widening the shoulder and eliminating a deep ditch at
the edge of pavement. The Georgetown Road improvement would improve the flow
by removing the left turn traffic and would fit in with capacity improvements
planned in the future by VDoT. He said the spot improvement at Georgetown
Road would also improve the drainage in this area by the addition of a storm
sewer.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the existing typical width of a lane is on
Georgetown Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks the lanes are eleven feet wide.
Mr. Lindstrom said the concern expressed to ~im is that this road passes
through a residential section. The traffic improvements proposed would
facilitate through traffic, thus, increasing the speed of traffic. He asked
if this =oad could be posted for 25 miles perlhour as a residential street,
and be posted for no-through trucks. Mr. RooSevelt said the curve at
Inglewood is already posted for a maximum safe speed of 25 miles per hour. He
explained that it is an advisory warning sign rather than an enforceable speed
limit. The remainder of the road is posted at 35 miles per hour. Mr.
Roosevelt said this road is classified as a cgllector road in VDoT plans. As
such, it would not be posted as a subdivision?street. The posting has to be
based on a traffic study, and that is how the~'35 mile per hour speed was
determined. Posting this road at 25 miles per hour would not be the proper
thing to do because the drivers feel comfortable at a faster speed than that~
He said it is a proven fact that there is no Gay to slow traffic on a road
where drivers feel comfortable and safe at a ~igher speed. To answer the
second question, Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT has ~ecently issued a new policy
concerning through traffic which applies to all~ through traffic. There is no
procedure for singling out trucks unless ther~ is a weight limit problem
prohibiting them, which is
not the case here.?
Mr. Bowie agreed that Georgetown Road is~i~a collector road. He feels the
proposed changes would improve safety rather ~han increase the speed of
traffic. He said he read the policy on through traffic, and feels the Board
could ask for a modification which would limi~ heavy traffic.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has been fighting ~ losing battle about this road
ever since he became a Board member. He said:i~here is no safety problem on
the road for the traffic. The safety problem~!is for the residents who live
along the road. Everything that has been donqi to Georgetown Road over the
past 12 years has increased that problem. He'!said he understands this is
something that YDoT wants, and which they are'iigoing to get. He appreciates
the reduction in the scope of the project by~oT, and thinks the right hand
turn from Barracks Road is a necessity, but h~would like the Board to request
a waiver of the policy for through traffic to prohibit through trucks.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and lSeconded by Mr. Bain to adopt
the resolution set out below in~upport of Th~Department of Transportation's
recommendation, with the provisb~'chat an attempt be made by staff to obtain a
modification to the Department of Transportat~0n's Policy and Procedures for
the Control of Residential Cut-through Traffiqso the Count~gight have som~
control ove~ truck traffic.9~, f~,
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
584
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a
Location and Design Public Hearing to consider the proposed location
and design of Route 654 (Barracks Road) at the intersection of Route
656 (Georgetown Road) and also of Route 656 (Georgetown Road)
beginning one-tenth of a mile north of Route 1472 (Old Forge Road),
northwest of Charlottesville, in Albemarle County (Project Nos.
0654-002-220, C-501 and 0656-002-221, C-501);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse the
project as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Route 614/766 intersection.
Mr. Roosevelt said this was a request from a citizen who had two acci-
dents within four months at this intersection. His request was that VDoT
improve the sight distance at this intersection so that he and others coming
out of Route 766 could see both ways on Route 614. Mr. Roosevelt said that
County Police records indicated 14 accidents at this location, while State
Highway records indicated two accidents at this location.~over a three year
period. Mr. Roosevelt said he met with the County Police~ and discovered
a problem in the computer program which lumped all the undesignated accidents
on a certain route at each intersection whenever they asked for intersection
data. When that was corrected, the County Police information agreed with the
State Highway information. Mr. Roosevelt said he looked at the location, and
the sight distance is reduced in both directions. To correct that to the west
on Route 614 would require grading between the existing fence and roadway at
an estimated cost of $1,000, excluding moving a telephone! cable. The problem
on the right side would require obtaining an easement, relocating a fence, and
some grading at an estimated cost of $1,500, excluding moping an underground
telephone cable. He said to correct the entire sight distance problem, it
would cost an estimated total of $5,000. While any accident is a traumatic
experience, Mr. Roosevelt said that he would not recommehd improvements at
this intersection based on accident data of two accidents~ in a three year
period. While he agreed there is a sight distance problem at the location and
it needs to be improved, he said it is only one of many s~Uch problems existin~
in Albemarle County.
The consensus of the Board was to follow the recommendation of the
Department of Transportation that improvements to this i~tersection are not
justified at this time, and no action was taken by the B~iArd.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Revisions to i.the Six Year Secon-
dary Road Improvement Plan.
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development,i J referred the Board
to his memo dated April 3, 1989, with a staff smmnary re~ort attached. He
said that memo included attachments showing the priority !listing and the
funding plan proposed by the Highway Department. He saidi there are no new
projects recommended by staff or the Planning Commission i~or inclusion in the
plan at this time. There are no recommended changes to ~he priority of any
projects currently in the list, with the exception of including the Route 671
(Millington Bridge) project.
