1988-04-0695
il 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 6, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., in the Auditorium of the
County Office Building, 401McIntire 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
7:30 P.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. Bowie,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the consent agenda as information. 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 No. 4.1. 1987 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission, received as information. The report briefly describes the
activities of the Commission during the calendar year of 1987 and the
Commission's goals and objectives for 1988.
Item No. 4.2. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for February,
1988, received as information.
Item No. 4.3. Notice from John L. Walker, Jr., Woods, Rogers & Hazle-
grove, of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by
Appalachian Power Company to revise its fuel factor and cogeneration tariff
received as information.
Item No. 4.4. Planning Commission minutes for March 22, 1988, received
as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-87-22. Reynovia Land Trust (Deferred from
March 16, 1988). -
Mr. Home summarized the staff report as set out in the minutes of March
1988.
Mr. Home said this petition was deferred at the March 16 meeting because
of a discussion on the character of the open space. Most of the staff report
was written on the assumption that a waiver of the provisions dealing with
open space in the Zoning Ordinance would be necessary to allow a greater
percentage of that open space to be in areas ~considered unusable. The defini-
tion of unusable is largely steep slope areas or areas subject to the one
hundred year flood plain for farm areas. After the March 16 Board meeting,
the staff was presented with an analysis based the topography and slope study
prepared by the engineer for the applicant. It was after this analysis that
the applicant and staff discovered that a waiver was not necessary. There are
sufficient areas to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which is
96
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
that no more than 30 percent of the open area can be in areas that are consi-
dered unusable. That determination amends much of the staff's report, and he
does have some amended conditions to reflect that determination.
Mr. Horne said the other discussion at the Planning Commission meeting
was the construction standards of the roadways. The roads are proposed to be
constructed to rural standards as opposed to curb and gutter urban standards.
The staff and the Planning Commission recommend that rural standards be the
approved standard. A considerable amount of discussion took place during the
planning of the Mill Creek, which is similar in nature to this proposal. The
Commission determined at that time that for developments Of this nature,
frontage and lot size would be acceptable with a rural cross section roadway.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about access to the apartments. Mr. Home said when
the plan was originally reviewed by the Commission, one section of the apart-
ments did not have direct access to Avon Street, but had internal access only.
He would recommend that the Board approve the plan as shown here tonight with
the express instructions in one of the conditions that the Commission may
require internal access at the time of site plan approvalS, based on additional
analysis. This topography on the layout, based on experience with the
multi-family units at Mill Creek, is not detailed enough to visualize what is
necessary to get access. The layout could change dramatically. There is not
sufficient information on the application plan to make that final determina-
tion and because of the way the roads are made up, it may~be impossible to get
internal access.
Representing the applicant, Mr. George Gilliam, said.~e does not have
anything to add to his re, harks made at the last meeting. If the staff is to
make different recommendations, he would like to have an opportunity to
address those.
Using the March 9, 1988, letter addressed to the applicant, setting out
the Planning Commission's conditions, Mr. Home made the ~ollowing amendments:
(1) Conditions #1, #2 and #4 remain the same; (2) Condition #3 be eliminated
because there is no waiver necessary of VDoT standards; (3) Condition #5 to be
modified as followed: "Active recreation facilities shalL!be provided in the
multi-family area in accordance with Section 4.16. Buffe~ing shall be provided
between the multi-family area and adjoining property."; and (4) Condition #6
to be modified as follows: "The Planning Commission may rpquire internal
access to the multi-family area at the time of site plan approval."
Mr. Gilliam commented that having heard the amended conditions, he has
nothing further to add.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded bylMr. Bowie, to
approve ZMA-87-22 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission as
amended by Mr. Home at this meeting. 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.
(Note: Conditions of approval are set out in full below:
1.
Each lot shall contain a 5000 square foot building site with a
length to width ratio not to exceed 2.5:1. No d~iveway shall
encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or
greater.
Staff will recommend deletion of additional lots,ldue to drainage
concerns during final approval unless adequate corrective mea-
sures are proposed by the applicant. The number of proposed
single-family detached units lost as a result of.Slope, drainage
or other design considerations (excluding the desire of the
developer), may be added to the number of multi-family units, up
to a maximum of ten. ~-
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
97
Ail roads (with the exception of the private road provided for
emergency purposes) shall be built to Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDoT) standards for rural cross-section and
dedicated in the Secondary System at time of development of the
residential areas utilizing those roads. A looped road system
providing for emergency access shall be provided at the earliest
reasonable phase of development. A phasing plan proposing
sequential improvements shall be submitted with the revised
Application Plan.
e
Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be employed
to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Engineer to provide
protection to Lake Reynovia, including installation of off-site
measures, if appropriate. This provision shall be deemed to be
satisfied by separate agreement between the developer and owner
of Lake Reynovia.
Active recreation facilities shall be provided in multi-family
area in accordance with Section 4.16. Buffering shall be provided
between multi-family area and adjoining property.
The Planning Commission may require internal access to multi-
family area at the time of site plan approval.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Amendment to CIP, re: Completion of
Phase I of renovation for Burley Middle School. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 22 and March 29, 1988.)
Mr. Agnor said, to summarize, the School Board requested the Board to
incorporate on an emergency basis $1,032,000 in the current Capital Improve-
ments Plan to complete Phase I of the renovation for Burley Middle School.
The $1,032,000 is divided into three categories: Top Priority- must have,
Second Priority - energy savings, and Third Priority - deferrable. He then
summarized the items listed in each priority.
In reference to a memorandum, dated April 4, 1988, the Board received
from the School Division, Mr. Lindstrom asked.lwhat was included in the $23,509
for annex storage. Mr. William Sugg, Director of Facilities Planning, School
Division, said the $23,509 is for 13 general storage cabinets, 13 double-faced
book cases, seven storage hutches and seven three drawer cabinets. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if the figures provided are a~tual or estimates. Mr. Sugg
said the fee for the lockers is firm, but the!other figures are estimates and
would be put out to bid. i
Mr. Perkins asked how long it would take lto get the payback on the energy
savings from replacement of the exterior door~. Mr. Sugg said he does not
know. The existing exterior doors are wood d~ors with glass and they let a
lot of heat out of the building. The new doo~s would be of an aluminum type
with hollow metal form, a smaller glass, and Mould be more efficient and would
retain more heat inside th~ building. Mr. Perkins said he realizes that may
be true, but is concerned about spending $32,Q00 because it will take an
extremely long time to get the pay back. Also, he feels there is nothing
wrong with the existing doors which could be painted. Mr. Perkins said there
are too many building project needs and although the doors are old, they are
still good doors.
Mr. Agnor said the requested amount for the top priority items is $598,200.
