1986-12-10'11 7
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Highway Department and would continue to do so concerning design changes, etc. Mr. Horne
replied ~ha~-~he~-a~e yes and added that the Highway Department had been cooperative with
County staff." With this change the minutes which he had read are acceptable.
The minutes of Ma~ 1, 1985, February 5, September 27, October 15 (Afternoon) and
November 5, 1986 (Pages 1-5) had not been read.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to accept the minutes of November 5, 1986 (Pages 5 - end) as
amended. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Supplemental Allocation 1986-87 for Albemarle
County Secondary Road Improvement Budget.
The following letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated November 6,
1986, had brought this matter to the Board:
"Passage of the recent highway funding bills will result in an increase of
approximately $767,217 available for secondary improvements in Albemarle
County for fiscal year 1986-87. I have attached a list of projects to be
funded with this supplemental allocation. I request the Board of Super-
visors' review of this list and their support or recommendation for changes
concerning the list.
The list attached is taken from the County's approved six year plan priority
list. $113,000 of this money is used for supplemental or initial prelimi-
nary engineering funding for ten projects. $454,217 is allocated to pro-
jects under construction or planned to begin construction prior to July 1,
1986. $200,000 is designated for new plant mix surfaces on Route 810 and
Route 635. These routes are currently surface treated but have traffic
volumes, base and surface problems which only a plant mix surface will
correct.
I request that this matter be placed upon the Board's agenda at an early
date. I anticipate submission of this revised budget to my Central Office
in early December as soon as final figures become available."
Albemarle County Secondary Improvement Budget 1986-87
Supplemental Allocation
Route Location Description Allocation
At 659 Turn Lane
At Agnese St. Improve Sight Distance
At Georgetown Rd. Turn Lane
At Greenbrier Turn Lane
On Georgetown Rd. Turn Lanes
At Buck Island Creek New Bridge
From 627 to 795 New Hard Surface
From 789 to 614 Plant Mix
From 250 to 637 Plant Mix
At Moorman River New Bridges & Approaches
5th Street Extended Four Lane - New Location
From 29 to So Railroad Four Lane Divided
At Buck Mountain Creek New Bridge
At S. Fork Rivanna River New Bridge
631 $ 2,000
631 1,000
654 1,500
631 2,500
656 6,000
729 215,000
727 239,217
810 101,500
635 98,500
671 30,000
631 20,000
631 10,000
601 20,000
660 20,000
TOTAL $ 767,217
The following letter to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development, dated November 17, 1986, summarized the possible projects
for the supplemental allocation:
"On November 12, 1986, staff met with Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer,
to discuss the proposed distribution of supplemental funds to projects in
the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 1986-87. The 1986-87 supplemental
allocation totaled $767,217 for Albemarle County. When allocating funds to
individual projects, Mr. Roosevelt attempted to designate funds which would
cover project costs due before July 1987. Below is a summary of the pro-
jects discussed with Mr. Roosevelt.
Transportation Management Systems (TSM) Projects: A field inspection has
been conducted by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The
preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction costs will all be
higher than first anticipated. The existing (approved) 1986-87 budget
includes some funding for preliminary engineering of these projects. The
proposed supplemental allocation is to complete payment of engineering
costs. Although no funding is allocated to right-of-way acquisition for
these projects during this fiscal year, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation will proceed with contacting citizens to negotiate obtaining
the necessary property to complete these projects. The purchase of right-
of-way and project construction should be ready for funding during the
1987-88 budget year. (The TSM projects include the top five items in Mr.
Roosevelt's November 6, 1986 memorandum.) Although no supplemental funding
is proposed, the TSM project on Route 631 at Pen Park Road (Route 768)
should be on the same schedule, due to funding in the existing budget.
118
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Old Brook Road (Rt. 652) Paving Project: This segment of unpaved roadway
between the Raintree and Fieldbrook developments is not designated to
receive any supplemental funding. Although this project is a high priority
item, the current budget of $104,000 should cover the surface treatment
project costs. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is in
the process of negotiating right-of-way, but has not completed this process.
Meadow Creek Parkway - This project is also not targeted to receive supple-
mental funding. Previous funding allocated to this project exceeds one
million dollars. The alignment of the portion of the parkway through the
City, however, is still under evaluation. Until the location and design of
the parkway (both the City and Couhty segments) have been approved, Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation recommends no additional funding
be allocated to the project. A final location study by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation Urban Roads Division should be completed
in early 1987. The Federal Highway Administration will then have to approve
an alignment in compliance with Federal regulations.
Plant Mix Projects on Routes 810 and 635: Both these roads presently have a
light surface finish. While neither of these roads are specified in the
current Six Year Secondary Road Plan, Mr. Roosevelt proposes to improve the
surface quality under his county-wide discretionary fund. Route 810 carries
between 1200 and 1400 average daily trips and Route 635 carries between 600
and 1300 average daily trips. Both roads are presently in very poor condi-
tion. These road surfacing projects improve access to Crozet and, there-
fore, staff supports the projects.
Other Projects: The other projects itemized in Mr. Roosevelt's memo are for
engineering studies or towards constructing projects which are underway.
