1988-05-11May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
211
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 11, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7, County
OfficeBuilding, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie, Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:09 A.M.),
Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr.
James M. Bowling, IV, Deputy 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
9:10 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.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve 4.1 on the consent agenda and
to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Street Lighting Request Hydraulic Road. The following
memo, dated April 12, 1988, was received from the County Executive:
"Attached is a request from the Central'Telephone Company of Virginia
(Centel) for street lights along Hydraulic Road between Swanson Drive
and Inglewood Drive. The purpose of the lighting is to provide
~security for Centel workers walking along the sidewalk between the
Centel Building and their parking lot.
Installation plans for the eight (8) street lights have been reviewed
and approved by Virginia Power, Virginia Department of Transportation,
and the County Department of Engineering~ Costs of installation
($12,955) will be borne by Centel; electrical service will be
$130/month and paid by the County through the utility tax."
Also attached was the following memo dated April 6, 1988, from Mr.
Thomas B. Trevillian, County Engineer's officE:
"The County Engineering Department has processed a request from
Central Telephone Company of Virginia, to provide street lighting
along Hydraulic Road (State Route 743) from 2211 Hydraulic Road to
2307 Hydraulic Road (between Swanson Drive and Inglewood Drive).
Virginia Power Company provided a layoutlproposal for the project that
has been reviewed and approved by the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation. Ail affected property owners have been contacted by mail,
with no objections voiced as to the proposed street light placements.
Centel expressed concern for the safety df their employees walking
along this sidewalk after dark. PresentIy, there is only one street
light at the rear entrance to Sperry in ~his two block section of
Hydraulic Road.
This proposal involves installing eight (8) lights on new poles with
staggered spacing, using a 23,000 lumen high pressure sodium vapor
street light for each. The lights will be installed at a 30 foot
mounting height, utilizing an enclosed type fixture. Seven of the
2 12
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
poles will be concrete and one will be wood (where a deceleration lane
has to be spanned near the Sperry entrance. The revised proposal
includes underground electrical service.
I recom~nend the Board of Supervisors to approve this request and
authorize the installation of the street lighting. This project is
within our current budget and Centel has submitted a subsequent letter
to us, dated March 30, 1988, agreeing to encumber the total construc-
tion cost for installation. The cost for the proposed lights (eight,
23,000 lumen high pressure sodium vapor street lights) will be $131.13
per month or $1,573.56 per year, based on February 1988 rates. The
total Virginia Power Company cost estimate for installation is
$12,954.44, with their September 28, 1987 layout proposal.
The project will be subject to various property owners granting an
easement to Virginia Power Company for placing new poles and under-
ground electric service on or across their property. Copies of
Centel's letters of request dated February 18, 1986, and April 13,
1987, to the County Engineer, Centel's March 30, 1988, letter to the
Department of Engineering concerning paying for the construction cost,
along with the proposed layout sketch, are attached."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the residents on Hydraulic Road had been noti-
fied of Centel's request for street lights. Mr. Agnor replied yes. The
request was approved by the vote shown above. '
Item 4.2. Letter dated April 22, 1988, from Oscar K~ Mabry, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: Addition of Willow Lake
Drive and Maple View Drive in Willow Lake Phase I, to the Secondary System,
received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated March 23, 1988, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective April 22, 1988. ~
ADDITIONS
WILLOW LAKE - PHASE 1
Route 1135 (Willow Lake Drive) - From Route 20
to Route 1136.
Route 1136 (Maple View Drive) From Route 1135
to Northeast cul-de-sac.
~ENGTH
0.27 Mi.
.0.29 Mi."
Item 4.3. Letter dated April 22, 1988, from Oscar K~ Mabry, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: Addition~of Towne Lane and
Victorian Court in Village Square Phase I, to the Secondary System, was
received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated November 18, ~987, the follow-
ing additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle Cgunty are hereby
approved effective April 22, 1988.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
VILLAGE SQUARE - PHASE 1
Route 1045 (Towne Lane) - From Route 631 to
Route 1046.
0.10 Mi.
Route 1046 (Victorian Court) - From Route 1045
to North cul-de-sac.
0.12 Mi."
Item 4.4. Department of Planning & Community Development's First
Quarter Building Report for 1988 was received as information.
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
213
Mr. Bowie commented that the report indicates that the first quarter of
1988 was the second or third largest in this decade for issuance of building
permits and one-third of those permits were issued for the Rivanna District
in the rural areas.
Item 4.5. A copy of the Planning Cox~ission minutes for April 26,
1988, was received as information.
Item 4.6. County Executive's Third Quarter Financial Report (for the
period of July 1, 1987, to March 31, 1988) was. received as information along
with the following memorandum dated May 6, 1988:
"Attached is the County's third quarter financial report prepared by
the Department of Finance. You will recall that during our budget
work sessions, very few departments projected actual overruns by the
end of the fiscal year. The County Executive's staff has reviewed all
departmental budgets through this third:quarter and determined that
two (2) departments may exceed their current year's appropriation.
The Department of Inspections could exceed its bottom line by approxi-
mately $6,500. This is due to the following: Vehicle repairs from an
accident caused by a hit and run vehicle which was determined to be a
stolen vehicle; an extended illness of an employee necessitating the
hiring of a temporary replacement; and ~he underbudgeting for a new
vehicle purchased at the beginning of the fiscal year.
The Sheriff's Office could exceed its current budget by approximately
$3,000. This can be attributed to: two major engine repairs on
vehicles; underbudgeting for telephone operations; and the purchase of
new uniforms for new officers.
Overall, General Government departments i~ill end the fiscal year with
approximately $250,000 in unexpended appropriations, a variance of 1.5
percent, i
Review of the revenues at the end of the third quarter indicate
approximately $850,000 over the original'budget estimate, a variance
of 1.8 percent and an increase of $150,0D0 over the mid year estimate.
This $850,000 combined with an estimates $250,000 in unexpended
appropriations will provide adequate funds to cover the $960,000
Carry-Over Balance needed for next year's operating budget.
Staff will continue monitoring these departments and, if necessary,
will request from you an additional appropriation to cover any depart-
mental budget overexpenditure at your June meeting."
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes:~ March 18 (A), 1986.
The minutes had not been read, therefore, they were forwarded to
the next meeting. ~
Agenda Item No 6a. Highway Matters: Rio Road Pedestrian Improvements.
The following items of correspondence were received on this agenda item
and summarized by Mr. Home. Memorandum dated May 3, 1988, from the County
Executive; memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Develop-
ment dated April 26, 1988; and letter dated April 18, 1988, from the Resi-
dent Engineer to Mr. Home:
"Attached are recommendations from the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation and our Planning and Community'Development Department
regarding improvements for pedestrians and bikeways along Rio Road
from the shopping centers at Route 29 No~th to the railroad bridge
near VoTec School. Their recommendationS~ are to provide a sidewalk
along the north side of Rio Road only. Due to the lack of right-of-
214
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
way and the close proximity of structures to Rio Road, no sidewalk is
recommended along the south side.
With regard to bikeways, none have been recommended. The last bikeway
plan adopted by the County was on October 3, 1977. Generalized
recommendations for bikeways are recommended in our current Comprehen-
sive Plan. Staff is of the opinion that a bikeway along Rio Road
should be considered which would tie into the planned bikeway along
Meadow Creek Parkway, connecting other neighborhoods and providing
access to Pen Park. Virginia Department of Transportation has been
asked to ascertain whether adequate right-of-way exists to provide an
on-street bikeway. This information should be available from Virginia
Department of Transportation at your May 11 meeting.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the design and construction
of a sidewalk along the north side of Rio Road and depending upon the
information received from the Virginia Department of Transportation on
May 11, consider the provision of a bikeway within this same segment."
"Enclosed you will find a letter from Mr. Roosevelt 'at the Virginia
Department of Transportation which discusses the various options
available to the Board of Supervisors for the installation of pedes-
trian improvements along the newly reconstructed Rio~Road. This
project entails the reconstruction of Rio Road between Rt. 29N and the
railroad bridge near the Votec Center. The facility will be recon-
structed to a five lane facility. I have reviewed the contents of
this letter with Mr. Roosevelt, and the staff of this Department would
concur with his recommendation that the most appropriate method of
providing pedestrian improvements along Rio Road wou~d be option 3 in
his letter. This entails the construction of a concrete sidewalk
along the complete length of the roadway on the north side of the
road. If this option were chosen by the Board of Supervisors the
roadway would be constructed to a curb and gutter seDtion on both
sides of the roadway to its full length with a concrete sidewalk on
the north side. While this option is slightly more 9xpensive than
either an asphalt sidewalk under option 4 or some combination of
asphalt and concrete sidewalks, it is staff's opinio~ that reconstruc-
tion of this roadway should be accomplished one time!iionly and that a
fully finished roadway such as this merits the full {nstallation of a
concrete sidewalk. The Board should note that the r~commended design
will not entail facilities for bicycles. Staff concurs with Mr.
Roosevelt's reasoning, however, in that the County d~es not have an
adopted bicycle plan which is necessary for %rOoT approval of bike
trails. ,~
Mr. Roosevelt is requesting a resolution by the Boar~i of Supervisors
as to their position on this matter. Mr. Roosevelt ~'and I would be
happy to discuss this with the Board of Supervisors ~t their earliest
possible convenience." '~
"Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors' request for a study of
the feasibility of sidewalk along the above captione~~ project.
The Department's Transportation Planning Engineer hag. studied this
request. Although no formal surveys of user traffic iwere made it is
his recommendation that the Department participate ~n~i the construction
of sidewalk and/or bike trails along this project. ~i have attached
(on file) a copy of his response for your informatio ~.
Although a sidewalk and bike trail have been recommended for this
project, I would recommend only a sidewalk be consmde~ed at this time
since the County has no adopted bike trail plan. In ~esponse to the
Board's request for cost estimates for sidewalks, I hlave prepared a
number of options. A list of the various options indilcating Depart-
ment cost, County cost and total cost are attached fo~ your informa-
tion.