Mr. Way said he thought the Route 620 bridge project!ihad been moved up on
the priority listing. Mr. Home said the Board had authocized early funding
for the project, but did not change the priority position'~
Mr. Cilimberg said projects proposed for revenue sha~ing funds in Fiscal
Year 1989-90 are:
-Route 631, two intersection improvements, SPCA Road and Agnese Street
-Route 654, turn lane at Georgetown Road
-Route 631, two bridge improvements south of the Urban Area
-Route 631, turn lanes at Route 768
-Route 656, construct turn lanes
-Route 693, Gravel Road improvement
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
585
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is concerned about paying $300,000 in revenue
sharing money for Route 693, which is a gravel road project. Mr. Cilimberg
said Mr. Roosevelt had been able to rectify the situation so that neither
secondary funds nor revenue sharing funds would have to be spent for unpaved
road improvements. Instead of Route 693, the Route 601 bridge over Buck
Mountain Creek should be funded from revenue sharing money and should be
included in the list above. With that change, staff recommended that $500,000
be allocated this year in order for the County to continue its participation
in the Revenue Sharing Program. He said the Planning Commission had endorsed
the recommendation as well.
Mr. Horne clarified that the Board had already endorsed the $500,000
allocation in a previous meeting. Staff is recommending that in future years
the Board continue to allocate $500,000 into the program. Mr. Roosevelt said
he will attempt to accelerate projects as dictated by the priority list and
will advise the Board annually, based on his construction schedule, as to the
most efficient way to use the money that year. That will give the effect of
an additional $1 million going toward the priority list of accelerated
projects. Mr. Home said the commitment to increase the funding is being
recox~ended, rather than a specific list of projects.
Mr. Perkins asked if Park Road in Crozet:.was mentioned on this year's
list. Mr. Cilimberg said it was shown as a revenue sharing project at one
point. Mr. Roosevelt said last year the revenue sharing allocation was for
three projects which would not get through the planning process for over a
year. Therefore, he suggested to staff that i'~he revenue sharing allocation be
made to projects that would be built within that year.
Mr. Cilimberg said the major adjustment i~o the budget for this fiscal
year is in funding of unpaved road projects. ~:.iiThe policy of the Board is to
appropriate the minimum amount of funds as required by State law for the
paving of gravel roads, and staff supports that policy. He pointed out that
Mr. Roosevelt had to obtain a waiver of VDoT'iS~ requirements in order to
continue this policy for another year. He s~d the total amount of unpaved
road funds available for Fiscal Year 1989/90 ~s $777,500. He said VDoT
proposes funding for four paving projects in Ehis fiscal year. They are:
Route 627 (from Route 727 to Route 708) ~i $227,000
Route 674 (from Route 810 to Route 673) ~! $150,000
Route 662 (from Route 660 to one mile we~:it) - $100,000
Route 693 (portions from Route 635 to RoUte 692) - $300,000
Mr. Cilimberg said staff concurs with Mr~~I Roosevelt's proposed budget in
Attachment 2. He pointed out that the total ~or the 1989-90 secondary road
~:~ match by the
projects is $3,380,000. In addition to that ~s the $500,000
State for revenue sharing projects.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a public
hearing for June 7, 1989, on the FY 89/90 Sec~hdary Roads budget for projects
totalling $3,380,000 as outlined on Attachmen~il 2.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~~~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkin~i~ii, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. L~ndstrom no ed that he stmll does no~ support the Mmllmngton Bridge
(Route 671)project. He said the compromise ~ached may be the best solution
the Board is going to get, but he feels the project was "railroaded" through
against the Board's wishes.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Item 4 (Road Proj
(Other Road Planning Activities) are explanati
cussed by the Board. He wondered if the Board
a later meeting. It was suggested that these
1989, agenda.
~ct Implementation) and Item 5
,ns of issues previously dis-
would like to discuss those at
.rems be placed on the June 14,
586
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Roosevelt said he needed a resolution from the Board specifically
designating the revenue sharing allocation for 1989/90. He recommended the
four projects which staff had listed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the
following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia provides
that the Virginia Department of Transportation shall make an equiva-
lent matching allocation of up to $500,000 during the current fiscal
year from Revenue Sharing Funds to any county for designation by the
governing body to roadway and construction projects; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has proposed for the use of
Revenue Sharing Funds the following subject projects:
Route 631, two intersection improvements at SPCA Road and
Agnese Street $130,000;
Route 654, turn lane at Georgetown Road - ~80,000;
Route 631, two bridge improvements south of Urban Area -
$150,000
Route 631, turn lanes at Route 768 - $220,Q~0;
Route 656, construct turn lanes $120,000~i: and
6. Route 601, bridge over Buck Mountain Creek~:i- $300,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Siupervisors that
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby respect-
fully requested to allocate matching funds in the amount of $500,000
for the 1989-90 fiscal year allocated to the above outlined
projects.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has a problem within the Depar~ent of Transporta-
tion with regard to proceeding on the Route 620 project. !!The Richmond Office
does not feel that the Board of Supervisors has included ~he Route 620 project
in their six year priority list. In effect, there is no priority list from
Albemarle County because VDoT rejected the priority list f~?om last year and
adopted the financial plan Mr. Roosevelt submitted instead~. He said he needed
a confirmation from the Board of the priority listing shown on Attachment 1
handed out by the staff. He said that priority list inclqdes the project on
Route 671, which he understands is a problem for some Board members. He said
when VDoT made the presentation on the options for Route ~71, it was acknow-
ledged by the Board that it was not objecting to including that project in a
priority list. Mr. Roosevelt explained that a six year p~'hn is actually two
documents made up of the County's priority list and the. financial plan pre-
pared by Mr. Roosevelt to finance the priority list. Las~i~ year, VDoT rejected
the County's priority list, because it did not include Route 671. Therefore,
VDoT's six year plan is basically the funding plan and fuJds only about 50
percent of the priority list. Mr. Roosevelt said the Richmond office would
not allow him to change the financial plan to add additional projects without
a confirmation from the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said in previous discussions, it was not made clear that
there were two parts to the six year plan. He asked what 'happens in theory in
the event the Board does not approve a priority listing. ~r. Roosevelt said
a legal question was difficult for an engineer to answer, i!~iWith that stipula-
tion, he explained that the Code of Virginia indicates tha{ %rOoT has the
responsibility for developing the s~x year plan. The procedure ~s that the
County is allowed to develop the priority list. If lrDoT a~rees with that
list, then a financial plan to accomplish those projects w~ll be developed.