Staff Comment: Staff essentially concurs with the recommendations from Mr.
Roosevelt regarding supplemental allocations, given the objective of spend-
ing the additional funds before July 1987. This funding is consistent with
the general priorities set by the Board of Supervisors in the Six Year
Secondary Road Improvement Plan. If the Board identifies an alternative
project to which funds should be allocated, staff recommends one of the
plant mix projects (Route 810 or 635) be reduced or deferred."
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, to discuss the alloca-
tions. Mr. Roosevelt said that the new tax increases passed by the Legislature will create
new revenues, particularly for the Secondary Highway System, as of January 1, 1987. It is
anticipated that between January 1 and July 1 some $767,217 additional funds will be avail-
able to Albemarle County. At the direction of the Richmond office, he is to distribute these
funds to the above projects. The above list best absorbs that amount ($767,217). These
projects are currently in the County's Six-Year Highway Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt to elaborate on the funds for turn lanes at Georgetown
Road. Mr. Roosevelt responded that when the Six-Year Plan was adopted last spring, there
were seven or eight locations shown for safety improvements. One is a right-turn lane from
Barracks Road to Georgetown Road and then three left-turn lanes, one at Idlewood Drive, one
at Old Forge Road, and the third at Hydraulic Road. Mr. Lindstrom asked if these turn lanes
were specifically described in the Six-Year Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said they were. The purpose
of the improvement is to try and free the two through lanes. Mr. Roosevelt went on to
explain that the funds shown are to develop plans for these projects. Mr. Roosevelt added
that these turn lanes are not going to make any section of Georgetown Road into a four lane
road. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern that it lays a foundation for turning Georgetown Road
into four lanes. He is also concerned with the changing of a residential street into some
sort of through road. He fears this will encourage people to drive faster on a road on which
many already drive too fast. Mr. Lindstrom stated he is not willing to support this particu-
lar allocation at this time and feels it needs to be studied further. Mr. Roosevelt said
that this meeting is simply to decide on the allocation of these funds. If the Board wishes
to drop the Georgetown Road allocation, he can simply do that. Mr. Lindstrom stated he would
like to do that.
Mrs. Cooke said she does not have the problems and reservations that Mr. Lindstrom
expressed. She feels the turn lanes are a much-needed safety improvement in that area.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Planning Commission had decided it would prefer to spend
money on a number of smaller safety problems rather than putting a large sum into a project
like the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said it had been hoped that Federal funds could be used
for some of these projects. The turn lanes at Georgetown Road did not qualify for those
funds because the cost is not justified by the accident rate. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be
very interested in an analysis that would show the consequence of this kind of improvement on
the average traffic speed in that area.
Mr. Way asked when the Six-Year Plan will be amended again. Mr. Roosevelt said not
until June, 1988. Mr. Fisher stated that if Mr. Lindstrom doesn't want the money spent on
Georgetown Road, the money should be put in another area so that the Highway Department
budget can be balanced. Mr. Henley said he thinks that Rts. 810 and 635 should be improved.
Mrs. Cooke asked about projects that are already under construction. Mr. Roosevelt explained
that Rt. 631 (Number 12 on the list) is Rio Road to the Southern Railroad crossing. Two
lanes will be added on that section of Rio Road from Rt. 29 to the Voc-Tech Center. The Rt.
660 bridge is the 240 foot long truss bridge on the back road to Earlysville. The last five
projects on the list are funds for new preliminary engineering studies. They, also, are all
from the Six-Year Plan.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
119
Mr. Roosevelt suggested that the money for the Georgetown Road project be added to
Rt. 727, a project he hopes will go to construction in the spring. The $6,000 would be
added to what is estimated to be a million dollar project. Mr. Horne mentioned two projects
that might qualify. Perhaps some minor improvements can be made to some of the roads at the
Southern Regional Park site, such as strengthening of shoulders, plant mix, etc., or on the
section of Rio Road west of Rt. 29 toward Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Roosevelt said that if the solution to the park is simply plant mix on the access
roads, he believes it can be covered in next year's budget. Any major construction would
need to be put into the Six-Year Plan. He feels that either way, allocations on the Park
should be delayed until next year. As far as Rio Road is concerned, nothing has been done to
approve the plans for the right of way. Until the design is approved, nothing should be
done. That section from Rt. 29 to Hydraulic was dropped from the Six-Year Plan at the
request of this Board.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the "Supplemental Allocation" as set out
above with the exception of the $6,000 identified for turn lanes on Rt. 656; that $6,000 is
to be allocated to the project suggested by Mr. Roosevelt (Route 727). Roll was called and
the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6b.
Maintenance Agreement.