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
215
Based upon the Materials Engineer's recommendations and changes in
design specifications, the Department has determined it would be most
cost effective to construct curb and gutter along the south side of
Rio Road. Construction of a rural section along this side of the road
would require additional right of way across numerous residential
properties. The cost of this additional right of way will more than
offset the additional cost for curb and gutter and storm sewer on that
side of the road. Since curb and gutter at this location is the most
cost effective option, the Department, through Secondary Roads Funds,
will bear the entire cost of this improvement. I bring this matter to
your attention because it dramatically effects the cost for a sidewalk
in the options attached.
The options for a sidewalk on the south side of the road include right
of way which would not be necessary if the sidewalk were not con-
structed. The cost for curb and gutter and storm sewer in these
options, however, is not included in line with the paragraph above.
The options for sidewalk on the north side of the road includes curb
and gutter and storm sewer where noted. In those cases, the estimated
cost includes the Department's cost for the curb and gutter and splits
the cost for the storm sewer between the~ Department and the County
based upon Department policy.
I request that you discuss this matter with the Board and advise me by
resolution concerning the Boards' position on this sidewalk. It
appears that if sidewalk is to be constructed along the entire north
side of the project that curb and gutter, will be needed along at least
half the distance. This combined with the curb and gutter along the
south side of the roadway makes curb and gutter along the entire
project a most aesthetically pleasing alternative. I would, there-
fore, suggest that the option of a concrete sidewalk with curb and
gutter and storm sewer along the entire~north side of the roadway be
considered as the County's option if sidewalk is to be constructed~"
Mr. Horne said Mr. Roosevelt's letter does not address the bikeway
issue. It is the staff's understanding that 'there must be an approved
bikeway plan before VDoT will participate in ~ikeway facilities. In
addition there are some design questions due to constricted right-of-way
that would occasion additional costs.
Mr. Horne reviewed the following optionslfor sidewalk cost estimates:
SIDEWALK COST ESTIMATES
OPTION COUNTY VDOT TOTAL
1. Concrete Sidewalk South Side 56,500 191,500 248,000
from Fashion Square to Route 650
2. Asphalt Sidewalk South Side 39,700 174,700 214,400
from Fashion Square to Route 650
3. Concrete Sidewalk - North Side 55,000 129,000 184,000
from Albemarle Square to Route 650
Curb & Gutter Full Length
4. Asphalt Sidewalk - Same as Option #3
~!7,700 111,700 149,900
5. Asphalt Sidewalk North Side 3,750 3,750 7,500
Albemarle Square to Northside Baptist
Church - No Curb & Gutter
6. Asphalt Sidewalk North Side 28,100 65,000 93,100
from Baptist Church to Route 650
with Curb & Gutter
7. Concrete Sidewalk - Same as
Option #6
35,700 72,600 108,300
216
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
8. Asphalt Sidewalk - Combination of 31,850 68,750 100,600
Option #5 and #6
Concrete/Asphalt Combination of
Options $5 & #7
39,450 76,350 115,800
Mr. Home said if the Board chooses one of these options, the project
will be included in the next update of the Capital Improvements Plan.
Mrs. Cooke asked how the Highway Department determines whether or not
to include bikeway facilities in a project. Mr. Roosevelt said based on
discussions with Mr. Home, he has requested the District Engineer to
prepare a follow-up on bikeway facilities; what would be necessary for a
bike trail to be eligible for State funding and to work up cost estimates.
The project was discussed with the Secondary Roads Division insofar as a
sidewalk is concerned and the Secondary Roads Engineer agreed that the
sidewalk would be eligible for State funding.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned because Rio Road is heavily used by
bikers and asked if the study will be based on the present demand and usage
of the road by bikers. Mr. Roosevelt said a study has already been com-
pleted. Mr. Richard Lockwood, the Transportation Planning Engineer, has
already addressed the bike trail and recommended that a ten foot, multi-use,
asphalt hiker/biker trail be provided along the south side of the project.
The recommendation was based on what the Department saw as a need for
service without concern for cost, additional right-of-way-or the affect it
would have on the neighborhood. He thinks the decision, since the funds are
administered by the Secondary Roads Engineer, rests with Secondary Roads as
to whether the bike trail would be eligible for secondary*,roads funds and
future maintenance by the Department.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the bike trail would take the place of the side-
walk, thereby allowing pedestrian and bicycle traffic to use the same
pathway. Mr. Roosevelt said that is.the recommendation of the Transporta-
tion Planning Engineer, but there are several ways of buii~ding the bike
trail. Another option is separating the sidewalk from th~ bike trail with
an additional four feet added to each edge of pavement an~ constructing the
sidewalk behind the curb and gutter which would serve pedestrians or the
option to construct a four foot concrete sidewalk with an!-~ieight foot asphalt
bike trail. Mr. Bain asked if there is sufficient right-~f-way for these
options. Mr. Roosevelt replied no; there is not sufficient right-of-way for
a ten foot trail. Additional right-of-way would have to ~e purchased. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if all of the options will be available wl~en the study is
presented to the Board. Mr. Roosevelt said he will try td give the Board
the same information that was presented to it on the sidewalk.
said i~
Mr. Roosevelt/the Highway Department must first determine whether it
will participate in the cost of a bike trail and its futu~e maintenance.
The next step would be looking at what would be the cheapest facility that
could be built. He recommends, unless the Board wants a hUmber of different
options, that the Board look at only the option of buildiag a bike trail
along the north side of the road, behind the curb and gutter, because
property damage would be minimal on that side.
Mr. Bain asked if the cost of acquisition for additional· right-of-way
for ten feet would be significant. Mr. Roosevelt replied i.~es, but the
Department's policy concerning purchase of right-of-way ha:~ changed. In the
past, additional right-of-way was needed for sidewalks, itilwas the County's
responsibility. The policy now states that it is the State's cost responsi-
bility for additional right-of-way. One reason for the variation in costs
is because the the State's cost for the sidewalk includes ~ight-of-way
actions and the County's cost does not. '~
Mr. Lindstrom said he would personally like to see mo~e information on
a bikeway path. He thinks one is important in this location and he would
like to see information on the two options described by Mri! Roosevelt. Mr.
Bain commented that even though the State would be paying for that addi-
tional right-of-way, those funds would be coming out of th~ County's
allocation. He is interested in looking at this, but is not sure about
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
217
proceeding. Mr. Roosevelt commented that the State must still determine
where it is willing to participate in the cost of the bike trail. If the
State does not participate, then the extra cost must be borne by the
County. Mr. Lindstrom said he still thinks this is important because it is
supposed to tie into the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mrs. Cooke said with the increased use by cyclists, the Board will need
to make some sort of decision as to how to accommodate that type of traffic.
Mr. Bain said he questions how this bicycle traffic will cross five lanes of
roadway traffic. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to hear some information
on that aspect sometime in the future. Mr. Roosevelt suggested deferring
action on the sidewalk until he gets back tolthe Board with the information
on the bike trail. ~
Mr. Way asked what the statement that the County has no adopted bike
trail plan means. Mr. Tucker said the County has a plan that was adopted
several years ago, but when the Comprehensive Plan was readopted in 1982,
the bike plan was not readopted, nor was it repealed. In lieu of that there
was a very brief section in the Comprehensive Plan that gave generalizations
on where a bike trail would be safe, where the bike trails should be located
from a safety aspect and whether there is adequate justification for them
considering existing traffic, etc. A bike plan may be something to look at
more closely in the future. Mr. Way said he has no problem with updating
the overall plan, but he would like to see it include areas other than just
in the urban ring because there are other communities that have these needs.
Mr. Perkins asked if the five-laning of Rio Road will require any
additional right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt replied no. The current
right-of-way has been in the Department's hands for many years and there are
no buildings within that right-of-way. To build the project as advertised,
required an easement across the Northside Baptist Church property which was
dedicated as part of site plan approval. Mr.'!~Perkins asked if a cost
benefit ratio was done to the bikers using th~ road versus the cost of the
construction of a bike path. There are so many projects that need to be
done in the County. Mr. Roosevelt said he may be able to get some figures
from the Transportation Planning Engineer as to what he feels are the
minimums that would justify this biker trail.. He has looked at the develop-
ment in this area and feels there is enough r~sidential and commercial use
to justify it. Mr. Perkins asked about the construction schedule. Mr.
Roosevelt said construction will probably begin in 1989.
Mr. Bowie referenced Mr. Lockwood's letter dated February 5, 1988, and
asked if the County would have any maintenanc~ liability. Mr. Roosevelt
said yes with regard to the sidewalk. If the~bike trail were constructed,
maintenance liability will be determined later.
Mr. Roosevelt said, with regard to the construction schedule, he does
not know yet if another public hearing will b~ required. If so, it normally
takes 60 days from the time it is decided to hold a hearing until the
hearing date. The results of the hearing usually takes a month to get to
the Transportation Board. It normally takes ~ix months to get through the
public hearing process. Once the public hearing is held and the Transporta-
tion Board has approved the location and design, the plans are signed and
additional sheets are added which takes an ad(
the Department can proceed with any additional
project of this length takes a year or so to
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board can proc
project and then decide about the bikeway.
runs the entire length of the project. Mr. LJ
itional three months and then
purchase of right-of-way. A
cquire the right-of-way.
eed with a portion of the
· Roosevelt said the bikeway
ndstrom said the bikeway could
be either added as a separate asphalt pathway~Dr as part of the pedestrian
path. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department is p~esently redoing the curb and
gutter design on the south side. If the Boar~ wants the minimum of a
concrete sidewalk then he can go ahead and ge~ his engineers started on the
concrete curb and gutter on the north side. As far as he is concerned, Mr.