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
587
It is only in extreme circumstances that a priority listing would be turned
down. Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT could adopt its own priority list, and that is
exactly what was done last year when the County's list was rejected. Effec-
tively, VDoT adopted the financial plan developed by Mr. Roosevelt as the
priority list. He said he tailored the financial plan to the Board's priority
list, with the exception that he included Roqte 671. The problem now is that
if any changes are to be made, the Board will have to reaffirm their priority
list.
Mr. Lindstrom said he went along with the Moorman's River (Millington
Bridge) project on Route 671 because he understood that it would not make any
difference because VDoT could do what they wanted to do. He said now it
sounds like there was something the Board could have done. If, in fact, the
Board has to adopt a plan for projects to go'forward, then the Board should
understand that. Mr. Roosevelt said the problem is purely an internal
problem for VDoT.
Mr. St. John said he sent the Board members a memo addressing this
question when the Route 671 project was being discussed. Mr. Lindstrom said
there was no indication that YDoT would not go forward without an approved
priority list. Mr. St. John said he could o~ly tell the Board what power the
Department of Transportation has'. He said th~ey have the power to reject the
Board's priority listing and proceed with their own if that is what they want
to do. He said the Board's remedy is to appe~al to the Highway Co~missioner,
and the Board did that. Mr. St. John said t~e Highway Commissioner's decision
is final. Mr. Lindstrom said the Highway Commissioner held the decision in
abeyance. Mr. St. 3ohn said that research h~d been done by his office to find
an attorney general's opinion on the subject,!il and there was none to be found.
He said the law is clear as to VDoT's authority to make the ultimate decision.
Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT has given ~m three choices. He can either
ask the Board to reconfirm the priority list ifrom last year, go through the
whole six year plan cycle again, or hold off !on the Route 620 project until
the six year plan is modified.
Mr. Bain asked how Route 620 got moved f~rward on the priority list. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Board discussed it in FebrUary. At that time, he told the
Board he had a tremendous balance of funds that needed to be spent. The
bridge plans were already in hand, and the right of way had been purchased.
All that was necessary was to find a way to f~nance the project. That is why
the Board agreed to move the project up and f~nd it in the 1989/90 fiscal
year.
Mr. Home said the Board did not take an~ action to actually change the
priority number on the list. There was simpl~ an internal authorization to
Mr. Roosevelt to go further down the list forla project that could be built.
Mr. Roosevelt said once the priority list is ~dopted, every project that can
be financed within the six year period is devgloped. As projects get ready
for construction, regardless of where they appear on the list, they should go
to construction at that time. It is perfectl~ within the guidelines and
procedures of VDoT to go ahead with Route 620 iiif everything is ready.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seco~
the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan
Route 671 (Millington Bridge) project. Roll
by the following recorded vote:
ded by Mr. Perkins to readopt
or 1989-1994 to also include the
as called and the motion carried
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Lindstrom explained that the only re~son he went along with the Route
671 project was because he thought the Board ~ad absolutely no choice. He
said he does not want to sanction something which the Board really did have a
choice about and with which he disagreed.
(Mr. St. John left at 11:58 A.M.)
588
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 6e. Highway Matters: Selection of design and facade fox
the Moorman's River Bridge (Route 671).
Mr. Roosevelt said regarding the bridge and approaches to the Moorman's
River, that the Board had been presented a number of options and had agreed to
the green line alignment. He showed the Board an aerial photograph with that
alignment painted in to indicate the exact location. The main item of discus-
sion for today is the treatment of the bridge parapets. Mr. Roosevelt then
displayed a New Jersey rail which is normally used on bridges, three aluminum
rails, a modified New Jersey rail with a wooden hand rail on top, and a design
known as the Kansas Corral. Mr. Roosevelt said the facade treatment could be
something other than concrete. He said that he might have mislead the Board
by indicating that concrete with a wooden rail on top would mean that the
concrete could be lowered. Mr. Roosevelt said it has been explained to him
that the concrete barrier must be a certain height because without it the
wooden rail offers no resistance.
Mr. Bowie asked how high the concrete is for the three aluminum rails
option. Mr. Roosevelt said the concrete is only a six inch curve. He pointed
out that part of the design is metal anchored to the concrete which would have
the strength to hold a vehicle. Mr. Bowie wondered if th~ metal portion could
be painted to blend with the wood. Mr. Roosevelt said he is sure that a paint
could be found in a suitable color that would adhere to t~e aluminum if that
was the Board's wish. Mr. Bowie said when he goes across/~a bridge, he likes
to be able to see the river. With the New Jersey option,~i!he said the only
thing visible is cement. He thought the alnminnm rails wduld allow more
visibility compatible with a rural setting. Mr. Lindstro~ said he agreed, if
the finish could be painted a bronze tone to blend with t~ setting. He
suggested using an anodized aluminum which comes in color~. Mr. Roosevelt
said he was sure that could be done, but he did not have 2! cost estimate for
that feature.
Mr. Perkins asked if it would be better to use steel~!~nstead of aluminum,
with a coating that looks like rust which protects from f~ther rust. Mr.