Mr. Bain said he cannot make a decision on the exterior doors tonight, but
would be willing to look at the question later if he could get some informa-
tion on the losses and savings involved.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has reviewed the equipment list and although some
of the items appear to be priced high, he has no problem with proceeding. He
would suggest the Board approve funding for the top priority, to include the
furnishings, and review further the question of the doors and the other
priorities listed.
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Bowie said one of the reasons for moving ahead was because the
contractors were already at the site. He is concerned that the project be
finished and the contractors not leave and have to come back for completion.
Mr. Agnor said the project would not be delayed if the first priority is
approved tonight. To at least complete the renovations for the project during
the summer, it is necessary for the Board to appropriate the $598,200.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, to appropriate $533,200 for
completion of the annex, installation of an elevator, completion of guidance
and administration area, and $64,229.92 for equipment/furniture needs as
outlined in the amendment dated April 4, 1988, by adopting the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $597,429.92 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Capital Fund and coded to 1-9000-60771-701002 entitled
Burley School; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion with the understandingthat the exterior
doors would be considered again at a later time. 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. 7. Public Hearing: To consider the Six Year Highway
Improvement Plan (advertised in the Daily Progress on March 19, 1988) and to
adopt a policy concerning the paving of unpaved roads (al~o advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 22 and March 29, 1988).
Mr. Home said 20 percent of the total budget for the Six Year Plan deals
with unpaved roads, The policy for unpaved roads has bee~ that first priority
was given to roadways where rights-of-way had been obtained throug.h voluntary
donations, automatically including such roads in the Six Year Plan each time
it was updated. Second priority was given to roads in growth areas. Approxi-
mately two years ago, the Planning Commission recommended!changing this
policy.
The Planning Commission recommends that first priority be given to roads
within the designated growth areas in the Comprehensive P~an. The second
priority be based on the average daily traffic of roads, jlThe third priority
be right-of-way donation. The Planning Commission based ~]~ese recommendations
on the following factors: the existence of inadequate ge~etrics or curvature
on the roadway; average daily traffic on the roadway; relative analysis of
surface width and shoulder width; whether roadway is in a ~growth area; whether
roadway is in an agricultural/forestal district; whether ~oadway is in the
watershed; and availability of rights-of-way.
The Board of Supervisors, at a wo~rk session approxlma'tely three weeks
ago, discussed this policy change with three options: whether to adopt the
Planning Commission's recommendation; whether to reject the policy change and
remain with the current policy; or whether to adopt the p~licy but defer its
enactment until some later date to allow roadways with partial rights-of-way
donations to get the remaining sections by a certain, date.i It was the staff's
understanding that the Board was leaning toward the last dption. The Board
must now consider some mechanism to allow the roadways wifh donated rights-of-
way under the old policy to proceed in some manner. Accor~ding to Mr. Dan
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, there are four roadways ~ncluded zn the
priority list before the Board tonight that have all donated rights-of-way.
Those roads are included in the Six Year Plan based on the new policy. If the
Board were to allow some provision for the roadways that h~ave obtained all
right-of-way donations to proceed it would entail a change~ in the priority
list the Planning Co~nission recommended. .~
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Lindstrom said regardless of the policy change proposed, any road for
which the rights-of-way are dedicated prior to November 1, 1988, the old
policy would be in effect and the rules would not change as to those roads.
Mr. Home said yes, that is the date proposed by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom
- asked if under the proposed policy, a road inthe rural area and a road in the
urban area both had all of the rights-of-way dedicated, the road in the urban
area would get priority. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
another example would be that the road in the, growth area did not have all of
the right-of-way dedicated, but the road in the rural area had all of the
right-of-way dedicated, the road in the growth area would still be given
priority. Mr. Horne replied yes.
Mr. Bain asked how priority of a road is~determined in the Six Year Plan.
Mr. Roosevelt said he normally bases his priority list on traffic counts.
Mr. Bowie said the second priority recommended is a significant traffic
count and he asked if there is a road in the growth area with virtually no
traffic and a road in the rural area with heavy traffic, what priority is then
given? Mr. Horne said priority would still be given to the road in the growth
area, but if there was such a disparity between traffic counts, the Board does
not have to adhere strictly to the guidelines. Mr. Lindstrom commented that
there are not many gravel roads in the growth areas. Mr. Horne said that is
true. Mr. Lindstrom said as he reads the new policy it is not likely to make
a dramatic or noticeable change over the next 'five to six years in the way
these roads are included for paving because of the requirement for dedicated
right-of-way.
Before opening the public hearing, Mr. Way summarized the proposed policy
(which is set out in the minutes of March 9, ~988).
Mr. Don Cantore asked if anyone has analyzed or projected whether the new
policy would result in more roads being upgraded. Mr. Horne replied no. Mr.
Cantore said that is important because the availability of highway funds is
not unlimited and the County should get the mast where it can and while it
can. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the policy is going to make an
impact because the County is required by state law to allocate a certain
amount of Secondary Road Improvement Funds to ~ithe paving of gravel roads.
Mr. Craig Redinger, a resident of Route 682, said he sees in the proposed.
policy no mention, other than indirectly, of p~ublic safety. It seems to him
that the first priority in any consideration Of the improvement of the County
should be given to the safety of the people t~aveling that road. As an
example, the curvature on Route 682 is horrendous. He suggests the Board
reorient the priorities so that the first inquiry into any improvement in the
County road system should be where there is a dangerous situation and then
consider other things such as traffic volume. If one school bus with 40
children travels a road that is extremely hazardous, regardless of whether
that is the only vehicle, that road should be ~improved.
Next to address the Board, Ms. Virginia Yeich, said she lives in a rural
area and agrees that safety is an important factor and that the volume of
accidents should be taken into consideration. ~Mr. Agnor said in the past
police records have not been very site specifiC, but will be more so in the
future, which will allow those records to be used in determining hazardous
roads. Mr. Lindstrom commented there is a specific fund to deal with spot
safety improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said that fund is for sites in the primary
system which could be used only at secondary ihtersections with a primary
road. Mr. Lindstrom said safety improvements are one of the first things that
everyone looks at. A road does not have to be given a priority as a gravel
road for pavement if there is a safety need. ~ther funds could be applied to
deal with safety problems.
Mr. Gary Myers said he is in agreement wi~h adding roads that have
existing right-of-way status and allowing thos~ roads to be given a priority.
There being no further comments, the public hearing on the policy concern-
ing paving of unpaved roads was closed.
lO0
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Bowie commented that he feels safety is very important when consider-
ing improvements to any roads.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
resolution, as advertised, and as set out below, as the Board's policy
regarding this issue.