Highway Matters: Mill Creek PUD - Road Construction and
Mr. Horne read the following memorandum from him to Mr. Agnor, dated November 18, 1986,
on the Road Construction and Maintenance Agreements of the Mill Creek PUD:
"Enclosed you will find copies of three agreements which are necessary to
ensure Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation maintenance of
certain roads in the Mill Creek PUD. If you will recall, when that PUD was
approved by the Board there was the issue of Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval and maintenance of a major collector road
between Avon Street and Fifth Street Extended which is shown in the Com-
prehensive Plan. At issue also was their maintenance of certain internal
streets within the PUD which connect to an adjacent property owned and
operated as Lake Reynovia recreational development. It was the intent of
the Board's approval that this development proceed only if all roads shown
to be publicly maintained could, in fact, be maintained when they were used
as public thoroughfares. Certain roads, the collector road in particular,
were very expensive to build to their ultimate design category, in that much
of the traffic using that road would be from off-site and would not be
directly generated by the development itself. Since that time staff has
been working with the applicant and VDH&T in order to negotiate a package of
agreements which would be acceptable to all parties.
The first agreement attached is an agreement between Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation and Albemarle County. The basic components of
that agreement are that Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
will accept all roads in the development when they are built to the standard
necessary to handle traffic at that time. The County guarantees that all
roads will be upgraded as necessary to bring them up to some agreed upon
ultimate design category. The guarantee of the County is backed up by the
second two agreements which are attachments to the first agreement.
The second agreement is an agreement between Reynovia Land Trust and
Albemarle County. This agreement was discussed in length at the time of
approval of the PUD. It was later brought back to the Board in an amended
form and the Board directed staff to negotiate an acceptable agreement with
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation prior to having Board
approval of the agreement with the Trust. There have been some changes in
this agreement since the Board approved the PUD. The trust is now agreeing
to dedicate 90 feet instead of the original 60 feet. This is necessary due
to VDH&T design requirements, should the road become a through road. The
dedication of this right-of-way will now be at the time of construction of
the collector road. The original agreement was for dedication at the time
of platting of any plats within the PUD. It has become impossible to
resolve all unknown design variables such as the status of this road as a
through road and its alignment with the Hillcrest PUD road prior to the time
at which the developer wishes to record the first section of this develop-
ment. The final change is a clause in which it is stated that if the County
drops the collector road as a through road in its readopted Comprehensive
Plan, the obligations of all parties under this agreement are null and void.
The third agreement is essentially an agreement between the Reynovia Land
Trust and Mrs. White (operator of Lake Reynovia), with the County as a third
party beneficiary. The purpose of this agreement, among other things, is
merely a mechanism to address the potential of traffic from Lake Reynovia
having access to internal streets of the Mill Creek PUD. The agreement
ensures that, should this happen, Mrs. White will be responsible for upgrad-
ing any roads in the Mill Creek development which are required to be
upgraded by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
!20
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
The initial final plat of the Mill Creek PUD has been approved by the
Planning Commission and one of the conditions of approval is Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the road plans. Their
approval of the road plans is dependent upon the execution of the agreement
between the County and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
That agreement in turn is dependent upon the execution of the second and
third agreements."
Mr. Horne discussed the above memorandum and emphasized that the two backup agreements
are attempts to guarantee to the Board that it is not taxpayers' money that will be used to
upgrade these roads. The first agreement~guarantees to the Highway Department that it is not
Highway Department money that will be used.
Mr. Fisher asked if the use of tax money, either State or County, was prohibited. Mr.
Horne replied no. Mr. Horne stated that if it is decided to build the connector road, then
taxpayer funds would be involved. Mr. Lindstrom stated that as he understands it, the County
would be obligated to pay the difference between what the developer generates and the
standard set by the Highway Department for the road.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the agreements make it clear to the developer that the roads he
builds must meet the standard required by the Highway Department. Mr. Horne said yes.
Mr. Fisher mentioned his concern over the redesign and reconstruction that may be
needed. He said he feels the developer can build whatever he needs to serve his development
and if the final design requires a different alignment or curvature, the County will have to
redesign it and pay for reconstruction to that new standard. Mr. Horne replied he did not
think that is assumed by any of these parties. He said the ultimate right-of-way has been
obtained, and an elaborate traffic study has been done, so the design standard that is
generated out of the internal development is known, as well as the design standard for a
through road. Mr. Fisher stated that all of this is required because the General Assembly
refuses to give the County the authority to require improvements to roads in the state system
when new development takes place. Mr. Way asked about the smaller roads that might event-
ually go into Lake Reynovia. Mr. Horne answered that Lake Reynovia is obligated to improve
those roads to whatever standard is required by the Highway Department. Mr. Horne said the
developer did not want to construct urban design on the roads (with curbs and gutters), and
rural design has been approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. St. John said to get things into perspective: (1) There isn't anything being paid
for by public funds now. The County is getting things paid for by private funds which in the
absence of this agreement would have to be paid for by public money; and (2) "I don't believe
it's quite accurate to say all this is necessary because the Legislature won't pass the 'pay
as you go' law." There are state and federal constitutional provisions that property can't
be taken for public use without just compensation. Under this agreement the County is
acquiring the right of way needed for a connector road, although the need for that road is
not generated by the development itself. Mr. Fisher asked if bonds would be posted to cover
the costs. Mr. St. John said yes. They will be posted before the plats are finally signed.