Lindstrom feels that is the minimum and the o~ly unresolved question is
whether or not to include a bikeway. ~
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board should request a public hearing now or
wait until such time as the Highway Department~determines whether or not it
218
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
will participate in the bike trail. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks the Board
should wait until it knows the full plan. There have been no requests so
far for a public hearing. Mr. Bowie said he supports Mr. Lindstrom's idea
that the Department proceed with the minimum project and not hold everything
up because of the bike trail.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested proceeding with Option #3 right away and
studying the bike trail issue separately. If the Board decides to include
the bike trail, that can be added with the understanding that if additional
right-of-way is needed that would be an entirely separate' process and the
bike trail will probably not be in place until 1990. Mr. Roosevelt said if
the Board wants to build the bike trail as a separate project, it will not
get into the project advertisement for next year and there will be need to
purchase additional right-of-way. It would require regrading the same areas
along the north side of the road in 1990 that were graded in 1989 which
would tear the area up twice and cost more to build separately from the
roadway project. Mr. Roosevelt said he feels there are still two to three
months where the Board can discuss the project and it get to construction in
the spring of next year.
Mr. Roosevelt said his understanding is that the Boatd wants the
Department to look at two options for the bike trail, a ~n foot combination
bike trail/sidewalk and a separate sidewalk and bike trafl built behind the
curb line, but both of these to be on the north side of the road. The Board
will not decide on the sidewalk or bike trail until it gees more information
but as a minimum wants to go with Option #3 on the list which is the con-
crete sidewalk and curb and gutter along the north side o~ the roadway.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Roosevelt and then off~red motion to
request the Highway Department to review two options for a bicycle trail:
(1) a ten foot combination bicycle trail sidewalk and (2)~a separate side-
walk and bicycle trail built behind the curb line, both of these to be on
the north side of the road, (3) no decision will be made until the Board
gets that information request, but as a minimum, proceed ~ith Option three
which is the construction of a concrete sidewalk and curb~iand gutter along
the complete length of the roadway on the north side. Mr. Bain seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recoded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~'~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ;
!
Mr. Way asked if anyone was present for Agenda Item Nos. 6b and 6c.
There being no response, he suggested the Board take up Agenda Item No. 6d.
at this time.
Agenda Item No. 6d. 9:30 A.M. - Appeal: The Garden iPatch Preliminary
Site Plan. '~
This matter was appealed to the Board in a letter da~d March 23, 1988,
from Marilynn R. Gale of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc.
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
"Proposal: To locate three buildings totaling 6,760 'square feet. The
two larger buildings will be used as nursery sales area, while the
smaller building will be used as a storage shed. An mrea reserved for
exterior sales is also proposed. The property is located on the east
side of Route 29 North, in~nediately south of the Federal Express
development. Tax Map 45(B)(1), Section C, Parcel 4. Zoned
Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This site is presently undeveioped and par-
tially cleared. The topography of this site is flat.~ The Federal
Express site is located north of this proposal. CarrSbrook subdivi-
sion is located to the east. Undeveloped properties ~oned Highway
Commercial are located to the south.
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) 219
(Page 9)
Staff Comment: This development proposes direct access from the
existing cul-de-sac presently serving the Federal Express development.
In regard to site access, the Virginia Department of Transportation
has stated that:
'There will be only a 10' radius for vehicles to 'U-turn' from
the turn lane on Route 29 onto the service road for this site.
This radius width would be difficult for a car to negotiate and
larger vehicles could not make this turn. The existing entrance
that serves the Federal Express site is a temporary entrance that
is to be closed at some future date. The Department recommends
that the existing entrance on Route 29 for Federal Express be
closed at this time because of the development of this site plan
and that the service road be extended to the south to provide
access. Either the interim connection shown on the approved
service road concept should be constructed or the service road
extended further to the sourth to tie into the Brady-Bushey site
plan so that access would be at the permanent location, the
Hilton crossover .... '
Staff concurs with the Virginia Department of Transportation and is of
the opinion that access as proposed does not provide safe and conve-
nient access to this site. Under Section 32.2.7 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance (Safe and Convenient Access; Circulation; Pedestrian Ways; and
Parking and Loading), it is explicitly ~tated that:
'Each development shall be provided with safe and convenient
ingress from and egress to one or ~ore public roads designed to:
prevent congestion in the public s~reets; minimize conflict and
friction with vehicular traffic on i~he public street and on-site;
minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous
and unobstructed access for emergency purposes such as police,
fire and rescue vehicles.'
Staff has suggested that the applicant r!each an agreement with an
adjacent property owner to locate an entrance in a more acceptable
location on the cul-de-sac.
Staff is of the opinion that this site plan does not meet the require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommends denial of this proposal."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 23,
1988, unanimously recommended denial of this site plan.
Mr. Horne said the primary problem that the staff and VDoT have with
the proposal is the U-turning maneuver. The U-turn is a very severe maneu-
ver and can probably be accomplished if done absolutely correct in a passen-
ger vehicle. The combination of multiple use!traffic, relatively high
traffic volumes and sever U-turning movement are the factors that relate to
the staff's and Planning Commission's recommehdation.
Mr. Bowie commented that the U-turn appears to be at the narrowest part
of the separation and asked if there is a way!to widen it. Mr. Horne said
if that is done it would cut into the existing Federal Express site. These
are very constricted sites to begin with and ~oing that would constrict them
further.
Next to appeal was Mrs. Marilynn Gale of ~Roudabush, Gale & Assoc.,
representing Mr. Jim Darnell. She said Mr. Darnell first approached the
Highway Department to find out what problems ~e may have with access to the
site. The Highway Department presented him w~th a copy of a drawing,
similar to one of those presented to the Board today, showing the proposed
service road and told him that since a service road was proposed he would
not be required to, and the Department would prefer that he not, build a
turn and taper. The Department would prefer that he use the existing
entrance to Federal Express. At site review, Mr. Darnell was informed by
220
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
the Highway Department that it felt the turning radius into the site was too
tight and that the Department would recommend not approving that sort of
entrance. Mrs. Gale said there is really no other alternative. The only
other possibility is to build a turn and taper directly off Route 29 to the
site. That does not seem to be a good idea to Mr. Darnell, or to public
safety from the Highway Department's point of view. Although this is a
rather congested area, the County has approved an additional site plan on
the adjacent property so there is expanded traffic in the area. Her client
has attempted to negotiate with Mr. Wood, owner of the Federal Express
property, to get access across his property to keep the tUrning radius from
being so sharp, but that has been to no avail. As it is now Mr. Darnell's
land is virtually worthless if he cannot get access. Mr. Darnell purchased
48,000 sq. ft. and at the request of the Highway Department dedicated 3,445
sq. ft. for this proposed service road. He is willing to build his portion
of the service road. He has tried to be cooperative and just wants access
to his property.
Mr. Jim Darnell, the owner of the property, next addressed the Board.
Mr. Darnell said he owns a garden center in Orange County~and would like to
establish one in Charlottesville. He purchased this land'in March. He
agrees with Mr. Horne that the turn is sharp, but that it is workable. When
the service road is installed, there will be an additional six feet avail-
able which will make the turn wider. He feels that something could be
worked out on a temporary basis such as installing "slow down" signage.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if tractor trailers would be making deliveries.
Mr. Darnell said yes, but it would be easy with the cul-de-sac to back in
and jack knife. He thinks this would be only for a 12 to~18 month period
because the service road should be constructed during tha~ time. Mrs. Cooke
asked if this is the only site he is considering on Routers:29 North. Mr.
Darnell responded yes, he owns this property. ~
Mr-. Bowie asked Mrs. Gale about her statement that t~e Highway Depart-
ment said the turn could be made. Mrs. Gale said the applicant received a
plan for the service road and was told that the only access to the property
would be through the Federal Express cul-de-sac. Mrs. GaLe said, in addi-
tion, the plat the applicant was using indicated the right-of-way to not be
parallel to the cul-de-sac, but as an irregular polygon. ~Had that been the
actual right-of-way, the applicant could have done something about widening
the radius for a temporary access. It was later indicate~ that Mr. Wood had
only dedicated five feet beyond the parallel to the cul-dq-sac.
Mr. Bain said he read the Planning Commission minute~ and in them it is
stated that the applicant knew of the staff's position about the access
before the decision to subdivide the property was made, a~d he asked if that
was correct. Mrs. Gale said the access was considered before actual site
review. Mr. Home said the staff informed the applicant ~here was an access
problem and that allowing him to subdivide the property d~d not mean site
plan approval. As it was, the staff was reluctant to sig~ the plat, but
there was no basis for'not doing so. At the time of the ~riginal discus-
sions with VDoT, there was not a site plan developed so t~ere was no way for
anyone to decide how to make a turning radius to get into ~ particular site.
Access can be obtained off Route 29 into that cul-de-sac t~ut the question
and concern is whether someone can get off from the cul-de-sac into a
particular site. Mrs. Gale said there is no other access ~o the property at
this time unless the applicant builds a separate turn and ~aper lane off
Route 29. ~
Mr. Bowie said there was mention in the applicant's ~iscussion that
another six feet could be added. Mr. Home said yes, but ~e is still of the
opinion that with the additional footage it would still b~ an extremely
tight turn. Mr. Lindstrom asked if staff had measured to ~ee what kind of
turning radius there would be. Mr. Home said the staff m~asured it with
templates on the site plan which indicated it could be don~ physically if
the person knows precisely what he is doing. Also that wohld shift the edge
of the new proposed service road back. Mrs. Cooke asked i;f this road had
been built correctly to begin with if there would still be. this problem with
the site. Mr. Home replied yes. The staff and Planning ~ommission's
position is based on a combination of increased traffic an~ having an
unorthodox access to commercial sites off of Route 29 North.