Mr. Way asked the rationale for November 1. Mr. Home said that is the
date just before the Planning Commission starts the up-date of the Six Year
Plan. Mr. Way said he is comfortable with the proposed policy. There being
no further discussion, 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 policy as adopted is set out in full below:)
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby adopt the following as a policy concerning the
paving of unpaved roads:
1) First priority will be given to those roads lying in the
growth areas of the County as shown in the Comprehensive Plan;
2) Second priority will be given to those road8 with significant
daily traffic counts; ~
3) Third priority will be given to those roads Where the
right-of-way has been completely donated for the project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board will not approve the paving
of any unpaved road in the Rural Areas District unleSs all of the
right-of-way had been dedicated in advance or there i~s a clear,
demonstrable danger to public safety which would necessitate the use
of State Secondary Road Funds to acquire the right-of.-way; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board will not approve. the paving of
any unpaved road in the growth areas where there is not a complete
dedication of right-of-way unless there is a clear, demonstrable
danger to public safety or, on a case-by-case basis, in the opinion of
the Planning Commission and/or the Board of supervisQrs, the acquisi-
tion of right-of-way is needed to fulfill the Plan; and
ALSO RESOLVED that this policy will be effective~ as of November 1,
1988, and there is to be specific notification of thiis policy to all
persons who have contacted the Highway Department, or'.i a county depart-
ment, about getting an unpaved road paved using State!~ Secondary Road
Funds.
Mr. Horne said Attachment 11 in the Board's informat£Sn package contains
a list of 54 projects. The first 15 priorities, with asterisks beside them,
are in the existing Six Year Plan and would remain at the present priority
ranking. Number 16 is the lump sum allocation for paving unpaved roads at the
minimum allocation. Mr. Bain asked about Priority ~10 which is for Route 671
bridge and approaches (Millington Bridge). Mr. Horne said!Millington Bridge
is recommended to remain in the Plan. The remaining list covers new projects
and a mixture of major, spot, bridge and railroad crossing~improvements.
Mr. Horne then presented and summarized the following~Unpaved Road
Priority List: ~
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD PLAN 1988-1994
UNPAVED ROAD PRIORITY LIST
101
Average
- Priority Daily
Number Route Traffic
(1) 727
(2) 777
(3) 693
(4) 785 846
(5) 627 193
(6) 674 143
(7) 662 79
(8) 712 152
(9) 760 146
(10) 682/787 213
(11) 784 146
(12) 643 384
(13) 688/791 307/291
(14) 682 195
(15) 643 224
(16) 600 (Watts) 162
(17) 600 190
(18) 678 93
(19) 688 160
(20) 662 79
Remarks
Already in plan;
for additional funding only.
Already in plan;
for additional funding only.
Already in plan;
for additional funding only.
Public Request
Public Request
Public Request
Close to growth area.
vicinity of a school.
Public Request
Immediate
Close to groWth area
Hazardous intersection
Public Request
Feeder route to Route 743
and Route 29 North connecting
~Route 20 North and Route 231
ilover Southwest Mountain
Railroad underpass and bridge
i~on this segment.
~'ublic request to the Board on
7November 11, 1987. Board
~requested thePlanning Com-
mission to review in the Six-
Year Plan.
Public Request
Between Route 635 and Route 689
PUblic Request
Mr. Perkins asked construction status of projects ~/1 through ~/7 on the
unpaved road list. Mr. Roosevelt said Route 727 is presently under construc-
tion; advertisement for Route 777 is scheduled for late April; construction on
Route 693 will begin in June; construction of ~oute 785 is expected the
beginning of 1989; and Routes 627, 674 and 662i are all in the final stages of
preliminary engineering and he anticipates advertisement in June or July,
1988. Beyond that, right-of-way or preliminar~ engineering has not taken
place on the projects and he cannot comment when they will be ready for
construction.
Mr. Bain said Priorities ~/5, ~6 and ~/7 must be funded before beginning
construction. Mr. Roosevelt said he intends to proceed with construction on
these roads and then fund them in the second o~ third year. Mr. Lindstrom
asked the estimated amount for the list of unpaved roads. Mr. Roosevelt
responded $10.6 million, but it is important tO remember that regardless of
the priority list the money runs out considerably sooner than the list of
secondary roads. It is also important that there be as many gravel roads as
possible prioritized. In previous years his office has usually had enough
roads with right-of-way available to spend all of the funds anticipated in the
six year period, and he expects that will be so shortly again. He will begin
working to get right-of-way on those roads in ~he list where the right-of-way
is not available and he will keep the Board advised periodically of his
success or failure. There are $10 million worth of projects on the list and
only $4.4 million is being allocated, therefore, he feels that not much beyond
Priority f/10 will be funded in the next six years. (Mr. Lindstrom left the
meeting at 8:44 P.M.) :t
102
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Bowie said, for clarification, his intent in adopting the gravel road
policy is that whatever is on the list and comes in by November, stays on the
list in the order in which it came. Nothing moves ahead of what is already on
the list. Mr. Roosevelt said his understanding is that the Board adopted the
new policy as a guide. Anytime that a project or need comes before the Board
which might have an overriding priority, the Board has the right and responsi-
bility to revise the list of priorities. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the
meeting at 8:45 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding of the purpose of
the policy recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission is to allow
the Board to regularize its approach to paving roads on a ~basis other than
simply having dedicated right-of-way so as to look at the County's planning
needs and needs of the citizens. This is an attempt to put some rationality
into the paving policy.
The public hearing was then opened.
Mr. Walt Johnson, a resident of Route 682, quoted Mr. Richard Cogan,
Chairman of the Planning Commission, as saying "Route 682 is probably the
worst road in the County". It is his opinion that Route 682 deserves Priority
#4 from a safety point of view and because of the right-of-way that exists.
He asked those persons present concerning Route 682 to stand; approximately 36
people stood. On November 10 the citizens submitted a petition identifying
Route 682 in its entirety which is from Route 250 West to Route 637. The
citizens obtained 123 signatures on the petition, all but two of 95 lot owners
signed the petition. Those two owners are nonresident owners and the citizens
were unable to contact them. As stated in the petition, ai~total of 52 traffic
control and warning signs are erected on Route 682 which is one for every 450
feet. The maximum speed along the road is 20 miles per hour. School buses
are prohibited from carrying school children across the railroad track.
Because of the condition of the road, U. S. mail is not delivered along 36
percent of it. Because of its condition, the Daily Progress will not deliver
along 80 percent of the road. Over 50 percent of the roadilis single-lane with
two-way traffic. Although Route 682 is not in a growth area, the citizens
have experienced a 400 percent growth over the past ten years. Three subdivi-
sions have been approved along this road, yet no changes have been made to the
road itself. He does not know why the Planning Commission~recommended that
Route 682 and Route 787 be a combined project. He does no~ know anything
about the right-of-way on Route 787 which probably is the ~eason the staff
report states right-of-way is not available. The surface ~idth of Route 682
varies from a minimum of six feet in the summer to a maximum of six feet in
the winter. Shoulder widths are nonexistent.