Roosevelt said the problem with a rust treatment on the h~:nd rail is that when
it is hit, it leaves a scar that cannot be repaired. Mr. i'~.Lindstrom said rust
color is the most unobtrusive in a natural setting, and h~ii thought that an
anDdized aluminum rail would be less expensive than a fulli concrete design.
Mr. Roosevelt said he did not come prepared to talk about i.~osts today.
Mr. Roosevelt then displayed the choices for facade t~reatment. He said
the parapet could be treated to make it look like brick fcbm a distance, even
though it would be concrete. He then showed wire faced brick, slumped block,
and mason cut stone. He said these were forms to make concrete look like
brick. The surface could then be painted any color. He said VDoT has had no
success in mixing the color with the concrete. Mr. Perkin~ said a local
cement supplier told him it would be no problem to include?the paint with the
cement.
Mr. Lindstrom said he hopes that when a suitable facade is agreed upon,
it can be applied to other bridges as they are replaced so~the selection
process does not have to be repeated.
Mr. Roosevelt then displayed a sample of an exposed aggregate facade.
Mr. Perkins asked if the support columns could be treated With the exposed
aggregate. Mr. Roosevelt said he was sure they could because this treatment
is applied after the bridge is constructed using mortar, w~ereas the brick
look is accomplished when the concrete is poured. Mr. Per,fins said the
exposed aggregate treatment would blend with the setting. ~4r. Roosevelt then
displayed some color choices that could be used for the fad~ade and the beams.
He also displayed for the Board several pictures of bridges! with various
designs and facades.
Mr. Bowie asked if the concrete posts could be treated~ with exposed
aggregate using the three rail option. Mr. Roosevelt said ilhe had never seen
that done. He said it is possible to build the metal rail/~i~nd then form the
concrete around the metal posts and apply the aggregate to !.'~hat. He said that
could be done, but it would involve some expense. Mr. Lindstrom said he would
like something as natural looking as possible. He said if ~he facade treat-
ment could be done to look like natural brick, that would b~ good. The major
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
589
visible portions of the bridge are the beams underneath and the piers on which
the bridge sets. The minor portions are the parapets and the rail. He sug-
gested that the piers and parapets be designed with the same treatment. He
said if the exposed aggregate could not be applied to both, it might be wise
to consider the brick facade which would presumably be less expensive. Mr.
Bain said he liked the exposed aggregate look, with painted beams. He thought
that would be a more natural look than brick. Mr. Lindstrom said the aggre-
gate would require less maintenance than a painted brick look because even-
tually that would need to be repainted.
Mr. Perkins suggested that citizens present from that area might want to
express their opinion about the facade.
Mr. Forbes Reback, Chairman of the Millington Neighborhood Association,
compared Mr. Roosevelt to a friendly car salesman who is trying to get a
customer to pick the color of a car the customer does not want to buy in the
first place. If there is going to be a bridge, he would like it to be as
natural looking as possible. He said they do want people to be able to see
the river since it is designated as a State scenic river. He reiterated that
there is still a right-of-way problem contrary to what VDoT says. He said the
bridge is a long way from being built, and h~ was not ready to pick a color
today.
Mr. J. P. Davis said the aerial drawingishows that about half of his hay
field will be taken for this project. He sa~d the hay field is very valuable
to him, yielding roughly 100 bales of hay peR acre. Mr. Way said that is a
problem of condemnation when and if this bridge is ever built and could not be
resolved today. The question before the Boa~id is what the bridge should look
like if it is ever built. Mr. Davis sazd zt Mas obvious that he could not get
anywhere with the Board. He said he was a p~Or farmer and not a millionaire.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board understands tha~i he does not support this bridge
location. !~
Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the Board shou~ give consideration to the
aesthetics of all bridges in this County. S~9 said this is a good opportunity
to begin thinking along those lines. She sa~ the aggregate is certainly an
improvement over what comes from New Jersey.
people to see the rivers they are crossing is
general policy.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the steel,
anodized treatment be used to give the maximu
She added that a provision for
a worthwhile consideration as a
~hree-rail approach with an
view of the river. He sug-
the rail in a color as close to
gested that the understructure be matched wit
rust as possible to be the least obtrusive in a natural setting. The aggre-
gate would be applied to the piers and all t<~ exposed parts of the concrete
visible from the river. ~i
Mr. Bain said he would like to know whati~extra costs would be involved.
There was no objection from the Board to this choice of design and facade.
Mr. Lindstrom said since a cost estimate .is being requested for the
aggregate treatment, he would also like a com ~arison of the cost of the
aggregate versus the brick facade.
Agenda Item No. 6f. Highway Matters: W ~ighing Station on Route 29
South.
Mr. Roosevelt reported that the project ~ad been cancelled at the pro-
posed location in front of Sherwood Farms at ~he intersection of Route 1106
and Route 29 South. He said letters had been~mailed to legislative represen-
tatives informing them of the cancellation. ~.nstead, VDoT.is proceeding with
for a "weigh-in-motion" site about one ~ile south of Route 1106 which
plans
involves installing detectors under the pavement to monitor the trucks. He
said the Department of Transportation would c~ntinue to look for a suitable
weighing station site within five miles of th~ original location. He said
when another site is found, he would discuss ft with the Board.
Mr. Jeff Gleason spoke in behalf of residents of Sherwood Farms. He said
he is a resident of the subdivision and is ha~Py with the decision. He said
590
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
the residents appreciated the Highway Department's response to their initial
complaints in light of the fact that bids had already been submitted and
closed on this project. He said VDoT held a public hearing on the matter and
based on the results of the public hearing, the project was cancelled. On
behalf of the neighborhood, Mr. Gleason expressed appreciation to the Highway
Department for their action.