Mr. Horne explained there would be no additional bonds over and above the normal bonding
process. Mr. Fisher asked if no person comes in with a site plan that affects this roadway
for eight years, and the County decides it has to build a collector road through there, the
County would have to pay the entire cost. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Fisher said the
developer can out wait the County. Mr. St. John said the County has no power over that
situation. The agreement doesn't guarantee anything unless someone else takes an action to
develop the property. The whole agreement is contingent on the developer going forward.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion that the Road Construction and Maintenance Agreements be
approved as presented by staff (No. 1 is an agreement between the County and the Highway
Department, and No. 2 is an agreement between George Harrison Gilliam, Trustee for Reynovia
Land Trust and the County of Albemarle) and that the County Executive be authorized to sign
these agreements. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said that all the County is guaranteeing to do is to diligently enforce
these agreements. Mr. St. John said that if the motion passes and the agreements are signed,
they will have a far-reaching effect. He said he had never seen a project like this that
turned out exactly as expected in the beginning. He said this is a good start and neither
the public nor County government are being prejudiced by signing this agreement. Mr. Fisher
stated that he feels extremely uneasy about these kinds of agreements. He stated he feels
the whole development here is premature and enforcing these agreements over a period of years
will be virtually impossible. For that reason he will cast his vote in the negative. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
During the roll call Mr. Lindstrom stated he is not voting against the motion and the
agreements although he shares some of the concerns mentioned by Mr. Fisher. At the same
time, he understands what is being attempted and the circumstances that make it necessary to
be innovative.
The Agreement between Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation follows:
THiS AGREEMENT, made this 14th ~day of October 1986, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, hereinafter "the County," and the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
AND TRANSPORTATION, an administrative agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia
hereinafter "the Department,"
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
121
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the appropriate administrative
agencies of the County a certain plan for the development of certain lands
lying in Albemarle County, designated as Mill Creek PUD; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the said development, there are proposed
certain roads which the developer has proposed to be made a part of the
State Secondary Highway System; and
WHEREAS, the developer has agreed to construct the said roads to state
highway standards for the traffic which can reasonably be expected to be
generated by his development, including the dedication to public use of a
right of way sufficient for the construction of a certain collector road
which is hereinafter described, together with the construction of the said
collector road to accommodate the traffic which can reasonably be expected
to be generated by the said development, all as provided in a certain
agreement dated May 7, 1986, by and between George Harrison Gilliam,
Trustee, and the County, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I;
and
WHEREAS, the said collector road occupies an alignment which the County
believes should ultimately be extended as a collector road for the general
public benefit, beyond the peculiar benefit of the developer, and which the
County has agreed to build if and when it shall become necessary; and
WHEREAS, the property to the south of Mill Creek PUD (hereinafter "the
Reynovia tract") is currently undeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the Reynovia tract have agreed with the devel-
oper that the plans for Mill Creek PUD have been so designed as to permit a
portion of the Reynovia tract to have access to State Route 742 over the
subdivision streets of Mill Creek, provided that the owners of the Reynovia
tract shall improve the said subdivision streets, in accordance with the
standards of the Department, to accommodate the traffic which can reasonably
be expected to be generated by the development of the Reynovia tract,
together with Mill Creek PUD, all as provided in a certain agreement dated
April 1, 1986, by and among George Harrison Gilliam, Trustee, Barbara B.
White and the County, a copy of which agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit II; and
WHEREAS, the County believes that it is in the public interest that the
said streets in Mill Creek PUD be brought into the said System as soon as
possible, notwithstanding they are not completed to accommodate the traffic
which can ultimately be expected to use them as set forth in agreed upon
"ultimate design" categories approved by VDHT and County; and
WHEREAS, the Department is willing to accept the said roads upon
appropriate resolution of the County, upon their completion to a standard to
accommodate the traffic generated by the said development at the time of
acceptance, provided that the County guarantee to the Department that the
said roads will be improved, from time to time at no cost to the Common-
wealth of Virginia, to accommodate continued development of the Reynovia
tract;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises con-
tained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
(1) The Department will accept for maintenance, as part of the State
Secondary Highway System, the roads shown on subdivision plats of Mill Creek
Subdivision in Albemarle County as the same shall be approved by appropriate
authorities of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and
the County, pursuant to the approved development plan for Mill Creek PUD,
such acceptance to be effective upon a determination by the Department that
the said roads have been constructed to accommodate the traffic which may
reasonably be expected to be generated by the development of such sub-
division; upon the posting of appropriate bonds and payment of the necessary
fees by the developer; and upon the adoption of an appropriate resolution by
the County requesting such acceptance.
(2) The County hereby guarantees to the Department that it will
diligently enforce the agreements shown as Exhibits I and II hereto (it
being understood that the reference to a waiver of curvatures in the Agree-
ment attached as Exhibit II is in accordance with the letter from D. S.
Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, to Maynard Elrod, then County Engineer, dated
March 3, 1986) upon notification by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, so that the roads in the said subdivision shall be improved,
from time to time, in a manner sufficient to accommodate the traffic, as set
forth in agreed upon "ultimate design" categories approved by VDHT and
County.