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
221
Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department agreed with the County
several years ago when it adopted the concept for Route 29 North that as
these properties developed toward the River there could be a temporary
connection in the middle of the properties if the end property was developed
there could be a temporary connection at the end. It turned out that the
end property developed first and there was a temporary connection at the
end. Only one temporary connection was anticipated in the middle. The
connection could be put in adjacent to the Garden Spot property, but if it
is there it will require a 200 foot turn and taper lane and the existing
entrance must be closed. Mr. Bain commented that the applicant would then
have to build his section of the service road into Federal Express and
everyone would exit at that one place. Mr. Roosevelt said this service road
is in the County's plan at the Highway Department's urging. Route 29 is not
a limited access highway. The Department has no authority to deny access to
that road if the County waives or backs off from this adopted plan. Every
one of those properties could have direct access onto Route 29. The Depart-
ment is urging that this short section of limited access ~-'~-be created and
all properties be required to come out on a service road a~d then to the
crossover. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board allows this property owner to
access in the manner referred by Mr. Roosevelt, then it will be setting a
precedent and would not have any basis on which to deny other property
owners. Then, no one will want to build the Service road. Mr~ Bowie said he
is not sure if it would set a precedent because when the next two sections
are built, northernmost entrance could be cldsed. Mr. Horne said it is the
turning movement that is the problem, not acdess. He does not feel that
access from Route 29 for a temporary proposition will prejudice the County's
ability to get the proposed service road.
Mr. Perkins asked how the service road ~ill be paid for. Mr. Horne
said the developers pay the entire cost. Th~. developers build what is on
their frontage and then it becomes a state maintained road.
Mr. Roosevelt said the purpose of the cqncept adopted by the Board was
to reduce the number of access points to RouCe 29. Again, he has no problem
with a temporary entrance feeding directly i~to the Garden Spot provided the
temporary entrance at the cul-de-sac is closed. He then has no problem with
the next developer coming in and building anq~her temporary entrance with
the necessary turn and taper lane and closingl this temporary entrance at the
Garden Spot. As long as there is just one entrance to serve the properties,
he has no problem. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that can be mandated. Mr.
Roosevelt responded no. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem as long as he
can be assured that all temporary entrances will be closed and the service
road built. Mr. Bain said the Board does not!~know how long it will take to
build the service road. He agrees with Mr. R~osevelt that if the applicant
should build a turn and taper to serve his property it needs to be done now
or there will be two entrances in close proximity onto Route 29 North. Mr.
Home said he does not think there will be multiple entrances because there
is a fairly limited number of properties. There could be one more request.
He again stated that is not the basis for the~staff's recommendation. The
basis is that the turning movement is not safe, but if the Board does decide
to approve this site plan there are recommended conditions of approval.
Also, if the Board should determine that the ~urnlng movement is safe and
convenient, it is his opinion that the rest o~ the service road should be
built now and not have that movement and congestion.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept t~e Planning Commission's
recommendation, in the absence of the Board t~king any other action. ~e
then withdrew his motion and suggested that the action of the Planning
Commission stand. He does not think it would~be a good idea for traffic to
stop and back up to get around a turn. Mr. Bowie said his only problem
with the site plan is the safety aspect. Mrs. Cooke seconded Mr. Bowie's
and Mr. Lindstrom's sentiments. She is familiar with the area and knows
that by the time traffic gets to that area it ihas accelerated tremendously.
It is a public safety issue and as the area is developed more commercially,
the Board should be sensitive to that.
Hearing no motion,, the Chair ruled that ~he action of the Planning
Commission stands.
222
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 7. Certificates of Appreciation.
Mr. Way presented to Mr. Richard Cogan a Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Cogan had been a member of the Planning Commission for seven years. Mr.
Cogan has devoted his time and energies to almost 700 meetings with the
Planning Commission. He represented the White Hall District, served as
Chairman and was instrumental in many of the major decisions concerning the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This certificate is for Mr.
Cogan's diligence and for the many good things he has done for Albemarle
County. Mr. Cogan thanked the Board and said that he has really enjoyed
living in Albemarle County. He has appreciated all the time and effort the
Board has put into the County's benefit and welfare and the protection of
the integrity of the County.
Not Docketed. The Chairman calle~ a recess at 10:54 A.M. The Board
reconvened at 11:05 A.M., with Mr. Bain absent.
Mr. Way welcomed students from Western Albemarle High School present
for Youth-In-Government Day. The student's instructor Mr~ Bob Hol~ and
Mr. Mark Crockett, a faculty member, was also present. He introduced the
following students: Timothy Veliky, Ian Vess, Scott Gibson, Andreas
Lindhall, John Martini and Scott Carter.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: VDoT Revenue ~haring Program.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 11:07 A.M.). M~. Horne presented
the following memorandum dated May 4, 1988, from the County Executive:
"Listed below is staff's prioritized recommendation ~or roadway im-
provements utilizing the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue
Sharing Program for FY 88-89. We had earlier proposed to participate
in the amount of $500,000 with the State in this pro§ram who in turn
would match that amount for a funding maximum of $1,600,000. The
priority list and description is as follows:
1. Peyton Drive Peyton Drive acts as a connectio~ between two high
volume collector roadways in a densely populate~ section of the
County's urban area. The roadway connects Rout~ 866 (5711 ADT)
with St. Route 1315. Route 1315 was recently b~ought into the
system and does not have an official traffic co~t, but provides
access to several hundred multi-family housing ~u~its along with a
nursing home facility and retail commercial development. Addi-
tional units have also been approved at the intersection of Route
1315 and Peyton Drive. VDoT recently conducted.~a special traffic
count on Peyton Drive which showed an ADT of over 3,000 vehicles.
Peyton Drive was originally built as a publicly ~dedicated access
(although never accepted into the state system) ~ito multi-family
housing devel'opments with its public road connection being at
Route 866 on the north. Subsequently, Route 13~iB was built which
connected to Peyton Drive on the south. Since that time the
roadway has provided the connection between thes~ two heavily
used roadways. The roadway is now rapidly deter~iorating and must
be repaired constantly. This project would reco..hstruct the
roadway to VDoT standards. The road is now usedi, as an access by
a great number of residents of the area, for school buses, the
mass transit urban bus system operated by the Charlottesville
Transit System, and an alternate industrial access. If this
roadway is not maintained as a connection, the a~ternate routes
to be used would be Route 29 or Route 743 which are very heavily
travelled roadways at this time. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST -
$210,000.
2. Route 810 This project would involve the reconstruction of a
portion of Route 810 near the existing and proposed Crozet
Elementary Schools. The reconstruction would improve sight
distance for existing vehicles and sight distanc~ in conjunction
with the entrance to the new school. Also installed would be
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
223
right and left hand turn lanes as required by VDoT. TOTAL
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST - $90,000.
3. Berkmar Drive Extended (800 foot extension north of Rt. 631)
This project would be a connection from Rio Road (Route 631) to a
new public roadway which is being built to VDoT standards by a
major commercial development north of Rio Road. It would be a
portion of a major collector roadway that would connect Rio Road
to Hilton Drive. The projected ADT on this section of Berkmar
Drive would be between 7,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day. Immedi-
ate usage would be as connector between Route 29 at Woodbrook
(Route 1417) and Route 631, and as access to multiple major
commercial developments under construction at this time. The
route would provide a major alternate facility to Route 29 for
access to these properties. It would be part of Albemarle
County's continuing effort to provide for a full network of local
roadways in the Route 29 N Corridor and would reinforce its
efforts to limit direct access points on Route 29. This roadway
has been adopted as a proposed road alignment in the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan. Major portions of this roadway are to
be built by private developers. This particular section would
complete the connection between RoUte 631 to Route 29 at
Woodbrook Drive and provide access to commercial and residential
facilities without the need to use Route 29 N. Site designs for
many of the commercial and residential facilities in this area
are to be oriented to this roadway in order to preserve the
traffic function of Route 29 N as much as possible and minimize
the need for improvements on Route 29 N. TOTAL ESTIMATED PRO3ECT
COST -$300,000.
Route 708/Route 631 Intersection -.This project involves recon-
struction of the intersection of these two roadways along with
approaches from various directions in order to improve sight
distance for vehicles entering the[intersection. The intersec-
tion will be more heavily utilized with the development of a
proposed Southern Regional Park and sight distance should be
greatly improved with this project. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
- $100,000. =
Barracks Road (Route 654) - This p~bject would extend the current
design of this roadway from the Route 250/29 Bypass through its
intersection with Georgetown Road ~Route 656). A portion of the
roadway is now a combination of three and four lanes depending on
turning lanes and would be reconst=ucted to the full four lane
divided facility with adequate tur~ing lanes. TOTAL ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST - $300,000.
Park Road Extension This project ~ould provide a direct connec-
tion between Park Road (Route 1204)<.to Route '240 in the Crozet
area. It would provide a more direct .route to new development
areas and a community park in the Czozet area from Route 240.
The current route is over a series Of narrow residential streets
which are inadequate to service thiM traffic and which will need
to be significantly upgraded if alternate access is not provided.
Improvements to those streets would, require right-of-way acquisi-
tion from developed, small lot residential properties. This
roadway is shown in the ComprehensiVe Plan. TOTAL ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST - $150,000. ~
Route 729/Route 250 Intersection This project which has yet to
be fully designed would involve the~reconstruction and channeli-
zation of turning movement traffic at this intersection. The
current intersection consists of a Wide expanse of undesignated
pavement which causes confusion with various turning movements
through the intersection. This project may involve the use of
funds from the primary system and, Sherefore, coordination of
secondary and primary funding will ~e crucial. TOTAL ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST - $200,000. i
224
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
8. Greenbrier Drive Extension - This would connect the existing
portions of Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) to Route 743. Route 866
currently has an ADT of 5,711 and Route 743 has over 15,000 ADT.
This roadway would provide a direct link to the Route 29 N area
from the northwest portion of the County and relieve the increas-
ing Congestion of Route 743 and Route 1455 which currently acts
as the connection between Greenbrier Drive and iRoute 743. With-
out this connection, Route 866, 743 and 1455 may require more
improvements than would otherwise be required. The connection
will also prolong the life of these other faciiities. The great
majority of the right-of-way for the roadway has either been
dedicated by private developers or is across County owned land.
This roadway would provide a significant addition to a more effi-
cient network in the most heavily populated section of Albemarle
County. East of Route 29, in the Branchlands area, the County is
now requiring a major connecting roadway between Greenbrier Drive
and Rio Road (Route 631). This requested projeCt, when combined
with the Branchlands roadway, would provide a major alternate
route for Route 29 N through this portion of the urban area. The
roadway has also been adopted as a needed roadway improvement in
the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study and the County
Comprehensive Plan. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST - $600,000.