Agenda Item No. 6g. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bain referred to Item 4.3 on the Consent Agenda, concerning Route
637. He said he had received comments concerning the section of Route 637
between 1-64 and the Ivy Landfill regarding trash and dumping problems. He
said the County is doing some patrolling there, and he hopes that YDoT will
help maintain that stretch of roadway.
Mr. Bowie said he wanted the record to show that the. Highway Department
had crews out at Stony Point all day on Saturday and Sunday to make road
improvements. He said he appreciated the efforts of the Department.
In answer to Mr. Bowie's question regarding the status of Milton Drive,
Mr. Roosevelt reported that plans were being reviewed and~a letter regarding
the status would be forwarded to the County from VDoT today. Mr. Bowie said
he hoped the Engineering Department would keep up-to-date~on this project
because the price would be unreasonable if another construction season is
missed.
Mr. Bowie said it has been reported repeatedly that ~oute 250 East would
be four-laned to the Fluvanna County line. He said his understanding is that
the Board had asked for money to study safety improvement~ and that no one
from this Board had requested four lanes on Route 250 Easel. He said the
latest article reported that the Highway Department is p1Ahning to undertake
that project.
Mr. Roosevelt said the rumors and articles stem from~the Board's request
at the primary road hearing in Culpeper last month that ai!~tudy be made of the
needs on Route 250 East from Interstate-64 to the Fluvann~:~ County line. He
said the Highway Department has no plans to do anything o~i Route 250 other
than a spot improvement at Route 729. He said at this ti~e he cannot say that
funds will even be available to accomplish the study requested by the Board.
Mr. Bowie said he wanted to clarify for the record that the Board's request
was strictly for safety improvements. ~
Mr. Perkins asked the status of the right of way prob~lem on the Route 674
project. Mr. Roosevelt reported that one owner had agreed! to the original
alignment when Mr. Roosevelt informed him that the project'would end just
short of his property, leaving the remainder of the road gravel. In fact, Mr.
Roosevelt said the owner had been very cooperative in other minor changes in
the project as well.
Mr. Perkins said he had received complaints that Route 674 east of Route
810 is one of the worst roads in the County. He said that{~a milk truck, two
school buses, and various farm vehicles use the road frequently. He requested
that Mr. Roosevelt check that portion of road and make maintenance improve-
ments.
Mr. Way asked if the Woodridge Hunt Club could avoid ~aving to meet
commercial entrance requirements for such a low volume of ~raffic. Mr.
Roosevelt said VDoT had recommended the commercial entranc~ as part of site
plan approval. He said he understands that the site has a~ existing entrance
which does not have adequate sight distance. Without the F~oard s conditions
of approval, the only avenue VDoT has to get the entrance upgraded is to take
the owners to court. He said realistically speaking, VDoTiiis~'~7-' not about to
take the Hunt Club to court to make them relocate their entrance. He said if
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
591
the Board's requirement for a commercial entrance is waived, VDoT would abide
by that.
Not Docketed: At 12:47 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into Executive Session for a discussion
of personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:05 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Saie of a 1.015 acre lot located on
State Route 795 just outside of the Town of Scottsville and adjacent to the
Union Baptist Church. (Advertised in the Da£1y Progress on April 27 and
May 4, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor said the School Board had con~eyed 1.015 acres of land with an
old brick school building as surplus property to the Board. The property in
question is designated as County Tax Map 131, Parcel 71.- He said there is a
question about the exact acreage, and the property will be surveyed before
final disposition. He recommended to the Board that the property be assigned
to the Building Committee for disposition.
The public hearing was opened, and no one from the public was present to
speak. The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to assign
the property to the Building Committee for dispositiOn. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded-vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Proced~es for creating a Seventh
Magisterial District. ~
In response to a previous request from the Board, Mr. St. John reported
that the Board would have to adopt a resolution stating their intent that a
seventh magisterial district be created at th~ next redistricting. In due
time the boundaries of the district would hav~ to be established and named.
The resolution of intent would begin the process which would be carried out by
the Planning staff and the Registrar's Office~
Mr. St. John pointed out that Section 24il-40.9 of the Virginia Code
precludes any change in districts until afterilMarch 31, 1991, unless such
change is ordered by a court. He said a resoSution of intent could be adopted
by the Board at any time, but no other action}could take place until after the
1990 census. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he realized when he r~quested the information, that
the Board would either not be able to, or not!want to, take action until the
census data was available. He said it seemed,~to be a fairly simple procedure
to implement, and that was what he had wanted~to determine. He said if the
Board adopted a resolution of intent now, a s~bsequent Board would have to
make the final decision. He said it would no~ be his decision to make, but he
does feel it is worth thinking about. He sai~ there has been public concern
for a number of years over Board decisions being made by a tie vote. He said
on a matter as important as the budget, there may be some real advantage in
having an uneven number of Board members. He ~said the workload of the Board
in terms of committee work is increasing to the point where an additional
member to share in the workload would be advantageous. As the County contin-
ues to grow, the relationship between the Sup~zvisors and their constituents
will become more distant to some extent unlessl another district is created.
592
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
With regard to the workload, Mr. Bowie said there are other counties with
up to one million citizens which have only six supervisors. Mr. Bain said in
Fairfax they have nine supervisors, but each one has three full-time, paid
staff members working for them. He said there are lots of ways of handling
the problem, but they all cost money. Mr. St. John said he could find no
maximum or minimum limit to the number of supervisors.
It was the consensus of the Board to wait until the 1990 census figures
are available before discussing this matter further.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of resolution for relocation of Ivy Pre-
cinct Polling Place.