Mr. Johnson said the Board has received documentationlin support of the
citizen claims relative to the conditions of the road. Letters from the
following persons indicating the poor condition of the road were received:
the Postmaster, the Fire Chief, the Supervisor of Transportation for the
Public Schools, the Fire Prevention Officer and the Police~Department. A
letter was also received from Mr. Don Wood, owner of Ivy Eixon Service
Station, who provides tow trucks to the road frequently. ~e states in his
letter that during heavy rains and snow it is almost a dai~y adventure. On
Monday, January 25, School Bus #91 slid into the ditch. THe following week
the same thing happened to another school bus.
The first deed for the donation of land for a right-of-way is dated April
1964. For 24 years, people have been trying to get this r~ad improved. The
last significant deed is dated in 1979. For all practical~purposes, a right-
of-way of 40 feet minimum has been available on this road ~or the first two
and one-half miles. Fifty feet is available on a portion ~f the road. He
cannot understand why there has been no action for the las~ nine years. On
February 9, he was informed by the State Secondary Roads Engineer that 40 feet
would be acceptable. He submits that the documentation th~ citizens have
provided establishes a need for paving of this road because of public safety.
40 feet is available in places, and 50 feet is available along 55 percent of
that portion of road. This road should be given the benefit of nine years
seniority. ?
Next to speak concerning Route 682, Mr. Jeff McDaniel ~aid he has worked
in Albemarle County for about 12 years and is a volunteer ~ith the rescue
squad. He is very aware of the road conditions in the County. Numerous
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
103
accidents have occurred along Route 682. There is nothing else the citizens
can do. He asks the Board to give them some help in moving this road up in
the Six Year Plan so as to prevent these safety and traffic hazards.
Mr. Charles Ewald then presented a short video on the condition of the
road during last winter. He commented that less than two months before this
video was taken, a total of 852 tons of surface treatment was applied to the
road.
Also concerning Route 682, Mr. John Lindner said the road is exceedingly
treacherous. Members of his family have had three accidents on the road. The
safety factor is exceedingly important. Several months ago a number of
residents in the area appeared before the Board and voiced their preference
that no further subdivisions be approved fronting the road until the road is
able to handle the increased traffic, yet an additional subdivision was
approved and the road remains the same. This:~road needs improvement for the
safety of the people and children who live there.
Mrs. Martha Redinger read a letter she wrote to the Board concerning
incidences that relate to the need for improvement of Route 682. The railroad
crossing is dangerous and has no warning light. Much of Route 682 has fre-
quent curves and a narrow flat surface with steep grade. Route 682 should be
a top priority for improvements because of public safety.
Mr. Craig Redinger, a resident of Route 682, read a letter from Dr.
Juliano Campa, who was unable to attend the m~eting tonight. Route 682 is not
only dusty, muddy, narrow and unsafe, but it Lan be impassable for rescue
vehicles in times of medical emergency or fir~. He related an incident where
there was a fire at Dr. Campa's home during t~e winter, and the fire trucks got
stuck on the road and took 30 minutes to get Go the house~ Four neighborhoods
depend on Route 682 to receive assistance from the Crozet Fire Department.
This service may not always be available because of the inability to travel
Route 682 during the icy, wet, snowy days of ~inter. Route 682 should be a
high priority for immediate pavement. He hasi~appreciated the comments by
Board members that public safety is paramount~in their minds. If that is so,
he would like to see it applied in this case.
Ms. Phyllis Grove, a resident of the sou~hend of Route 682, five-tenths
mile before Route 637 said there are problemsialong the south end of the road
as well. Some years ago her two year old daughter was involved in an accir
dent. It took 45 minutes for the rescue squad to get there from Crozet
because it had to go another route. The Board needs to consider the whole of
Route 682, not just one end of it. She is continually afraid that she will be
involved in an accident. In addition, she constantly has problems with her
car as a result of the road. ~
Also regarding Route 682, Mrs. Joanne Lindner said she was informed by
the Highway Department that because Route 682 iis gravel it is one of the last
roads to be plowed in bad weather. She would ~ike to state that the road is
always bad and that in inclement weather it is!just worse than before.
Mr. Vernon Jones, a resident of Route 674i, said he would like to thank
the Board for living up to its end of the bargain with regard to putting roads
that have right-of-way available at the top of~ the list. The residents of
Route 674 worked and got the necessary right-Of-way.
Mr. Tom TreVillian, a resident of Route 610, asked persons present
regarding Route 610 to stand; approximately 20ilpeople stood. As of yesterday
the residents have obtained all necessary dona.tions of right-of-way and have
submitted the information to the Highway Department. Route 610 is located on
Route 20 North, 4.5 miles from Pantops Mountain. This deadend road is 2.5
miles long with widths of 11 to 17 feet. There are approximately 45 homes
along Route 610, six homes have been built sin~e 1976 and a tract of 236 acres
has recently been surveyed into smaller lots ahd may be offered for sale in
the near future.. The latest daily traffic cou~t shows 300 vtpd. For the
Board's consideration, the residents are submitting a list of known accidents
in recent years caused by the narrow, winding and unsafe nature of the road.
Also, he is submitting a collection of picture~ depicting particular bad areas
104
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
of Route 610. In closing, he is in favor of the resolution concerning gravel
roads adopted by the Board earlier. There are only three roads on the priority
list that have higher traffic counts than Route 610.
Mr. Rolf Henn, a resident of Route 662, said he can attest that all the
dirt roads have the same problems. The roads become unsafe during rain as
ruts are created. Route 662 is just as unsafe and he would like to say he
also appreciates the Board keeping the priority list as it is because the
residents have worked hard to get Route 662 on the list so as to get it paved.
Ms. Thelma Howard, a resident of Route 627, said she would like to thank
the Board for keeping that road on the priority list and she looks forward to
Route 627 being paved in the future.
Mr. Forbes Reback said he has a problem different from the past speakers.
Approximately $594,792 is allocated to the replacement of the bridge at
Millington on Route 671 and the residents do not want it replaced. Many of
the residents are here tonight to request that the project be deleted from the
plan. He lives at Dog Patch on Route 671 which adjoins the Millington Bridge.