The above priority list will utilize the $1,000,000 ifunding maximum
with projects 1-5. The additional projects (6-8) ha. ye been proposed
in the event that some projects may not be eligible 16r may not be able
to be funded in FY 88-89 (this program is based on a~ annual alloca-
tion, and funds must be expended within the fiscal Y~ar they are
awarded).
Staff recommends your approval of the above plan forliiexpenditure in
order that we meet Virginia Department of Transporta~ion's deadline
for submittal of May 15, 1988."
Mr. Roosevelt said Revenue Sharing Funds have to be ~pent during the
year in which they are allocated and have to be designated to specific
projects. The cost estimate for the project would have t~ be agreed upon.
The purpose of Revenue Sharing is to expand the amount ofimoney that is
available for secondary road improvements. Mr. Lindstrom asked if funds
could be shifted from one project to another, if the projgct goes over
budget. Mr. Roosevelt said although there is some flexibility to transfer
funds, it would depend on how far the project isinto plan~ing and how much
money had been committed to the other project. The Department will not
agree to use Revenue Sharing Funds on any projects that w~uld not be eligi-
ble for regular secondary funding. The only question tha~ still has to be
answered is whether Peyton Drive, Berkmar Drive, Park Road and Greenbrier
Drive eligible. He has already forwarded a request to ma~e that determina-
tion. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not think the problem i~ getting the
funds, but being able to spend the money on any of these ~ight projects in
the coming fiscal year. Nothing has been done on any of ~e projects. Mr.
Lindstrom asked how long the program lasts. Mr. Roosevel~ responded that it
comes through every year.
Mr. Lindstrom said Route 810 is predicated upon the donstruction of a
new Crozet Elementary School. He asked about that prOject. Mr. I{orne said
construction of the new Crozet School is proposed to begi~i in 1988-89. The
Planning Commission has no recommendation on the Crozet S6~ool and the Route
810 project because of possible policy actions by the Sch~%l Board that
would cause some change in their rationale. There is particular concern
that the school is not being built to house a larger capacity. Mr. Home
said he personally thinks that the level of improvements on Route 810 will
not change if a school is built at that site. Mr. Lindstrom said his
concern is that the Board has not seen the CIP and what iti shows for the
school so he does not want to commit to the project yet. If the school is
not going to be built, then he sees no reason to obligate funds. He thinks
that should be stated specifically with the project.
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the
recommended list (1-8) of roadway improvements utilizing the VDoT Revenue
Sharing Program for FY 88-89 as outlined in Mr. Agnor's memo dated May 4,
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
225
1988. This list is to be sent to the State with the express understanding
that regarding Item Number 2, Improvements to Route 810 in Crozet, the Board
reserves the right to determine whether that route stays in the program
after a decision of the Crozet Elementary School. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion Carried by the following record-
ed vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins commented that he thinks Route 810 needs repairs whether or
not a new school is built.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Bennington Road Street Vacation.
Mr. Horne presented the following memorandum dated May 5, 1988:
"Enclosed you will find a letter dated February 10, 1988 from Mr.
David J. O'Brien requesting vacation of certain easements that were
reserved and/or dedicated during the development of the Bennington
Woods and Hessian Hills Subdivisions. The letter from Mr. O'Brien
references the vacation of a temporary easement on Lot 11 of Hessian
Hills. In fact, based on further discussions with Mr. O'Brien and the
County Attorney it has been determined ~at the temporary easements
that were reserved for street use have ~lready automatically reverted
to the lot owners. There is, however, ~ small portion of dedicated
street right-of-way which is shown on the attached maps which is no
longer necessary and should be vacated and returned to Lot 11 in
Hessian Hills.
Attached you will find a letter from Mr.~ O'Brien, a portion of the
plats for Bennington Woods and Hessian Hills which show the area to be
vacated, and a written description developed by the Department of
Engineering for the area in question. T~is appears to be a purely
"housekeeping" matter and, therefore, ma~ be appropriate for a consent
agenda approval by the Board of Supervisbrs. When I am informed by
the Clerk as to the scheduling of this m~tter, I will notify Mr.
O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is quite anxious t~ have this matter resolved."
Mrs. Cooke said this property lies in hec district and she has no
problem with setting a public hearing. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set a public hearing on this request for June 8,
1988. Roll was called and the motion was carCied by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8.
division.
Request to Name Privgte Road in Clearview Sub-
Mr. Agnor said a letter dated April 19, 1988 was received from Mrs.
Lorraine Quillon, with attached petitions signed by most of the current
residents in Clearview Subdivision, asking that the road be named Clearview
Lane. The staff has examined the use of this name and found that it is
being used elsewhere in the County. He recommends that the Planning staff
contact Mrs. Quillon to discuss alternative n~mes and then bring that back
to the Board for public hearing. Mr. Quillon,i who was present, said he has
no problem with that recox~endation. He feel~ that the name of the road is
immaterial and that it should be named purely for safety reasons.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to request
staff to contact Lorraine Quillon to find an a,lternative name. Mr. Agnor
said that the name is important to only the residents and that the Clerk
proceed with advertisement for a public hearing. Roll was called and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
226
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Collector Road in Southern Urban Area.
Mr. Home summarized the following memorandums: Memorandum dated
April 26, 1988 from Mr. John T. P. Horne, from the County Executive
addressed to the Board; Memorandum dated April 18, 1988 from Mr. John T. P.
Horne, addressed to the County Executive; and Memorandum dated March 24,
1988, addressed to the Planning Commission, respectively:
"Attached is a staff report and Planning Cox~ission recommendation
concerning a collector road in the southern urban area. Based upon a
consultant analysis examining alternative alignments between Avon
Street and Route 20 South, the Planning Commission is recommending the
A-2 alignment (see attachments - map of all alternatives to be pre-
sented at meeting). A connector road between Avon Street and Fifth
Street is not being recommended at this time by the!~Planning Commis-
sion due to construction costs and the uncertainty of its long range
need. ~
Staff will be recommending funding within the upcoming Capital Im-
provement Program for surveying, and where necessar~ the acquisition
and construction of the A-2 alignment connecting Avon Street and
Route 20 South."
"Enclosed is a staff report that was presented to the Planning Commis-
sion on April 12, 1988. The report discussed two potential collector
roadways to serve east-west traffic movement between~Avon Street and
Route 20, and Avon Street and Fifth Street Extended.~~ Both of these
roadways are shown conceptually in the Comprehensive Plan. At their
meeting on April 12 the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the
proposed alignment for the Southern Collector Road between Avon Street
and Route 20 along the recon~aended Alignment A-2. T~he Commission also
recommends that the Board of Supervisors begin actioms in the near
future to secure the necessary right-of-way for the ~onstruction of
this roadway and to evaluate the need to construct the roadway in the
near future. The Commission was unable to arrive atli~a consensus as to
the status of the Biscuit Run Connector between Avon,?and Fifth Street.
The Commission generally agreed with the staff repor~ that the Biscuit
Run Connector was not justified for construction at ~his time, but
could not reach a consensus on whether or not to leave the route in
the Comprehensive Plan. The major point of uncertainty concerning
this roadway dealt with the long term need for the rVadway.
The staff will be including the Southern Collector R~ad costs in the
upcoming Capital Improvements Program recommendation lto the Board of
Supervisors. The staff would not propose to includei~the Biscuit Run
Connector in the CIP at this time, pending Board of Supervisors action
on that roadway. The staff would like to emphasize ~he need to
proceed at least with the acquisition and coordinatiVn of right-of-way
location for the connection between Avon and Route 20 in the near
future. Properties along that roadway will begin to '!submit develop-
ment plans in the near future, and therefore, it wil~ be important for
the County to respond in a timely manner should we wish to preserve
the necessary right-of-way and receive some develope~ contribution
towards the construction of the roadway." ~i
"Enclosed you will find two consultant reports with n~aps that discuss
the two most viable alternatives to providing east-w~St connector
roadways in the Southern Urban Area of the County. The purpose of
these roadways would be to alleviate future congestio? along Avon
Street in both the City and County when this area de~lops both
residentially and industrially. Both roadways, the cbnnection
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
227
eastward from Avon and the connection westward from Avon, are shown as
conceptual alignments in the Comprehensive Plan. Neither roadway,
however, appears to be eligible for State secondary funding. The
purpose of the enclosed consultant's studies was to find actual
feasible alignments for consideration by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors. To summarize the results of the studies, the
staff has prepared the following chart of the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each proposed roadway:
BISCUIT RUN CONNECTOR (Avon Street to Fifth Street)
ADVANTAGES:
There has already been developer contribution of much of the
necessaryright-of-way and some of the road construction
within the Mill Creek Development. The section of roadway
subject to the consultant report, however, is not subject to
any developer or other outside contribution.
This road would provide a direct outlet for the existing
industrial zoning in the Mill Creek area.
This roadway would provide direct access to and from the
proposed commercial area within Mill Creek from the Fifth
Street area.
This roadway would provide direct access to Fifth Street
Extended which would provide good access into the central
city.
DISADVANTAGES:
Due to the construction cost ~f a bridge over 'Biscuit Run
this is a very high cost project.
2. Extension of the roadway throuEh the Oak Hill neighborhood
would have significant impactsl on existing dwellings from
both noise and visual impact.
SOUTHERN COLLECTOR ROAD (Avon Street to ~Rt. 20 South)
ADVANTAGES:
1. Much lower construction cost.
2. There would be little effect on existing neighborhoods.
3. The road would provide a possible access to one possible
site for the replacement Rose Hill Elementary School.
DISADVANTAGES:
There would be little developer contribution toward con-
struction of this roadway along the recommended alignment
(A-2).
2. This roadway would provide less direct access for the
industrial areas near Mill Cre~k, the Mill Creek commercial
area, and to/from the Fifth StCeet area.