(3) The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will notify
the County of the need for improvement of the aforesaid roads, based upon
existing traffic counts and highway capacities, as set forth in the most
current Road and Bridge Standards or Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, as applicable.
i22
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
(4) The County will, after said notification, provide or cause to be
provided the necessary highway capacity within two (2) years of said notifi-
cation; provided, any necessary expenditures by the County shall he subject
to annual appropriations by the Board of Supervisors of the County.
Following is the agreement between George Harrison Gilliam, Trustee for Reynovia Land
Trust, and the County of Albemarle:
THIS AGREEMENT made as of this 7th day of May, 1986, by and between
GEORGE HARRISON GILLIAM, Trustee for Reynovia Land Trust u/a/d March 15,
1985 ("Trust"), and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political sub-
division of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("County"),
WITNE S SETH :
WHEREAS, Trust has submitted an application for ZMA-85-29 for Forest
Hills (Mill Creek) PUD (the "PUD") and in connection therewith has shown on
its application plan a road running in a generally east-west direction,
intersecting Avon Street south of the Joint Security Complex, and running
westerly toward an intersection with Fifth Street west of Biscuit Run, such
road being referred to herein as the "Collector Road";
WHEREAS, said Collector Road is shown on the County's Comprehensive
Plan adopted January 5, 1983 along the approximate route shown on the PUD
application plan;
WHEREAS, Trust has agreed to develop those portions of said Collector
Road lying on the Trust's property as the need for same develops;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits flowing to the
parties, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Pursuant to this Agreement, Trust will dedicate to public use a
roadway, not more than ninety (90) feet in width, along with all necessary
drainage easements, along the approximate route shown on the application for
the PUD (the precise route to be determined at the time of recordation of a
subdivision plat or plats of sections of the property on which the Collector
Road is to be located), incorporating VDHT vertical and horizontal curvature
standards, for the Collector Road.
2. Trust will, at its expense, dedicate and construct said Collector
Road in stages as subdivision sections are recorded within said PUD. Said
Collector Road will be constructed only to the standards of the particular
.VDHT road category required by the traffic generated by the PUD or by
adjacent properties now zoned industrial which are granted access to the
Collector Road by Trust. For example, if according to VDHT criteria a
subdivision section within the PUD will generate a number of vehicle trips
per day which, when added to the vehicle trips per day generated by previ-
ously recorded subdivision sections within the PUD, would total 750 vehicle
trips per day, Trust will build the Collector Road to VDHT Category III
standards starting at the intersection with Avon Street and ending ten feet
west of the nearest intersecting subdivision street within the PUD.
3. It is understood that the foregoing construction schedule may
result in the Collector Road being built to standards lower than the "ulti-
mate design" standards of the VDHT for a major thoroughfare. Notwithstand-
ing the foregoing, the parties agree that the Collector Road will be dedi-
cated to public use and the parties will cooperate in attempting to cause
the VDHT to accept said Collector Road for maintenance as each section
thereof is completed.
4. At any time, County may demand that said Collector Road be dedi-
cated and constructed to the ultimate design standards of the VDHT for a
thoroughfare such as the Collector Road. In such event, at least four weeks
prior to the planned commencement of construction of a section thereof (as
evidenced by Trust's submission of working drawings or plans for approval by
the County's Department of Engineering) County shall give written notice to
Trust of such demand and shall agree to contribute, as construction pro-
gresses, the costs of construction of the Collector Road to the ultimate
design standards in excess of the costs of construction to the standards
required by traffic generated by the PUD, as determined by the written bid
or estimate of the contractor constructing said section of road.
5. Trust intends to commence construction of the "second access"
(south of the Collector Road) from Avon Street to the PUD (as shown on the
proposed PUD plan) prior to commencement of construction of the Collector
Road. Said "second access" will serve the initial sections of the proposed
PUD, providing an access for the commercial area and portions of the multi-
family residential areas. Trust will be required to dedicate and construct
or bond appropriate portions of the Collector Road at such time as fifty
(50) single family detached residential occupancy permits have been issued
with respect to dwelling units within the PUD. Notwithstanding the fore-
going, however, Trust will dedicate right of way and drainage easements for
those portions of the Collector Road shown as lying within any subdivision
plats of the PUD, as set forth in Section 1 hereof. In the event that Trust
elects to construct streets within the PUD which intersect the proposed
Collector Road, and do not connect with said "second access," the Collector
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Road (from such intersection to Avon Street) will be dedicated and bonded or
constructed as provided by Albemarle County ordinances as set forth in
Section 2 hereof.
6. Construction of a left turn lane, for the benefit of northbound
traffic on Avon Street, to VDHT standards, will be commenced by Trust
simultaneous with commencement of construction of the commercial area of the
PUD.
7. If the Collector Road is not shown on the County's Comprehensive
Plan, which is anticipated to be readopted in 1987, then both parties hereto
shall be relieved of all obligations hereunder with respect to said Col-
lector Road, except that Trust will be required to construct (at its sole
expense) a road in said same location to handle traffic generated within the
PUD.
8. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby
made a "third-party beneficiary" of this Agreement and is authorized to
enforce the obligations of either party hereto.