Mr. Agnor said the Electoral Board had requested that the polling place
for Ivy Precinct be moved from Murray Educational Center to Meriwether Lewis
Elementary School. He said the move is to alleviate traffic difficulties at
Murray. The cost of the move ($1,050) is included in the>iV89/90 budget and
is to be effective for the November general elections. He said staff recom-
mends the adoption of a resolution which would authorize the Registrar to
proceed with the necessary actions.
Mr. Bain said he concurs with the request to move th~ polling place. He
said there were over 3,100 voters at Murray, and there was mass confusion as a
result. He said there is better access, more parking, and better sight
distance at the proposed location.
Mr. James Heilman, Registrar, was present in support~of the request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. B~Wie to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board ~f Supervisors
does hereby concur in a request from the Albemarle C6~nty Electoral
Board that the polling place for the Ivy Precinct bei~hanged from
the Murray Educational Center on State Route 738 to the Meriwether
Lewis Elementary School located on State Route 676 i~i the vicinity
of its intersection with U. S. Route 250 at Ivy. ~
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carrie~ by the following
recorded vote: ·
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Heilman said there may be a similar request to move the polling place
for the Berkeley Precinct due to a change in the State's holiday schedule this
year. Election day is no longer a holiday which means that the Division of
Motor Vehicles will be open for business. It will be almdst impossible to
hold a major election there. He said the Commissioner has been asked to close
the DMV this year and next year on election day so the polling place will not
have to be moved temporarily and then changed again when =edistricting is
done. He said Delegate George Allen and Senator Thomas Michie have been asked
to write letters also requesting the Commissioner to do that.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Amendments to the Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional (Service) Area for the C='vzet area.
Mr. Horne pointed out the location of the parcels fo~'ilthe Board. He said
the parcels in question are north of Route 240 outside the:igrowth area but
within developed areas of the Crozet community. He said t.he Planning staff is
recommending that these parcels be added to a limited service category, which
is a special category applied in certain instances around ~he County. Now
that the sewage collection system is in the Crozet area, these large, rela-
tively undeveloped parcels are physically crossed by the sewer line. In the
past, where that has happened with a water line, the water!service was allowed
to existing structures only. He said the sewer service toi.lexisting structures
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
593
has not been allowed in the past, but staff felt in this case a limited amount
of service could be provided to existing structures without fostering addi-
tional development outside the growth area. It provides some benefit to the
property owners who allowed the sewer line to cross their property. Some of
these property owners are having problems with their existing septic systems
and would like to hook onto the sewer line within the first year.
Mr. Horne said when this matter came before the Board in January, it was
referred back to the staff to discuss whether a precedent would be set by
providing this service, particularly with reference to property owners wishing
to connect to the interceptor from the urban~area to Crozet. Mr. Horne
summarized his memo of March 21, 1989, by saying that staff had consulted with
the County Attorney and the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority. The County Attorney's opinion was that the Board had broad discre-
tionary authority to set service areas for public utilities. The distinction
between these parcels hooking to the collection system and other parcels
hooking to the Crozet interceptor are:
The interceptor is a force main inlsome areas and cohnections
are not possible.
The pumping stations and force mains along the Crozet inter-
ceptor are sized to accommodate deSign flows from the Crozet
community only.
The design configuration of the jurisdictional (service) areas
in most areas of the County are dictated by the general land
use policies. These policies at the time of installation of
the interceptor and today would nog provide for public sewer
except in designated growth areas.
4. Parcels recommended for addition t~ this limited service area
· n Crozet front on sewer mains tha~ are part of a collection
system which by design anticipates ~connections to the lines as
opposed to the interceptor which ddes not anticipate such
connection.
Mr. Horne said for those reasons staff ~eels the Board could allow
limited service to these parcels without setting a precedent. Staff feels
that this allowance would not be supportable ~justification for similar connec-
tions along the interceptor. Mr. H~rne explained that each case is a specific
one-parcel service change rather than being a~ change to a general area.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mr. Bain to set a
public hearing for June 14, 1989, on a change~in the Albemarle County Service
Authority s service areas for water and sewe~ Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perki~ and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriation: Crozet Replacement School.
Mr. Agnor said the School Board had vote~ on May 8, 1989, to request the
Board of Supervisors to increase the budget f~r the Crozet Replacement School.
The apparent low bidder was Harmon Construction from Harrisonburg, Virginia,
for a price of $3,501,200. This bid along wi~h other known and estimated
costs total $4,511,995 for the entire projectii At this time, the project
would be short of its funding needs by $332,7~5. The School Board is request-
ing additional funding in that amount as well[as~ a five percent contingency
account for any required contract change orders that may arise. The contin-
gency account would be managed by the CapitalliProjects Coordinator once that
position is filled. Five percent of the construction budget would be
$185,060.
Dr. Charles Tolbert, Chairman of the SchOol Board, encouraged the Board
to support the request.
594
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Perkins asked if there was adequate money in the Capital Improvements
Program to fund the school project until July 1. Mr. Agnor said he believed
there was. Mr. Perkins said in that case, the additional $332,795 would not
be needed until next year. Mr. Agnor said that was correct.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the project would still be eligible for the
Virginia Public School Authority bond issue should a contingency amount be
appropriated. Mr. Agnor said the project would still be eligible, but VPSA
would have to be notified by next month that the County is interested in
obtaining funding during its fall bond cycle. Mr. Bain asked if the School
Board had taken any formal action on requesting school bonds. Mr. Agnor said
when this project allocation is decided by the Board, staff would proceed with
the application.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
approve an additional amount of $332,795 to fully fund the Crozet Replacement
School project for a total of $4,511,995, with the appropriation to be made at
a later time. Mr. Perkins said he felt the contingency should be more fully
discussed, and he would not include that in his motion atithis time. Mr.