The staff would recommend that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors endorse the construction of ~he Southern Collector Road
from Avon Street to Route 20 along the recommended alignment A-2. The
construction costs of this roadway are m~ch more manageable and would
provide most of the same immediate benefits of the Biscuit Run Collec-
tor. The developer of the Hillcrest property is actively in the
process of designing a development for t~at property and the County
must be in a position to react effectively to his proposed design in
order to ensure coordination of road alignments. The Board should
consider whether they wish to conduct a ~esign and location public
hearing similar to that held by Virginia~Department of Transportation
for this road extension. A general alignment for this roadway is
228
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
already contained in the Comprehensive Plan and public hearings were
conducted for the adoption of that plan. Should the Board decide to
conduct a public hearing, I would Suggest that thathearing be sched-
uled as soon as possible. After that public hearing and pending the
Board's decision to move ahead with the project, the staff would
recommend the commencement of detailed design and surveys and movement
towards right-of-way acquisition soon thereafter.
Another decision that needs to be made by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors is the status of the Biscuit Run Connector in the
Comprehensive Plan. The potential for this road to act as a through
roadway has caused the need for the developer to dedicate additional
right-of-way and to coordinate road designs for the two lane portion
of the roadway that is needed to be built by the developer of Mill
Creek. This has caused some delay and expense to that developer. The
current agreement between the developer of Mill Creek and the County
states that if the County removes the alignment from the Comprehensive
Plan, the obligations incurred by the developer as they relate to the
construction of the roadway, become null and void. The staff is of
the opinion that the cost of construction and the potential for
disruption to the Oak Hill area does not currently merit immediate
actions towards construction of this roadway. As t~is Southern Urban
Area develops in the future, however, there will be iConsiderable
strain on the roadway system in the area. If the c~nnection between
Avon Street and Route 20 were built it would significantly contribute
towards an immediate solution to these problems, but the staff cannot
assure the Commission and Board that there will not !be a long range
need for a connection between the Avon Street area and the Fifth
Street area in the future. Analysis of this need ca~ be accomplished
through the regional traffic model to be developed in the next six to
twelve months. Staff would place a high priority one, this analysis for
model application. However, if the Board has no intention of ever
building the Biscuit Run Connector along the propose~ alignment, it
would only be fair to all persons involved to remove!it from the
Comprehensive Plan. Other connection possibilities .in this Southern
Urban Area are very limited and would need to be further studied by
the staff.
As the Commission and Board is aware, the installation of an inter-
change at Avon Street and 1-64 could significantly assist in shifting
much of the industrial traffic generated in this area directly to the
interstate. This would significantly alter the need and desi§n for
roadways such as discussed in this report. The staf~ would support
continued efforts by the Board of Supervisors to convince VDOT that
installation of such an interchange would be appropriate.
The Board of Supervisors has requested that the Commilssion provide
recommendations on this matter. If you have any que~tions, please do
not hesitate to contact me."
Mr. Home said the Biscuit Run Collector is estimate~ to cost be
between $3.6 and $4.9 million, with a large portion of that being the cost
of construction of the bridge across Biscuit Run. The co~t estimates for
the bridge construction were obtained from VDoT based on Ciheir experience
with similar types of bridges. Mr. Way asked if the cost ~includes acquisi-
tion of property. Mr. Home replied yes. Also, the only !structures that
could potentially be displaced would be one or both of thai residential
structures near Fifth Street.
Mr. Horne said the Southern Collector Road is estimated to cost between
$1. and $1.4 million. A major uncertainty is the cost of l~improvements on
Avon Street and Route 20 with turn lanes. The estimate do,es include land
acquisition. One advantage to right-of-way acquisition is that the proper-
ties are relatively undeveloped or low developed at present and the zoning
on the properties is almost uniformly R-1 residential.
Mr. Home said the Southern Collector Road would have!~a minor adverse
effect on existing residential neighborhoods. The closest home is approxi-
mately 400 feet from the edge of right-of-way and the other houses rapidly
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
229
move farther away from the roadway. The road could provide possible access
to a site being evaluated for the Rose Hill replacement school. Mr. Way
commented that the school is supposed to be completed within two years.
Mr. Lindstrom said Biscuit Run is superior in terms of serving land
use. He understands the reason for the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tion, but wonders if the County is building a residential collector for
residential development. The real needs are on the other side of Avon
Street. Mr. Home said in his opinion there are real needs are on both
sides of the road. Independent of access to that industrial area, it is
important that there be a connection for the residential uses off the Avon
corridor to either Route 20 or Fifth Street. There is zoning in the area
and actual development plans. If Hillcrest and Mill Creek proceed as
proposed, that would be more than 1,000 additional units built in the area
which he feels is a significant need to be served. If need be, the indus-
trial area can be served by a signalized intersection at the Mill Creek Road
exit. In addition, Avon Street is going to be very congested in the long
run. Mr. Perkins said there needs to be access to 1-64 from Avon Street and
asked why it has not been requested.
Mr. Perkins asked why there needs to be a 550 foot bridge to cross
Biscuit Run. Mr. Home said that is the minimum acceptable bridge to put a
public roadway across the area. The flood plain for Biscuit Run is extreme-
ly broad. The County's Engineering Department and the Highway's Engineering
Department position was that the impediment to the flood plain from filling
in that area would be severe that it require~ a bridge construction.
Mr. Home said the Commission is asking ]the Board to choose an align-
ment. There is a need to act quickly becaus~ of impending development
proposals in the area. More information on ~he viability of Biscuit Run
will be known when the traffic model is in p~ace which should be in the next
six to twelve months. The Commission believes that the Southern Collector
is the alignment that should chosen. If the !Board should decide that it
prefers Biscuit Run, then the impact on the ~ak Hill neighborhood should be
considered. Also if the Board should determine that it does not intend to
build Biscuit Run, then it should be taken o~t of the Comprehensive Plan.
That alignment is continuously causing complications for the developer of
Mill Creek in terms of his road design and h~s generated considerable
interest from residents of Oak Hill Subdivision.
Mr. Bowie asked about acces to Hillcrestl if the Southern Collector Road
is not built. Mr. Horne said the developer would have to build some kind of
internal connection out to Avon Street.
Mr. Horne said another factor that is important to resolve soon is the
impact this may have on the Highway Department's Fifth Street Extended
project which allows for two four-lane divided roadways to merge, therefore,
the connection is important. Mr. Perkins asked the reason for not having
two-lane roads. Mr. Home said based on traffic projections VDoT said it
would require a four-lane divided highway. In addition, the Department
requires the road to be designed and built tO its ultimate capacity in order
to accept into the system. This will not displace the need to upgrade Avon
Street in the future. Mr. Bowie asked why the right-of-way to build two
lanes now, could not be obtained, adding the other two when needed. Mr.
Horne said, based on projected traffic volume~, it is his understanding that
if the roadway is to be accepted into the SecOndary System, the Department
will not accept a two lane roadway. Mr. Roosevelt said the traffic will
require a four-lane roadway. The Department has already made an agreement
to accept part of the road as a two-lane roadway for an ultimate four-lane
right-of-way. The other two lanes are to be ~onstructed at some time in the
future at the expense of someone other than the Department. As soon as the
traffic warrants four lanes, the road must be built to four lanes.
Mr. Perkins asked the reason the Highway!Department will not support an
interchange at 1-64. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department views 1-64 as a
through roadway and the Department is opposed~toanything that would tend to
reduce the carrying capacity of that roadway.I An interchange cannot be
built at that location unless it is approved bythe federal government. The
federal government will not even consider it Unless the Department requests
it and the Department has indicated that it w~ll not make the request. An
230
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
interchange could be physically built but it is too close to the other
interchanges, so the Department feels it would result in congestion on 1-64.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that is the Department's policy, but
policies are waived under certain circumstances. Mr. Perkins commented that
he does not think it would cause any traffic restrictions on 1-64.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Biscuit Run Collector is clearly a superior
traffic transportation system. It serves an area that has a more intensive
need and it does it more directly. Mr. Bowie said he personally thinks the
Board should commit to the Southern Collector Road and let Biscuit Run
remain in the Comprehensive Plan. He also agrees that Biscuit Run is the
more important road. Mr. Horne said the Commission, in its discussions, did
not see as much difference in the traffic service provided between the two
alignments. The Commission feels that the Southern Colleator is an impor-
tant roadway for all of the other things that are developing out independent
of the industrial. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board wantsl to proceed, he
feels the Board should authorize the staff to put funding in the CIP for
surveying and acquisition of right-of-way for the Southern Collector. Mr.
Horne said the Board needs to make a commitment as opposed to having these
uncertain alignments.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motidns, seconded by Mr. ~Bain, to authorize
staff to take the necessary steps outlined in Mr. Agnor's memo dated
April 26, 1988 with respect to including funding in the Capital Improvements
Program for surveying and acquisition of right-of-way for.:construction of
the A-2 alignment connecting Avon Street and Route 20 Sou~h and shown on
detailed engineering sketch presented at the Board meetin~ on May 11, 1988.
He also suggested that the route for the Biscuit Run Connector remain in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that this action ii needed because of
impending development and agrees with the staff that ther~ is a need to
preserve the route. Mr. Bain suggested that it may be necessary to put
funding for these roads to a bond referendum. Mr. Bowie ~aid he agrees, but
the County would have to know the total road plan. Mr. W~y commented that
the road will definitely help the situation with the new ~chool. There
being no further discussion, roll was called and the moti6n was carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~i Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6f. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bain asked where the Highway Department intends ~o terminate
existing Route 678 when it is relocated. He asked if there are plans to
place a cul-de-sac beyond the church. Mr. Roosevelt said he and Mr. Home
have talked informally about placing the cul-de-sacing at ~the entrance to
the church. The plan they are looking at right now shows the old road
connecting into the new road alignment but nothing on wha[ to do about the
closing or cul-de-sacing the old road. He thinks that cu~-de-sacing of the
old road can be handled as a separate project. It would not be expensive,
but would require a public hearing and abandonment by the Board. He also
thinks, the road will basically carry only local traffic.