It is unfortunate that the design standards for local roads and bridges to
which the Department of Transportation must adhere are so ~rigid and inflexible
that they cannot agree to replace a single-lane bridge at ~this time. The
residents perceive the problem to be one of over kill. Their Millington
valley on the scenic Moormans River is a historic, scenic and rural area with
the unique combination of landscape, agricultural and recreational uses which
set it apart and which lend it its' own character. No one in the area wants
the Department of Transportation to cut a new 60 foot swath through this
little valley, through Mr. J. P. Davis' hayfield or through Mr. Charles
Woodson's pasture. The residents do not want or need their curves straight-
ened, their hills leveled, their trees destroyed or their rocks dynamited.
The residents do not want cars driving through the valley any faster or louder
than they do now. The speed limit is now at 35 miles perlhour. Any replace-
ment bridge and approach realignment that would be designed, engineered and
contracted or constructed by the Department of Transportation using the
Department's present standards would be insensitive to thin, needs and desires
of this little community. This project would damage the Scenic, rural and
recreational character of Millington; would destroy the iHtegrity of adjacent
farms and properties, would increase the speed of traffic, and, therefore, the
noise and the danger of accidents and would generally degmade the quality of
life in the area. If the Board would agree to delete thisunpopular project
from the current Six Year Secondary Improvement Plan it could free up the
money to use on other projects which enjoy greater local support. Another
solitary effect of deleting this project now is that the residents will gain
time to initiate changes in the rules of the Department ofjTransportation. He
then asked the persons present in favor of this position t~ stand; 12 persons
stood.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the residents would prefer deferring the project
versus deletion of it altogether. Mr. Reback said he would prefer it be
deleted. The residents need time to work with the Department of Transporta-
tion to change its design standards. The residents realizes that eventually
the single-lane bridge will have to be replaced, but they ~ould like it done
with sensitivity and with some of their ideas incorporated~in the design.
Regarding the Millington Bridge project, Mr. John Bir~sall, who owns
property that fronts on the Millington Road Bridge, said h~ crosses the bridge
daily. It is most ironic that in the name of safety the H~ghway Department
suggests the residents who take a road which currently has,an operative speed
of about 15 miles per hour, and improve the bridge and straighten the road and
access to it from both directions to allow the residents tg go faster, up to
40 mph. If those improvements are done he can almost guargntee that travel
speed will be up to 65 mph. There has not been an acciden~ or fatality on
this road. These improvements do not make any sense. Property should not be
destroyed to improve a bridge in order to allow people to ~rive faster. He
asks that the project be deleted from the Six Year Plan. ~e does not believe
there is a person who lives on that road who does not want the project deleted
from the Plan.
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
105
Mrs. Sherry Buttrick, who lives just before the Millington Bridge, said
when the residents requested a traffic accident report on this area, the
report they were given stated there were no reported accidents. There has
been much discussion on the amount of limited funds and these residents would
be happy to give back the money. One reason they live in the area is because
it is a rural, winding and pretty road to live on and they would like to keep
it that way.
Mr. J. P. Davis, one of the landowners, said he does not want the bridge
improvement, nor does he want his hayland destroyed or Mr. Woodson's land
destroyed. This project is unnecessarily destroying land. He also asks that
this project be deleted for at least a couple of years.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
(The Board recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:52 p.m.)
Mr. Lindstrom said he is familiar with the bridge on Route 671. He
agrees with the concerns that have been expressed essentially concerning the
magnitude of the project to repair a structural problem. He thinks that the
project would be aesthetically harmful to theiarea and would have the affect
of significantly increasing the speed on the road which at present does not
have the capacity to handle increased traffic. He would suggest the Board
consider deleting the project from the Plan and apply the money to some other
safety projects. Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Lindstrom had any specific projects in
mind. Mr. Lindstrom said the intersections of Route 610 and Route 612, and
Route 20. Route 612 virtually has no sight distance. Although he would not
vote on the issue for improving Route 610 because his family owns property at
the end of Route 610, but he does think the i~tersection should be improved.
Mr. Bowie said he has no personal interest in Route 610 or Route 612
except they both happen to be in his district?and are extremely dangerous.
All of the right-of-way for Route 610 is dedi6ated and should move forward.
He thinks it would be a shame to pave a road ~nd not correct ~ the dangerous
intersection. Concerning the bridge at Millihgton and the land which would be
taken for the project, he would like to know ~f that land would be condemned
or dedicated voluntarily. Mr. Roosevelt saidi!the Highway Department is in the
design stages for the bridge and road improvement. There still must be a
public hearing held. It is conceivable that modifications could be made to
the design. He hoped to get input from the r~sidents about what they would
consider in the actual design of the bridge and in fact met with many of the
people who are here tonight to discuss those plans. The residents told him
they did not want to look at the plans until ~fter the Board had considered
whether to leave the project in the Six Year Rlan. His offer to meet with the
residents still stands and he would recommend~hat the Board leave this
project in the Plan. After meeting the residehts and recognizing that dropr-
lng the project was going to be considered by ~he Board, he discussed it with
his supervisors in Culpeper and the SecondarylRoads Engineer who responded by
stating: "I am of the opinion that the Dep~rtment must take a strong position
that the Millington Bridge be replaced as scheduled. I have reviewed this
structure with the Bridge Division and find t~at with a sufficiency rating of
16.4 this bridge is among the least sufficien~ bridges in the State. Since
its construction in 1924 it has suffered corrosion losses up to three-eighths
of an inch in structural components. It carries more than 400 vehicles a day.
If the bridge is not replaced, the risk of fracture of a critical component
would lead to serious injury and could result in tort liability claims. I am
familiar with the Millington area and I am sympathetic to the landowners who
do not wish to see considerable change in the ~rea. I believe the question of
where to place this structure should be determined with guidance from the
Board of Supervisors. I would encourage Mr. R6osevelt to stand firm on the
project insofar as its priority in the Six Year Plan, but assure the Board of
Supervisors and the public that he will return to discuss the location of it."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the structure can be replaced without a major
realignment, straightening or other change in ~he approaches. Mr. Roosevelt
said that can be looked at, but he cannot stat9 specifically tonight. He does
not believe the County can let the bridge remain as is. The deterioration of
106
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
the structure is such that it must be replaced. The Board and the public has
an opportunity through the normal preliminary engineering process to provide
input in the design of the project. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the bridge is in
imminent danger of falling in or just more likely to fall in than any of the
other bridges on the list. Mr. Roosevelt said if the weight limits posted on
the bridge are obeyed then the bridge will not fall, but it does require
considerable maintenance to keep it at the present weight limit. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if there are any bridges in the County that are not given a priority of
ten or higher which are in the same category of need as far as potential for
structural failure. Mr. Roosevelt said with regard to rating the bridge on
Route 649 over the Southern Railroad tracks has the same sUfficiency rating as
this bridge. The bridge on Route 743 over the North Fork of the Rivanna has a
lower rating and the bridge at Route 660 over the South Fork, which is in the
Plan, is a greater need than the bridge at Millington.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission is recommending that there be a
design study for the bridge on Proffitt Road (over the Southern Railroad) to
show what needs to be done because of a similar situation with the residents
in Proffit~, That project is not yet in the Six Year Plan~
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think from the discusSion he has heard
today that this bridge is a serious safety hazard at this time. Given other
needs the County has, and the remaining projects on the list, he feels the
Board should consider deleting the project from the Plan. !Mr. Lindstrom then
asked if funds have already been expended on the project. !Mr. Roosevelt said
$8,500 has been spent.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to delete Project ~i0, the Route 671
bridge and approaches, from the Six Year Plan and consider how to use that
$594,792 later in this public hearing. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins said this is the first time he has gone through this process
and does not know all of the rules, but it does not seem right to him to
delete a project and then introduce new projects. There are many safety
projects such as Route 680 off of Route 240 which has probably one of the most
treacherous curves in Albemarle County. On Route 690 leading toward Greenwood
there is a curve where a person has to almost back up to make the turn.