Agnor said he would not recommend that any project be started without some
kind of contingency. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a limit to changes that
can be made in the field without review. Mr. Agnor said ~11 changes that
affect the cost of the project would be reviewed by the Capital Projects
Coordinator and there would be administrative approval set up by the school
system and general government. Change orders would not b~ approved in the
field.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the contract would be adminis!tered without a
contingency account, without having to come back to the B6'ard for every
change. Mr. Agnor said the problem is that administrativ~ approval cannot be
obtained through the Board because of conflicting schedules with Board meeting
dates. He said there is no such thing as a project with ~o changes. He
realized that some Board members feel that money allocate~ will be spent, but
it would only be spent if change orders are required.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of administrative problem would be created
by not giving prior approval for a contingency. Mr. Agno~ said the problem
that no changes could be made. He pointed out that the 440 day timeframe for
this project is tight from the beginning.
Mr. Bowie said he was not prepared to support a five ,percent contingency
without knowing what controls are in place. He is convinC~ed that not all
change orders are required, and he is concerned that there! be some kind of
review process. Mr. Bain said the contingency does not have to be five
percent.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a contingency account could b~! set up to require
that changes over a certain amount have additional review.~ He said in the
past he thought the Board saw periodic change orders afte~ the fact. Mr.
Agnor said in the past, the persons responsible for the project approved any
change orders. He said a contingency account could be set~ up so that changes
over a specified amount would have to be approved by the SChool Board. If the
changes required additional funds, the School Board would i~hen have to make
that request to this Board.
Mr. St. John suggested that an amount could be appropriated now, and if
there are change orders above that amount, the account could be replenished if
necessary. He said change orders are the source of more disputes and litiga-
tion than any other facet of construction. He agreed wit~ ~the County Execu-
tive that the project could be held up repeatedly without some type of contin-
gency fund. The whole contract is at a standstill until change orders are
reviewed.
Mr. Agnor pointed out that an effort is always made t~ offset change
orders by finding some other item to be reduced. Mr. Lind~trom asked if the
entire contingency was depleted for the Meriwether Lewis p~oject. Mr. Agnor
said he believed it was used up entirely and that an additional appropriation
was required. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that a contingency should be estab-
lished with the County Executive administering it, and wil~ make that motion
when the motion on the floor is completed.
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
595
Roll was then called and Mr. Perkins' motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to
approve a construction contingency account of $50,000 for the Crozet School
Replacement Project to be administered by the County Executive.
Mr. Bowie asked if the intent of this motion is that when construction
changes amount to nearly $50,000, the School Board requests this Board for
additional money. Mr. Lindstrom said that was correct. In addition, the
intent is that the architects attempt to offset any additional expenses
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 11. Report: Status of CSX rail line abandonment.
Mr. Horne said the CSX Corporation has indicated an interest in abandon-
ing an entire segment of rail line from Gordohsville to Clifton Forge, Vir-
ginia. This line runs through Albemarle County from the Louisa County line
just north of Lindsay to Afton Mountain. Acc6rding to CSX officials, the
process of studying the feasibility of abandoning this line is underway
although no specific time table was offered. ~The feasibility depends on the
service
ability to reroute the Amtrak "Cardinal" to other rail lines. Whi:le
the status of the segment west of Charlottesville is unclear, indications from
Amtrak and CSX are that an agreement has been! reached that would enable the
"Cardinal" to be rerouted onto the Norfolk Southern line from Orange to
Charlottesville. This may permit CSX to abandon the segment from Gordonsville
to Charlottesville in the near future, and that right of way is potentially
important to the County. There could be the 9pportunity for possible use of
the line as a greenspace and trail system, fo~ location of utilities or fiber
optic lines, or for redevelopment of the rail!,?Isystem in the future.
He said it is important that the County ~xpress its interest early in the
process of disposition due to the complexitie~ of rail abandonment. The
notification should express the County's willingness to acquire the
right-of-way. He said staff recommends that such a letter of interest be
drafted from the Board and submitted to Mr. H~wk of CSX.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mr. Bowie to author-
ize the Chairman to sign a letter to CSX as recommended by the County Execu-
tive.
Mr. Perkins suggested that copies of the ~iletter be sent to other counties
bordering the rail lines.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkin~ and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request from Thomas pefferson Planning District
Commission for continuation of Legislative Lialison position.
Mr. Agnor said the Planning District Com~ission had requested that the
legislative liaison position be continued on a' year-round basis. The cost of
funding the position would be prorated on a per capita basis to all partici-
pating jurisdictions. The position would be one day a week when the General
Assembly was not in session, and full t~me beginning one week prior to the
596
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
General Assembly and lasting one week after the session. He said staff
recommends favorable consideration of the proposal. He said the total annual
cost is $24,815. The FY 89/90 budget includes an appropriation of $5,250 for
continuation of this program on a part-time basis. Approval of this request
would require an appropriation of $4,628.
Mr. Bowie said the comments he had received regarding the liaison indi-
cated that other counties were satisfied and would probably continue their
participation. Mr. Bain said Nelson County is also considering participating
this fiscal year. Mr. Bowie said he would support continuing the position.
Mr. Bain said he would as well. He was not sure the Board would want to get
involved in the process of selecting the individual. Mr.~Bowie said he felt
that would have to be a decision by the Planning District Commission. Mr. Way
said he felt this was money well spent.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to continue the
legislative liaison position as outlined in the staff memo dated May 3, 1989,
and the memo dated April 12, 1989, from the Executive Director of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, with the intent to appropriate an
additional $4,628 for the fiscal year.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 13. Authorize Chairman to execute service agreements for
the Seminole and Stony Point Volunteer Fire Companies.