The Board recessed for lunch at 12:35 P.M. and reconvened at 1:38 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. Registrar Request, re: Voter ID Cards. Mr. Jim
Heilman, Registrar, was present to make the following request:
"Starting July 5th, every new registrant and registrant with a change
of address will be sent a voter ID card from my office. This is a
feature of the new state on-line computer registration system being
installed here and in 27 other Registrar's offices. ~This card will
give name, address, polling place, and district information.
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
231
About two years ago, plans were made to send voter ID cards to all
current registrants (about 28,000 in Albemarle). Although plans
called for the General Assembly to fund this mailing, local registrars
in counties that wanted the cards were encouraged to budget for the
necessary postage. The Board of Supervisors approved $6,000 for this
purpose for FY 87-88. When it appeared that this mailing would not
occur during this fiscal year, the $6,000 was put into the FY 88-89
County budget.
Now, word comes from the State Board of Elections that (1) the General
Assembly will not fund sending voter ID cards to current registrants,
(2) the State Board of Elections will contract with a mailing house to
generate and send these cards if we want to send them, (3) they will
be sent on or around July 1st, (4) they will cost Albemarle County
about $4,000 in addition to the $6,000 for postage, and (5) they must
be done now or never (the new system will not allow us to generate
cards for the entire electorate). The choice of whether to send these
cards is being left up to the Registrar's offices, but a decision must
be made by May 15th.
I polled the Electoral Board on this issue this morning. There was no
consensus, although they were leaning somewhat against it from a
cost/benefit standpoint. While a formal vote is not necessarily
required, I would greatly appreciate the view of the Board of Supervi-
sors on this matter." -
Attached to the memorandum was a list o~ pros and cons as follows:
"Pros: Ail the work will be done in Richmond; it provides a public
service giving people another source of identification as well as a
reminder of their polling place; it saves some office time spent in
writing certifications for travel, and it should ease the process of
changing addresses; since all new registrants after July 5 will get
cards anyway, it will save some confusion as to why some voters have
the cards and other voters do not; funds are available in the Regis-
trar's budget for this expense.
Cons: The total cost is approximately $10,400, it serves no signifi-
cantly useful function; it will not be required in order to vote; no
additional money was budgeted specifically for this expenditure."
Mr. Way said he agrees with the statement that this card serves no
useful function. He understands that there might be some advantages, but he
personally is not in favor. Mr. Heilman said registrars state-wide are
going to try and get a change in this law. The way this system is designed,
if someone wanted an I.D. card, he would not be able to get one unless he
changed his address. That is of concern.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this will cause a problem at the voting booth. Mr.
Heilman said the card will not be required for voting. He thinks a problem
may be caused because some voters will feel the card is required, present
the card, and the person behind them in line Will not have a card, and will
want to know why. Mr. Bowie said it appears that if the cards are issued,
and someone should lose his card, another card cannot be issued. He thinks
the simplest solution would be to get the General Assembly to allow the
registrar to issue a card when it is requested. An advantage is that in
some foreign countries your voter registration is sufficient, and no pass-
port is needed. Mr. Bowie said he requested ~ letter, but it had to be
typed. This would save that amount of work and it saves the taxpayer the
cost of a passport.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not want to s~end money for I.D. cards that
don't serve any purpose, and he offered motionNOT to authorize the expendi-
ture of funds for these cards. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the ~follOwing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
232
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 9. Landfill Tipping Fee - Inert Material. The follow-
ing memorandum dated May 2, 1988, was received from the County Executive:
"You will recall that during this year's budget work sessions, we men-
tioned that City and County staff had prepared a report which support-
ed a tipping fee at the Ivy Landfill for inert material (construction
materials, white goods appliances, and materials from land clearing
operations). Currently fees are charged for the splitting of tires
and disposal of asbestos material. The basis for proposing such a fee
is as follows:
Inert material is the fastest growing type of sOlid waste
arriving at the landfill (268 percent increase over the past five
years), which is requiring an increasing amount of resources to
manage;
Inert material is a relatively 'low impact' fee in that the
disposal cost per ton is low and the financial impact on the
citizens will be relatively small; and
Revenues from such a fee will help in defrayinglthe increasing
costs of the landfill operation (operation costs increased from
$437,705 in FY 83 to $1,024,940 in FY 87).
A fee of $1.50 per ton (minimum charge per vehicle wi0uld be $1.50) is
being recommended based upon actual 1988 personnel and equipment costs
for disposal of inert material. This would equate to the typical
contractor with an average ten-ton dump truck haulin~ an eight to ten
ton load of stumpage and/or construction material, a!itipping fee of
payment of between $12 - $15 per load. It is estimated that this fee
would generate approximately $250,000 in FY 88-89.
Staff has attached a proposed resolution for establishing an inert
materials tipping fee and the staff report which provides the support-
ing data. Over the next fiscal year, City and County staff will be
developing a proposal for a tipping fee to be applied to all catego-
ries of refuse. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me." ~
Mr. Agnor said the staff would like to propose an additional paragraph
for the resolution which will exclude the average homeowner being charged a
fee for bringing inert material to the landfill. It is n~t felt it is worth
the administrative cost to collect such fees. Mr. Agnor ~aid this tipping
fee relates almost entirely to development or building demolition work or
grading, contractual type of work, and it is not felt tha~ it will cause
anyone to dump these materials at spurious points around ~he county.
Mr. Agnor said City staff has said it will probably ~e August 1, 1988,
before getting the administration function into place to c~ollect the fee.
The resolution will need to be changed in that regard, an~ also in the "Now,
Therefore" section. At the end of the first sentence, add~ the words:
"provided, however, that City and County residents bringin~ inert items to
the landfill in cars and small trucks shall be exempt fro~ such charge."
The remainder of the resolution would remain the same.
Mr. Bain questioned the use of "small" to describe a ~ruck. Mr. Agnor
suggested describing it as a "pickup" truck, i'~
Mr. Way asked if imposition of this fee requires a p~lic hearing. Mr.
Agnor said staff has checked into that matter, and under t~e agreement for
operations of the landfill, these fees can be imposed by t~e governing
bodies. Mr. Way said he felt it would be a good idea to h~ve a public
hearing even though he is totally in agreement with the idDa. Mr. Bain
asked about toxic waste. Mr. Agnor said the landfill cann3Ot take hazardous
waste so it is stopped at the entrance to the scale area. ~ Information is
given out as to who might be contacted for disposal of such material. Mr.
Agnor said a committee was appointed last fall to deal with all types of
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
233
hazardous waste subjects, response to hazardous waste incidents on highways
and railroads in the area, and also for fire response where buildings have
hazardous wastes. Mr. Bain asked if the staff at the landfill has a specif-
ic list of those items which may not be accepted. Mr. Agnor said "yes".
Mr. Perkins said that he feels this will be limited to just a number of
contractors and it would be convenient if the charge could be billed to that
person. Mr. Agnor agreed. He said the staff does not wish to keep any
amount of cash at the gate, so they do offer a coupon book for people who
use the landfill on a frequent basis. The City does the actual administra-
tion of this.
Mr. Perkins said one benefit h~ can think of is that he has seen a lot
of wood products hauled in that he feels would have a more beneficial use
than just hauling them to the dtump. Perhaps, this will force those people
to separate that stuff out and use it in another way.
Mr. Way asked if the Keene Landfill is not included because it is on
"the way out". Mr. Agnor said yes, and there is no way to weigh the materi-
al at that site. Mrs. Cooke asked how much longer the Keene Landfill is
expected to be in operation. Mr. Agnor saidit is approximately one year.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is neutral about holding a public hearing on this
fee. Mr. Bowie said if the ordinary citizen is exempted, he does not see
the necessity for a public hearing. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following ~resolution with the amendment
as read by Mr. Agnor. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, over the past five years (.FY '83-FY '87), the volume of
refuse has more than doubled at the Ivy iLandfill and during this
period, State and Federal regulations have required increasingly
sophisticated disposal and monitoring te:chniques; and
WHEREAS, the volume of inert material (construction materials,
white goods and land clearing materials)iat the Ivy Landfill has
increased by 268 percent over the past flve years; and
WHEREAS, the operating costs at the!Ivy Landfill have increased
from $437,705 in FY '83 to $1,024,940 inlFY '87; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that users of the landfill desiring to
dispose of inert materials should pay a aharge to defray the cost of
disposal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that effective August 1, 1988, all persons
depositing inert materials at the Ivy Landfill shall pay a handling
and disposal charge of $1.50 per ton with a minimum charge of $1.50
per load, provided, however, that City and County residents bringing
inert items to the landfill in cars and pickup trucks shall be exempt
from such charge. If in the future, costs should change involving the
handling and disposal of inert materiai,~changes in such fee or charge
may be set at the administrative discretion of the County EXecutive
and City Manager, in direct proportion to the handling and disposal
costs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CoUncil of the City of
Charlottesville is requested to concur in the imposition of this
charge.
Mr. Bowie mentioned a paragraph in the r~port entitled "Site Life
Expectancy". He said this matter has been under study since he became a
Board member four years ago, and he asked for ~a report next month on this
question of doing something to extend the lif~ of the Ivy Landfill. Mr.
Agnor said he can answer the question now. Four or five months ago, the
234
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Board approved application for a State grant to have a consultant study the
life of the landfill and diversion of the material to some other use rather
than burying it. The grant has been applied for, the consultant has been
hired and is presently at work on the study. Mr. Agnor said he will get the
timetable the consultant is working with for next month's meeting.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appointment: Lewis Mountain-Ivy Road Neighbor-
hood Advisory Committee. The following memorandum from the County Executive
dated May 7, 1988, was received.
"One of the areas to be studied by the Planning and Coordination
Council (PACC) is the Lewis Mountain-Old Ivy Road Area. This study is
being prepared jointly by the staffs of the City, County and Universi-
ty. Neighborhood Advisory Committee's have been formed for these
study areas to provide citizen input and review in the planning
process. Each jurisdiction appoints two citizens from the study area
to represent their views on the committee.