Mr. Bain said it is his understanding from Mr. Roosevelt is that if the
project is deleted from the Plan, there will be no furtheri!~discussions about
how that bridge is to be built and the Highway Department ~ill not spend
anymore time on it. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct. Mr. Bain said the
residents could then hire their own engineers and present ~ plan at some
future time.
Mr. Lindstrom said from his conversations with the re~idents they under-
stand the consequence of deleting the project and do not have a problem with
it. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has the responsibility t~ deal with problems
as it sees fit and there is nothing to prevent the Board f~Om putting the
project back in at some later time. He does not think that safety needs in
the County are addressed the way they should be. The intersections he men-
tioned are considered by the Highway Department to be prima~ry road safety
problems. ~
There being no further discussion roll was called on the motion to delete
Project #10, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. ~
Mr. Bowie asked the status of placing a cul-de-sac on ~oute 781 (Sunset
Avenue) at Moores~~ Creek. Mr. Horne said a recommendation gill be forthcoming
in the near future from the University/City/County Committe9 studying this
area, however City Council is setting a public hearing on the closing of
Sunset Avenue with tha intcrs~ction cf taking acticn now. ,
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
107
Mr. Way asked for comments from the Board on Route 682. Mr. Bain said on
the list of gravel roads is Routes 682/787, from Route 250 to Route 708 for
1.6 miles. There have been no comments made tonight regarding Route 708. He
would like to see funds used for improvements at the intersection at Route 250
if there is a need for improvement there. He also would like to see all of
the funds allocated for this project go to improving as much as possible of
Route 682 and deleting Route 787 keeping in mind that the project can be done
without maximum highway improvements, and considering that there are safety
problems to be considered particularly at the railroad tracks. No one spoke
about Route 787 tonight. He would suggest that Route 682 be added as Priority
#4 and then renumber the remaining projects.
Mr. Bowie said projects one through seven on the list are already under-
way, have been on the list for some time for improvement and many of those
roads have the same problems as Route 682. He is not willing to move Route
682 ahead of those projects because they have also waited a long time to get
improved. Mr. Perkins said he agrees with Mr. Bowie. Projects four through
seven have all the same safety problems as Route 682. Mr. Bain said he
recognizes that all of the roads have problems, but he feels that Route 682 is
in worse condition considering the railroad crossing. Mr. Agnor suggested
moving Route 682 to Priority #8 ahead of Route 712. Mr. Bain asked if Route
712 and Route 760 have all of their right-of-Way. Mr. Roosevelt said those
two roads do not have the necessary right-of-Way. Mr. Bowie said if a project
on the list does not have the necessary righ~of-way, he can support putting
Route 682 ahead of it. Mr. Bain said his understanding is that some of these
roads are on the list because they are in growth areas.
Mr. Roosevelt said if Route 682 were moved to Priority #8, he thinks it
can be funded within the the next six year period. He does not think all of
the project can be financed, but possibly from Route 250 to a point two miles
south. Considering inflation he thinks the B~ard should put a length on the
project and not a dollar value. Mr. Perkins asked how the railroad crossing
would be improved. Mr. Roosevelt said the cost estimate for the project
includes the railroad crossing. Mr. Perkins ~aid he was told by an engineer
for CSX Corporation that possibly that line w~ll be closed in the Fall. Mr.
Roosevelt said if that happens it will be taken into consideration at the
design stage.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain to add Route 682 for 2.5 miles south
of Route 250, and to delete Route 787, to the~unpaved priority list as No. 10.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would second the motion~if it were priority No. 8. It
was so agreed. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Way then asked about Route 610. Mr. Roosevelt said he has received
the deeds for the right-of-way for Route 610. The deeds have not been checke~
to see if they are in proper order to be recorded. Ail of the roads that he
has indicated that the right-of-way is available means the right-of-way has
actually been recorded at the Clerk's office.~ After verifying the right-of-
way, Route 610 can be included in the Plan, if the Board so desires. Mr.
Lindstrom said, for the record, he is going to abstain from discussion or
voting on this road improvement. As previously stated he is concerned about
safety, but not necessarily in paving. He has interest in land that would
front on this new paved road and he therefore will abstain.
Mr. Bain said since Route 610 has not be~n considered by the Planning
Commission for inclusion in the Plan, if it would be necessary to send it back
to the Commission for review. Mr. Horne said the does not think the Commission
will have any particular input as this road w~uld be added to the Plan under
the old policy. ~
Mr. Bowie asked what needs to be done to isee if all of the information is
correct. Mr. Roosevelt said his department checks the signatures and makes
sure all of the properties have been covered. If the Board wants some con-
108
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
struction done on Route 610 it needs to be put on the list at a priority above
number ten. Other than that, if the right-of-way is all correct, his depart-
ment could do some preliminary engineering work within the next two years no
matter where the road is on the list.
Mr. Bowie asked if the other roads on the list that have not been dis-
cussed in detail have right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt responded no. Mr. Bowie
asked what happens to any rights-of-way that come in between now and November.
Mr. Horne said he was assumes those roads would be added to the list by
traffic count. Mr. Roosevelt said he can almost guarantee that nothing is
going to come in with a higher traffic count than Route 610. There are only
six or seven roads in the County that have more traffic than this road. He
intends to build these road projects before the money is actually available by
borrowing from major construction projects. His suggests that the Board add
Route 610 as Priority #9 and if it turns out that the right-of-way is not
available he can guarantee that it will not get constructed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr.~ Bain, to include
Route 610, pending verification of right of way, as Priority #9. Roll was
called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom
Mr. Agnor said he would like to suggest that the funds from the Route 671
bridge project go toward Peyton Drive, subject to determination of its eligi-
bility. It is project #8 on the list.