9. The obligations of Trust hereunder shall be conditioned upon
approval by County of the PUD plan as submitted on or before May 7, 1986.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie said that the signage improvements on Rts. 621 and 20 North have been made.
Agenda Item No. 7. Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) Presentation -
Housing for the Homeless.
Mr. Ken Ackerman of MACAA summarized the general problem. He stated that this problem
is receiving national as well as state and county attention. MACAA has begun an analysis of
the nature of the problem and has developed a strategy to help those identified. He
explained where MACAA hopes Albemarle County will fit into this project. The organization
has $20,000 in private funds now. There are also some public monies that will be made
available in the near future. He hopes that the County will be a partner with the City of
Charlottesville in applying to HUD for some of those public funds.
(Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 12:08 P.M.) Ms. Michelle Saka, the Housing
Coordinator for MACAA, came forward to make the presentation. She stated that MACAA's goal
is to eliminate the causes and conditions of poverty. One of the greatest needs is for
housing. From July '85 to July '86 MACAA served 396 households with housing problems. Of
the 396, 101 were Albemarle County residents. The method MACAA uses to measure homelessness
is to analyze the demand for shelter, housing and food. The people visited by the case
workers can't wait for long range plans to be developed.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 12:14 P.M.) Mr. Fisher stated he does not know
what the Board is being asked to do. Ms. Saka said that MACAA is aSking for financial
support and participation. Mr. Fisher asked if the money being requested is for this fiscal
year or the next fiscal year. He asked if MACAA had made an application for funds through
the normal budget process. Mr. Ackerman said the request has been included in the local
budget. MACAA is trying to generate the interest of the Board and hopes that a member of the
Board or staff might work with MACAA on this project. He said that the dollar amount is not
yet included in the application. Until the amount of federal and state money they might
receive is known, they do not know the amount they will need from the County. Mr. Fisher
said that if the budget is being reviewed by staff, it will ultimately be reviewed by the
Board. He asked if there is anything the Board should do before that time. Mr. Ackerman
said MACAA would like to know the Board's reaction to the idea. Mr. Fisher stated he had
read the material submitted by MACAA and did not know what the request actually is. Ms. Saka
said MACAA is not ready to submit a proposal, but wanted to make the Board aware of the
problem. Ms. Saka said that MACAA is interested in having a family crisis center with a
program to put the people in need in a facility where they could be trained for jobs, and
where they could be given intensive counseling so they will be able to be self-sufficient.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to see in writing exactly what the group is proposing. Mrs.
Cooke suggested that along with the proposal, the problem be listed so when the Board reviews
the proposal, they will have all the information needed.
Mr. Way stated that he recognizes the problem. Basically, the plan is to open a
facility where families can come who are homeless and destitute. The program will also
include helping the families not only find housing, but also employment. He said he supports
what MACAA is attempting to do.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report: Staff Sexual Assault Committee.
A memorandum from the County Executive to the Board, dated December 4, 1987, entitled:
"Sexual Assault Staff Committee Report" follows:
"Attached for your review and consideration is a copy of the Sexual Assault
Staff Committee Report. The Staff Committee, appointed by the Board at its
August 13 meeting and composed of the department heads of Planning and
Community Development, Social Services, Police, and the Coordinator of
Student Services with coordination by the Executive Staff, has prepared this
report in response to the recommendations of the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
After reviewing a draft of this report, several committee chairpersons of
the Sexual Assault Task Force were invited to meet with the Staff Committee
to offer comments and suggestions. The general response to the report was
favorable with several minor suggestions incorporated into this final
report. The only significant change requested by the Task Force and sub-
sequently approved by the Staff Committee was the addition of Recommendation
Number 9.
These nine recommendations are listed for your review and ultimate approval:
The Department of Planning should propose an amendment to the Site
Development Plan Ordinance to require lighting to a specific
standard in certain situations.
The share of the utility tax for installation and maintenance of
street lights should be increased from one-half (.05) percent to
one (1) percent.
The Program Review Committee should encourage agencies that serve
the handicapped, the elderly, and the less educated to have more
programs on the prevention of sexual assault.
The County should consider funding a part-time education coordi-
nator, if requested, through the normal Program Review Process.
Request the School Board to assure that the sexual abuse unit in
the Family Life Curriculum is taught at the designated levels in
the elementary, middle, and high schools.
The Police Department and the Parks and Recreation Department
should work together to develop and publicize a self-defense
course for the community.
Request the School Board to recommend to the School. Division the
consistent implementation of a self-defense unit in the high
school physical education classes.
The County should address the need for more police staff on the
late night shift during this year's budget process.
The County should endorse the formation of a tri-jurisdictional
forum, i.e. the County, the City, and the University, to look at
sexual assault issues that transcend jurisdictional boundaries.
Ms. Roxanne White, Administrative Assistant to the County Executive, presented the
Committee,s report. The report was prepared in response to the recommendations of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault. She said the
Committee first extracted the recommendations that were pertinent to the County. Members of
various departments then took the responsibility of looking at the recommendations relevant
to the individual department to try to determine: (1) What is the County presently doing?
and (2) What can the County do or not do to implement specific recommendations?