Staff recommends the following persons be appointed as County repre-
sentatives to the Lewis Mountain-Ivy Road NeighborhoOd Advisory
Committee: Dr. Benjamin Boyajian, 2246 Ivy Road, and Mr. William
Heischman, 200 Colonnade Drive. ~
For your information, staff requested on many different occasions the
name(s) of a person(s) from Huntington Village, the 0nly owner-
occupied development in the study area, to serve on ihe advisory
committee. The Homeowner's Association has not been able to recommend
anyone."
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to find someone to ~erve on this
committee who is not a developer, or business owner in the area. He asked
that this appointment be held over until next week.
Agenda Item No. 12b. Appointments: Other. Mr. Way!~nominated Mr.
Hollis Lumpkin for the Albemarle County Service Authority~Board of Directors
to represent the Scottsville District, said term to expir~ on April 16,
1992.
Motion to appoint Mr. Lumpkin was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following
recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. L~ndstrom, to
reappoint Mr. E. N. Garnett, Jr. to the Piedmont Virginia ~Co~unity College
Board of Directors, said term to expire on June 30, 1992. Roll was called
and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,i Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bainl, to appoint Mr.
Harry F. Wilkerson to represent the Rivanna District on the Planning Commis-
sion, said term to expire on December 31, 1991. Roll was'called and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
235
Agenda Item No. lla. Appropriation: Education.
Dr. John English, Assistant Superintendent, was present to explain the
request. He said this is a new course which will be offered at both high
schools in the fall. It is for vocational students interested in technical
careers, and other secondary students wishing to understand the physical
principles of modern technology. It is an important step forward in terms
of students being technically literate for jobs. The main start-up cost of
this effort is the equipping of labs. The equipment is expensive, and has
to be up-to-date or it is not useful. It costs between $4,000 and $6,000
per lab station, and ten lab stations are needed per classroom. It is hoped
to have two labs in each school~ This money is grant money which must be
matched with local funds. Personnel also must be trained to teach in this
course. Students can receive a science credit for this vocational training.
Students must demonstrate some proficiency in certain math requirements
before they are eligible to take this course~
Mr. Bain asked if this class had been approved by the State for a math
credit. Mr. English said the State will allow the County Schools to offer a
science credit for this course. With the new graduation requirements, the
County is experiencing a significant declinein enrollment in vocational
programs. That worries him because there can be many students who are
proficient in math, English and science, butithey still must be employable
since not all students go on to college.
Mr. Bain asked if most of the machineryiand equipment is computers.
Mr. English said no; it is such things as circuit panels, transformers,
resistors, gages, water pumps, batteries, more of a physical science lab.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this program is for the coming fiscal year. Mr.
English said the appropriation is for this curent fiscal year, and in the
coming fiscal year the Education Department kas a similar sum of money in
its budget to match these funds. The agreement in receiving the grant is
that the County will, in a subsequent year, set up another lab. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if the cost of replacing, maintaining and upgrading this
equipment will fall on local funds. Mr. English said the County Schools
participate in a reimbursable vocational edud~tion programs with up to 50
percent for some vocational equipment. He f~els some of this equipment will
fall into that category. This is an investment.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve the request by adopting the followin§ resolution. Roll was called
and the motion was carried by the following r%corded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $33,334.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Grant Fund and transferred to the School Fund and coded to a cost
center entitled "Principles of Technolog~ State Grant"; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Way said that Ms. Teresa Tapscott was present to discuss a request
which will be coming to the Board for approvai next week.
Ms. Tapscott said that the Midway Housing Development Corporation is a
private, non-profit subsidiary organization o~ the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation. Last November, Midway started working with AHIP in conjunction
with the Community Development Block Grant on~a program to purchase ten
substandard dwelling units throughout the targeted areas for rehabilitation.
After that work is complete, these units woul~ be placed in the County's
Moderate Rehabilitation rental subsidy progr~. This was part of the
initial CDBG proposal a year or so ago. ~
In support of this project, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation set
aside $50,000 of funding to give Midway as operating capital. Based on that
236
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
appropriation, Sovran Bank issued Midway a $200,000 line of credit as
temporary financing for units that might be appropriate for the program.
Midway has purchased two units; one in Covesville and one in Greenwood, and
have two other units under contract. They also used part of those funds to
buy two units in the City of Charlottesville. They have expended about
$138,000 of the $200,000 and when they close on the two houses under con-
tract, will be right at their limit of credit.
Sovran has been cooperative in this effort, but is reluctant to issue
more credit without either a formal co~nitment for permanent financing from
a lending institution, or further backing from the Housing Foundation. The
Housing Foundation, because of commitments to the owner-occupied portions of
the AHIP and CHIP programs, is not in a position at this time to issue that
backing.
Midway is seeking permanent financing for this project through VHDA's
Virginia Housing Fund. The application is being prepared now, and it is
hoped that it will be ready to file by next Monday. It is time consuming
and time is Midway's biggest obstacle at this moment. They have an eye on
two or three more houses in the county, but cannot go forward now because
the money has run out.
Ms. Tapscott said she is present today to ask the County Board of
Supervisors if they will consider advancing Midway approximately $300,000 as
temporary financing to get the units into the program before the June 30
expiration deadline on the Moderate Rehab program. They understand that
units not signed up by June 30 probably will not be accepCed into the
program, and without the rental subsidies this project will not work. Ms.
Tapscott said she is not asking for an answer today, but {~ill provide the
Board members with any information they feel is necessary~i
Mr. Bain said there was a presentation of this matte~ before the
Planning District Commission, and he thought that $200,000 has already been
approved vy VI{DA. Mr. Tucker said he understands that $2~0,000 has already
been approved, and the request today is for an additional~!!amount. Ms.
Tapscott said that is correct, but VHDA has not given a fd~rmal letter of
commitment yet. Midway is submitting the application for~'i~the entire amount
hoping to get the eight percent interest rate offered by
Mr. Bain asked how long it will be before there is some word from VHDA.
Ms. Tapscott said the VI{DA board meets only once a month, .~so it will be in
June sometime. Midway feels there is a chance VHDA might i~finance the entire
project because of the leveraging Midway has. If this doe~ not come about,
Midway has talked to several local lending agencies, and h~s been assured
that conventional financing will not be a problem.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Midway intends to act as land~rd for these
units. Ms Tapscott said "yes". Mr. Bain asked if it is a total of ten
units in both the City and the County. Ms. Tapscott said iit is a total of
ten units in the County, and they also have two units in t~e City. Mr.
Bowie asked if ten units have been found. Ms. Tapscott slid they have found
eight so far. Not all units are feasible for this projec~
Mr. Agnor said the staff found out about this requesti~only yesterday,
and the County Attorney is away so the legal aspects of this request have
not been discussed with him. If the Board intends to pursue this request,
staff will work on this between now and next Wednesday. ~
Mr. Bowie asked when the money would be paid back. MS. Tapscott said
she spoke with Mr. Francis Fife last night, and he feels i~ would be by the
end of September.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is interested enough in the proposal to ask staff
to investigate how it might be done. Mr. Way said he feels this might help
with the serious housing problem in the County, and if the~e is information
concerning the Board's ability to consider the request, iti~should be made
available. ~
May 11, 1988 (Hegular Day Meeting) 237
(Page 27)
Ms. Tapscott said it is unusual that this many resources can come
together on one project and it would be a shame to let it slip away.
Mr. Way said this matter would be placed on the agenda next Wednesday
for further discussion.
Mr. Agnor said the Board had indicated that a member of staff should
attend City Council meeting next Monday concerning the closing of Sunset
Avenue, and he asked if there are any specific instructions for that person.
Mr. Way said he has not spoken with the Mayor yet, but he intends to call
him and reiterate the Board's position, that this matter not be considered
until after the JPA/Fontaine Avenue Study Committee report is presented. In
that case, it will not be necessary for a staff member to appear.
Mr. Bowie said he resigned from the MACAA Board of Directors earlier
this year, and now the Executive Director of MACAA has indicated that Mrs.
Rose Chioni is interested in the vacancy. He asked the Clerk to request an
application from Mrs. Chioni so that she might he called for an interview.
Mr. Bowie said that last year at this time, the Board created the
Auxiliary Police Force, and the Chief was to have finished the regulations,
etc. by January, the Director of Personnel the necessary screening, so that
the first group, if anyone applied, would belready to start on July 1, 1988.
To date, the Board has not heard a word. He would like a status report at
the June day meeting as to when it will be in place. It appears that the
Board may be preempted on its own program.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board had talked to staff before about things
that were scheduled for some future action, and the Board never had a reply.
He suggested that staff set up some tickler file in order to trace these
actions.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a list of projects to be funded with the
Moormans River bridge money has been drafted yet. Mr. Tucker said the
Planning Staff is working on that list.
Mr. Lindstrom said he went to a much publicized presentation by some
University students on Monday night on substandard housing in this area.
There was an article in the paper about how surprising this was, and Mr.
Lindstrom said he feels it was surprising to that student, not to the Board.
He has recently talked with Mr. Agnor about a program Nelson County had
undertaken to provide a low cost housing project which is not like the
City's projects, but through a combination or,resources included some County
money. The County received some grant funds to provide for construction of
the housing. The County provided a site, utilities, etc. to make it work.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board could be furnished some details of that
program, and to what extend the VHDA fund recently created might be used to
help Albemarle County.
Mr. Lindstrom said, in the past, the County has been stymied as to
renovation of non-owner-occupied housing, and he wondered if anything has
been settled regarding that type of unit. Mr.i Tucker said this idea was
part of the CDBG grant and the AHIP Board has discussed whether they should
get into the renter-occupied housing, so this~idea is part of that grant.
Also, Mr. Tucker said he understands that AHIP can do the rehab, the County
has the moderate rehab grant to provide the s~curity for the loan, so it is
all tied in together. Mr. Tucker said the Planning District Commission was
involved in the Nelson County program. Mr. Way said there was a video
presentation to the Planning District Commission. Mr. Lindstrom suggested
that it be presented at the Board's meeting in June.
238
May 11, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Way mentioned that the Board had a brief personnel matter to
discuss in executive session. Mr. Agnor asked that land acquisition be
added to the discussion. At 2.43 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to adjourn into executive session to discuss the
matters noted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 3.00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.