Mr. Lindstrom said he personally looked at the Route 671 bridge improve-
ments as a safety related improvement. There has been taIk of developing a
list of spot safety improvements and he would like to knowif the Planning
Commission is working on that as a project. Mr. Roosevelt said he had four
inspectors working on that list during the winter, but had~to move them to
other construction projects. When construction slows down. lnext winter the
study will be continued again. Just doing this on the primary road intersec-
tions is a significant amount of work. He would suggest that the Board put
off any comprehensive review of intersections until the ne~t time the Plan is
revised.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested the Board consider earmarking the Route 671
bridge funds to spot safety improvements and allow that money to be allocated
to projects based upon a list developed by the Department Of Transportation,
Planning Commission and Board over the next two years. He does not see Peyton
Drive as a safety need although some of the funds could go~toward its improve-
ment.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there are a number of safety improvements
that need to be addressed in the County that are not being.addressed. Mr.
Horne said everything shown in the Plan as a spot location is effectively a
safety improvement. A systematic review was not done, in effect the Planning
staff went out to locations it knew about. He thinks Peyton Drive should be
considered because it is a safety problem. The traffic coqnt on that road is
astronomical and it is not safe. Mr. Way said since the funds were earmarked
for a bridge what would be the next bridge improvement.
Mr. Roosevelt said the only rules the Department real~y must follow is
that a certain amount of funds must go for gravel road improvements. The
Department would like to see a plan that is balanced with ~oad projects,
gravel road projects and bridge projects. There are four dr five other bridge
projects high in priority that will be done so there is no ~need to put the
funds in another bridge project. The Board can put the funds anywhere it
wants. The only problem he has is that the Department sets very strict limits
on "open-ended funds". The Department allows open-ended funds for gravel
roads and plant mix applications after the first two years.~ It has been his
understanding that everything else is supposed to be designated to a specific
project. The Secondary Roads Division would not allow him to spend money on a
April 6, 1988'(Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
109
project not listed in the Plan or not having a resolution from the Board. He
can add the $594,792 to the allocations for the projects in the first nine or
ten priorities. This would make the amount allocated to those projects more
than what is needed, then the Board might adopt a resolution and take funds
from one of those projects. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a legal problem
with adopting a budget with a portion designated to a category entitled
"Unallocated Funds" and then distributing those funds to projects at a later
time. Mr. Roosevelt said there is a policy problem that could be a legal
problem. The Secondary Roads Division will not allow him to send in a finan-
cial plan that has a line item on it stating undesignated spot safety improve-
ments. The funds can be put anywhere as long as they are designated to an
item. If the money is put on an item where no preliminary engineering can be
done, it will cause problems.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about Peyton Drive. Mr Horne said there are a number
of roads just like Peyton Drive in the Plan. He will write a justification
for each road stating the need for funding and wait for a response from the
Highway Department. Peyton Drive is listed at #18 in the Plan and is a long
way from having any work done. Mr. Agnor said the road has been patched in
the past. The School system has already advised the staff that it will have
to stop using the road as has the CharlotteSville Transit Service unless
something is done. Next Wednesday a report will come to the Board recommend-
ing that it request Revenue Sharing Funds for the road.
Mr. Roosevelt said he will check to see whether the Secondary Roads
Division will accept $594,792 for undesignated spot improvements. If they
will, the funds will be designated as such, and if the response is no, he will
add the funds to ongoing projects and advise~ the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. LindstroM, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
include the $594,792 which was for the Routei~671 project in a category for
undesignated spot improvements. Roll was ca~ led and the motion was carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkil.s and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the Six-Year Secondary Road
Plan 1988-1994, as amended here tonight, which included deleting No. 10, Route
671 bridge and approaches, and allocating that money to spot safety improve-
ments if that can be done, otherwise the mone. y is to be allocated at Mr.
Roosevelt's discretion, with the addition of '.Route 682 as No. 8 for 2.5 miles,
placing Route 610 as No. 9, and including Noel 4 through No. 7 from the renum-
bered list of Secondary Road projects. The n~otion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
Rt. 631 at Rt. 659
Rt. 631 at Agnese Street
Rt. 654 at Rt. 656
Rt, 631 at Rt. 768
Rt. 656 turn lanes
Rt. 631 (Rt. 781 to Rt. 708
bridges)
114,000
81,600
64,900
205,100
105,000
148,500
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
44
~9
50
51
52
53
54
110
COUNTY-WIDE
OTHER
MAJOR, BRIDGE
MAJOR
MAJOR
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
MAJOR
MAJOR
SPOT
SPOT
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
SPOT
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
SPOT
MAJOR
SPOT
SPOT
MAJOR
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
MAJOR
MAJOR
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
MAJOR
RRCROSSING
RRCROSSING
RRCROSSING
RRCROSSING
RRCROSSING
RRCROSSING
RR CROSSING
RR CROSSING
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Rt. 743
lanes
Rt. 691
Rt. 810
Rt. 677
Rt. 620
Rt. 743
Rt. 726
Rt. 631
park)
Rt. 7O8
Rt. 692
Pipe installation, signs, prel.
eng., rural additions, etc.
Hatton Ferry Operation
Meadowcreek Parkway (NCL to RR &
bridge)
Undesignated Spot Improvements
Rt. 631 Widen along new alignment
Rt. 631 Widen to 5 lanes
Rt. 601 Buck Mountain Creek
Rt. 660 S.Fo Rivanna
Rt. 678 Reconstruct .2 mi. to
Rt. 250
Unpaved Roads (minimumallocation)
(set out below)
Plant Mix
Peyton Drive
Rt. 729 (intersection at Rt. 250E)
Rt. 810 (North of Rt. 240)
Rt. 745 (Whitewood to Rt. 631)
Rt. 631 (Rt. 743 to Rt. 29N)
Berkmar Drive Extended (800 ft. N
Rt. 631)
Rt. 708/Rt. 63I intersection
Barracks Road (WCL to Rt. 656)
Park Road extension to Rt. 240
Rt. 649 (Rt. 29N to Rt. 606)
Rt. 743 (intersection at Rt. 606)
Greenbrier Drive Extension to
Rt. 743
Old Ivy Road (spot improvements)
(Corm~onwealth Drive turn
(Rt. 240 to Rt. 684)
Moormans River
(RR to Old Ballard Road)
Buck Island Creek
(intersection at Rt. 663)
(Rt. 795 to Rt. 1302)
(growth areabroundary to
(Rt. 20 to Rt. 29S)
(Rt. 29S to Rt. 712)
Rt. 631 (South of improvements
to growth area boundary)
Rt. 712 (A~nonett Branch)
Rt. 637 (Ivy Creek)
Rt. 781 (Sunset Avenue)
Rt. 656 (Georgetown Road)
Unpaved Roads (other)
Gates at Rt. 744 .02 mi. S Rt. 22
Flashing lights & gates Rt. 679
.24 mi. S Rt. 738
Flashing lights & gates Rt. 627
.74 mi. S. Rt. 726
Gates at
Rt. 691
Gates at
Rt. 708
Flashing
.75 mi.