The Committee discovered that many of the recommendations are already being addressed by
the County, particularly by the Police and Education Departments. The Committee also found
that one of the major problems is the lack of information disseminated among different
agencies and even among various County departments on what efforts are being made by other
departments and agencies.
Ms. White stated that the Committee's recommendations break down into three major areas
of concern: (1) Physical improvements; (2) Education; (3) Law Enforcement.
Mr. Fisher asked what the Committee is asking the Board to do at this point. He asked
if this is just an overall report which will later be divided into parts for submission for
individual actions. He asked the meaning of the recommendation for an increased percentage
for expenditures for street lights. Ms. White responded that the one-half percent increase
in the present funding formula to one percent would double the amount available for the
installation and maintenance of new street lights. In the Pedestrian Obstacle Study done in
1985, there were seven sites identified as needing street lights and there is not enough
money in the fund for installing and maintaining them. Mr. Agnor stated that this will
appear again in the presentation of budget requests in the spring. Mr. Fisher expressed
concern over that proposal. Every street light the county installs is an indefinite
liability because of fluctuating electric costs. He said he is not convinced that doubling
that amount is necessary.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the seven sites which had been identified are listed in the report.
Ms. White stated they were not in the report, but she had a list of the sites. She read the
list to the Board. They include: Hydraulic Road/Lambs Road intersection; Hydraulic
Road/Georgetown Road intersection; Whitewood Road/Greenbrier Drive intersection; Hydraulic
Road/Rio Road intersection; Greenbrier Drive near the mobile home park; Four Seasons Drive
near the recreation area; and the intersection at Rio Road/Park Road. Mrs. Cooke asked if
the sites were identified because there was potential hazard there, or because there have
been incidents in those areas. Ms. White said she believed they were identified simply
because they are areas of Public use, not because of assaults.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
125
Mr. Way said the major budgetary item in this report is the coordination of the program.
He commented on the Education Department role, stating there were several generalities in the
report, such training teachers and the types of video materials to be used. He said that he
would need to have more information before endorsing the report. Ms. White added that one
important result of the report and that is the necessity for a Education Coordinator. She
stated that the hope was that the position could be funded on a joint basis.
Mr. Fisher suggested that during the budget review, the allocation of Police Officers
between night and day shifts be reviewed to address the need for more night shift officers on
duty. Mr. Bowie stated that several recommendations appear to suggest increasing the number
of employees. He is particularly concerned over the self-defense suggestion. Self-
defense is a dangerous subject, particularly in the context of sexual assault. He said he
would have trouble putting a subject of that kind in the high schools.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there are any figures as to where the sexual assault problem is most
prevalent. Ms. White said that in the task force report there is an "L" shaped area which
goes from the University down Main Street and out Avon Street. In the county, there has
been no one particular area identified where sexual assaults occur.
Mr. Fisher commented that the Committee has done exactly what the Board asked of it.
The report gives the Board a direction on which to focus. There was no further discussion of
this report.
Agenda Item No. 10. Executive Session: Property Matters. At 12:50 P.M., Mr. Fisher
suggested deferring Agenda Item No. 9 until afternoon so the Board might recess for lunch.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John whether the Executive Session should be under Property
Matters or Legal Matters. Mr. St. John replied that the topic he had been told was to be
discussed would not be appropriate under either topic.~ At this time the Board simply
recessed for lunch, and reconvened into session at 1:40 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 11. Draft Resolution: Convention Bureau. The Board had received a
copy of the Interim Report of the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau Study Committee, parts of
which are excerpted as follows:
"... In this investigation, the committee met with representatives from
several area hotels, and a consulting firm was employed to examine this
question. The consultant's report, which was recently made public, recom-
mends that the community cooperate to create a new organization named the
Charlottesville/Albemarle County Convention & Visitors Bureau. The func-
tions of such a Bureau would be (1) to continue the 'passive' function of
receiving and assisting visitors to the community, and (2) to begin an
'active' function of soliciting meetings and conventions through advertising
and active contracts with groups and associations."
"It is the unanimous recommendation of the study committee that the Visitors
Bureau be continued in some form .... If a combined operation is to be
formed, then a funding formula for the total operation would be employed."
"The committee has accepted for the moment the consultant's recommendation
for a combined Convention and Visitors Bureau operation with a first-year
budget of $250,000, and is seeking ways to fund such an operation. It is
clear from several discussions held by the committee and with members of the
governing bodies that such an operation can be accomplished only through a
partnership of the private and public sectors, a partnership which includes
both governance and funding of the operation.."
"As recommended by the consultant, the County would seek a change in legis-
lation allowing it to adopt a four percent room tax as the City has already
done .... The City and County would then reserve twenty percent of the gross
amount of all Transient Occupancy taxes collected in the prior fiscal year.
These funds would be made available to the Bureau as a matching grant to all
funds which the Bureau generates from private sources. After a three-year
transition period, during which time the City and County would pay a higher
matching amount, the match would be dollar for dollar. This would provide
an equal private-public partnership, and the partnership would be institu-
tionalized from the beginning by equal voting membership on the Bureau's
controlling board. If the Bureau were successful in generating room rent-
als, then additional room taxes would be generated, and additional public
funds would be reserved for the following year at the same twenty percent
maximum rate."