Mr. Agnor said the Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association (JCFFA)
had requested that the County make advanced allocations t6 the Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Company and to the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company in the
amount of $200,000 each. This money would be from the $1 imillion allocated to
JCFFA for the purchase of buildings and equipment five yea~s ago. The request
is for the purpose of funding pumpers at each of these stations. Mr. Agnor
said according to the Director of Finance, there would be ~adequate money paid
back into the Fire Fund Reserve to fulfill these requests,ii~i Agreements had
been prepared by the County Attorney, and staff recox~ende~ that the Chairman
be authorized to execute the agreements.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. L~ndstrom to author-
ize the Chairman to execute the agreements as outlined in {he County Execu-
tive's memo of May 4, 1989, and amended to include "all oC~.er equipment" in
the last paragraph of each agreement as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of May~i 1989, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the
STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Stony Point");
W I TNES SETH;
BACKGROUND - (A) The County previously has entered into a
service agreement with Stony Point, dated October 10, !1986, pro-
viding for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County
from the County's annual grant to Stony Point, as set forth in said
agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
(B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebted-
ness now totals Fifty-six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
($56,400.00); and
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
597
(C) Stony Point now desires to receive from the County an
additional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) to be used for
a new pumper; and
(D) Stony Point also desires to enter into an agreement
consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by
Stony Point of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and
protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony Point Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), which payment shall be made
from the fire fund, $100,000.00 to be paid in September, 1989 and
$100,000.00 to be paid in January, 1990.
The sum of Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($14,800.00)
shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to Stony Point for
the 1989-90 fiscal year. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty-Six Thousand
Nine Hundred Dollars ($26,900.00) shall~be withheld each year from
the County's annual grant to Stony Point for a period of eight (8)
years, beginning July, 1990, with a balance of Twenty-Six Thousand
Four Hundred Dollars ($26,400.00) due in the ninth year (July 1,
1998). Thus, at the end of the ninth year, which is the term of
this service agreement, a total of Two Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand
Four Hundred Dollars ($256,400.00) will have been withheld. This
withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a
result of the prior service agreement with Stony Point dated Octo-
ber, 1986.
If at any time during the term of t~is agreement, Stony Point
is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or
the pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, Stony Point
covenants that it will convey its interest in the Pumper to the
County at no cost to the County so long ~s the County or its assigns
will use the Pumper for fire-fighting purposes. Ail covenants set
forth in the prior agreement dated October, 1986, shall remain in
full force and effect through October, 1~991.
WITNESS the following signatures a~ seals:
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this l!~t day of May, 1989, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINI~ (the "County"), and the
SEMINOLE TRAIL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMEN~.~i INC. ("Seminole");
W I T N E S S E T~H;
BACKGROUND: (A) The County previously has entered into a
service agreement with Seminole, dated F~bruary 6, 1980, providing
for the withholding of certain sums eachlyear by the County from the
County's annual grant to Seminole, as se~ forth in said agreement, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
(B) As a result of said agreement, ii!the outstanding indebted-
ness now totals Twenty Thousand Dollars ~$20,000.00); and
(C) Seminole now desires to receiv~ from the County an addi-
tional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($20~,000.00) to be used for a
new pumper; and
(D) Seminole also desires to enteri'into an agreement consoli-
dating its annual withholding of payments by the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by
Seminole of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and
protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
the term of this agreement, the County s~all pay to Seminole Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), which payment shall be made
from the fire fund, $20,000.00 to be pai~. in July, 1989, and
$180,000.00 to be paid in December, 1990.i
598
May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
The sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) shall be
withheld from the County's annual grant to Seminolefor the 1989/90
fiscal year. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty-Eight Thousand Five
Hundred Seventy-two Dollars ($28,572.00) shall be withheld each year
from the County's annual grant to Seminole for a period of six (6)
years, beginning July, 1990, with a balance of Twenty-Eight Thousand
Five Hundred Sixty-eight Dollars ($28,568.00) due in the seventh
year (July 1, 1996). Thus, at the end of the seventh year, which is
the term of this service agreement, a total of Two Hundred Twenty
Thousand Dollars ($220,000.00) will have been withheld. This
withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a
result of the prior service agreement with Seminole dated February
6, 1980.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Seminole is
no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or the
pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting purposesf Seminole
covenants that it will convey its interest in the pumper to the
County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns
will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments. No appointments were made at this
time.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the'~Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor distributed information from Mr. Overstreet, Superintendent, t¢
the Board regarding the School's career ladder plan and staff development
activities for teachers.
Mr. St. John announced that the appeal of VA-89-13, ~vy Commons Partner-
ship, would not be necessary because both parties had agreed to the exact
conditions stipulated in Mr. Bain's motion on May 3, 1989~
Mr. Bain said he would like to schedule a time to discuss the legislative
program for the next General Assembly session as well as iholding a "brain-
storming" session. ~
Mr. Lindstrom called the Board's attention to the letter from Senator
Thomas J. Michie, Jr. in which he recommended that the CoUnty adopt a compre-
hensive smoking ordinance, since it seemed unlikely that Chere would be much
support in the future from the General Assembly. ~
At 3:22 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to
adjourn into executive session for legal matters regarding Nimrod Clark, et al
versus the Board of Supervisors. Roll was called and the~motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
At 4:00 P.M., the Board reconvened into open sessionl
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. There being no furthe= business to come
before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.