Gates at
Rt. 6
Flashing
.01 mi.
Rt. 611 .23 mi. W
Rt. 642 .28 mi. NE
lights & gates Rt. 625
SERt. 812
Rt. 1310 .04 mi. S.
lights & gates Rt. 602
S Rt. 626N
780,000
60,000
4,656,982
594,792
4,204,920
333,355
350,000
860,000
85, ~900
4,462,528
1,000,000
210,000
Study
90,000
1,700,000
2,200,000
300,~00
100,000
300,000
150,000
850, GOO
75, ~00
600,000
Stud~
2o,qoo
750,q00
350,000
275,000
219, ~00
Study~
Studs
Stud~~
Stud~~
500,60
6oo, 0o
180,O00
215, dO0
185, Oho
600,000
6,219,7155
35, ~00
65,0~0
65,O~0
35,0~0
65., 000
35,000
65,090
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
111
SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD PLAN 1988-1994
UNPAVED ROAD PRIORITY LIST
Average
Priority Daily
Number Route Traffic
(1) 7~7
(2) 777
(3) 693
(4) 785 846
(5) 627 193
(6) 674 143
(7) 662 79
(8) 682 213
(9) 61o
(lO) 711 15~
(11) 760 146
(12) 784 146
(13) 643 384
(14) 688/791 307/291
(is) 682 195
(16) 643 224
(17) 600 190
(18) a00 (Watts) 162
(19) 678 93
(20) 688 160
Remarks
Already in plan. For additional funding only.
Already in plan. For additional funding only.
Already in plan. For additional funding only.
For 2.5 miles south of Route 250
P~ndiugverificationof right of v ay
Hazardous intersection
Feeder route to Route 743 and Route 29 North
Southwest Mountain
Railroad underpass and bridge on this segment
Between Route 635 and Route 689
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-87-03. To amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section
4.6, Lot Regulations, to permit reduction of lot frontage on cul-de-sacs, and
to amend, Section 3.0, Definitions, to include "easement," "cul-de-sac" and to
revise "frontage". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 22 and March 29
1988. )
Due to the lateness of the hour, and because no member of the public was
present, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
this item to April 13, 1988. Roll was called and the motion was carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 9. Statement - PrealloCation Hearing for Primary Roads.
The following memo from the County Executiveildated April 1, 1988, was received:
"The State Transportation Board will conduct a hearing on Monday,
April 11 at 10 a.m. in Culpeper to receive comments regarding Inter-
state, Primary and Urban Systems. Attahhed (on file) is a recommen-
dation from the Department of Planning ~egarding primary road improve-
ments.
In years past, members of the Board of Supervisors have made presen-
tations to the Transportation Board concerning the County's road
improvement recommendations. Staff would suggest that you discuss
these recommendations and determine who should make the presentation
in Culpeper."
Mr. Agnor summarized the following three recommendations for projects to
be considered at the preallocation hearing as was outlined in a letter from
Mr. Home dated March 31, 1988:
112
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Continued support for the planning process for improvements to
the north-south traffic capacity of Route 29 North and/or the
construction of a bypass facility;
Continued support for the widening of Free Bridge and the
reconstruction and widening of Route 250 East to Interstate 64.
With this project, the staff would request that the Board
express the need for local staff to be involved in the design
process for this roadway;
At last year's hearing, the Board of Supervisors expressed an
interest in alignment improvements to Route 20 South and Route
240 between Route 810 and Route 635. Staff would recommend that
the Board of Supervisors emphasize the need fOr a systematic
study of these two roadways by VDoT and the production of
recommendations for the necessary improvements prior to next
year's hearing. It is difficult for VDoT to support these
projects without some firm notion as to the level of improve-
ments necessary. Staff believes that the County's presentation
of these requests should focus on the need.~for funds to conduct
the necessary studies."
Mr. Bain said he would attend the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 10a. Appointment: Equalization Board. No name was
offered.
Agenda Item No. 10b. Appointment: Social Services Board. No name
offered.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: April 15, (N), October 14
October 21 (A), 1987.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of October 21 (A), 1987, and found then to
be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve
minutes read. Roll was called and the motion carriediby the following rec~
~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. lla. Minute Correction: February 11, 1986. The fol ow-
ing memo dated April 6, 1988 was received from the Clerk:
"The Highway Department has just informed the Clerk that the attached
resolution requesting acceptance of Brookhill Avenue into the State
Secondary System contains an error in that they had reversed the deed
book references in paragraph 3. The 50 foot right of way should be
referenced by Deed Book 827, page 555, and Deed Book 842, page 233.
The 60 foot right of way should be referenced by!iD,ed Book 345, page
233.
I would prefer to handle this matter as a minute:correction for the
minutes on February 12, 1986, rather than just readopting the resolu-
tion. If this is done, the Clerk may then go back and handwrite the
correct references into the old minutes, thereby~alleviating a possi-
ble source of confusion in the future."
April 6, 1988 (Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
113
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to change the
deeds referenced in the minutes of February 12, 1986 as requested. 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.
(Note: The amended resolution is set out in full below:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, in accordance with Sections 33.1-72.1C1 and D, the
following road in Lakeside and Willow Lake Subdivisions:
Beginning at Station 10+100 of Willow Lake Drive, a point common
with the centerline of Willow Lake Drive and edge of pavement of
the southbound lane of Route 20, thence in a westerly direction
with Willow Lake Drive 232.95 feet to Station 12+32.95, a point
common with the centerline of Brookhill Avenue at Station 10+00,
thence in a northerly direction approximately 1040 feet to
Station 20+40, the end of the cul-de-sac of Brookhill Avenue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the V~rginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guiranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easements fr6m station 10+10 on Willow Lake
Drive to Station 11+50 on Brookhill Avenue (recorded in Deed Book 827,
page 555, and Deed Book 842, page 233)13 and a 60 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easement from Station 11+50 to Station 20+40
on Brookhill Avenue (recorded in Deed Book 345, page 233). In addi-
tion, property owners in Lakeside Subdivision have deposited in an
account in Central Fidelity Bank entitled "Buddy Hiter for Brookhill
Development, Account No. 7500176710," ~5,713.50 toward the cost of
this addition. :
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters NotilListed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public. There were no other matters brought forth.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. With noi further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:~20 p.m.
I -' Chairman