"No one expects a new convention bureau to be able to generate substantial
convention bookings in its first year, because many conventions are booked
one to three years in advance. For this reason, it is proposed that a
three-year transition period be incorporated, as suggested by the consul-
tant's report. During this period, the public bodies would be called upon
to produce a much higher matching grant than the 1:1 ratio of the permanent
funding formula. What is proposed is a 3:1 match the first year, a 2:1
match the second, a 1~5:1 match the third, and 1:1 thereafter."
"The study committee believes that a combined convention and visitors bureau
could help to stimulate the economy of the Albemarle-Charlottesville area.
Its examination of funding leads it to believe that neither the private
sector nor~.~_ the public sector is willing or able to provide such a bureau
alone. Therefore, a private-public partnership as outlined in this paper
holds one possible mechanism for beginning and continuing a successful
bureau."
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Mary Ann Elwood, President of the Chamber of Commerce, came forward. She told the
Board that the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau Study Committee is made up of two representa-
tives each from the County, the City and the private sector. As a result of a year's study
and a consultant's report with which the Committee agreed, the decision was made that the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area should endeavor to establish a convention bureau. Also, it
was agreed that no single entity could support this undertaking and that a cooperative effort
was needed. Ms. Elwood said she is before the Board to announce that the private sector now
desires to have such a bureau. She mentioned the growth of convention bureaus around the
state - Lexington, Lynchburg, Fredericksburg, Richmond and most recently the Shenandoah
Tourist Council has been formed (Mt. Jackson, Woodstock, Strasburg and Edinborough). Most of
the smaller bureaus use public monies entirely. In summary, the private sector is willing to
support a convention bureau and is glad to have the cooperation and partnership of the City
and the County.
Mr. Michael J. Ludgate, a member of the Visitors Bureau Committee, came forward. He
stated he finds it very interesting to note that the private sector has moved from opposing
an occupancy tax collected on hotel/motel rooms to support a Visitors Bureau, to being
willing to contribute ten percent of the room rentals to support the bureau. He feels a
center like this is a very legitimate form of economic development.
Mr. Fisher stated that this Board has always felt a bureau of this kind should be a
cooperative venture. That is exactly what is proposed.
Mr. Way said that this area has not received as much of the tourist dollar as the County
would like. He stated he feels this is a good proposal and a compromise. He said he sees it
as a real partnership between the public and private sectors and a way to improve the
community.
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution which had been offered by the
Committee. Mr. Henley asked how long the County would reserve the funds if the other parties
don't match them. Mr. Fisher said that is not entirely worked out, but the revenues from one
fiscal year would be studied and twenty percent would be built in for the following fiscal
year, as the amount that would be provided if matched. Mr. Henley seconded the foregoing
motion.
Mr. Lindstrom sa~Ld that if the people that are in the business of providing lodging and
food are interested in promoting this bureau, it is hard to avoid. He said he has supported
and does support the Visitors Bureau as a passive operation that provides information and
assistance to people. He feels he cannot support the transition from that type of activity
to an active, aggressive involvement in the tourism industry and the convention business as a
public function. He stated he feels this is purely a private sector function. Unless there
is a specific benefit to the general public which can be identified as from some public sub-
sidies, it should be left purely to private enterprise.
Mrs. Cooke said that Mr. Lindstrom has mirrored her feelings on the subject. She thinks
it is a very unhealthy thing for government to subsidize private industry. She feels this
action sets a precedent which she cannot support now or in the future. This activity will
not benefit all private industry.
Mr. Henley said although he had felt the same as Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke, he now
believes the situation is better. The County will be giving out a portion of what it is
collecting because of the room tax. He said he is willing to give it a try.
Mr. Bowie said he supports whatever can be done to lower the real estate tax burden on
the citizens who live here. One way to do that is to expand the tax base from those who
don't live here, which includes tourists. This approval is all predicated on going to a four
percent occupancy tax. The restaurant and hotel group are no longer in opposition. If the
four percent is not granted, there won't be a convention bureau. He stated he is going to
support the resolution.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that most of the money will have to go to police and other
services needed by the bureau and won't be returned to the people. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: The Resolution as adopted follows:)
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, and the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce have combined to form and
operate the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau from 1979 to the present; and
WHEREAS, the three bodies jointly appointed a Study Committee in 1985
to examine the question of how the Visitors Bureau should be restructured
and funded to better meet the needs of the many visitors to this community;
and
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau commissioned a parallel
study by the International Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus to
examine the question of establishing a Convention Bureau for the community;
and
WHEREAS, the joint Study Committee has examined the possibilities of
funding and operating such a combined Convention and Visitors Bureau it has
promulgated an Interim Report dated September, 1986 which outlines a plan
for providing such funding through the establishment of a private-public
partnership; and
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, the Chamber of Commerce and the Charlottesville City Council
have endorsed the concept of such a bureau as outlined in the Interim
Report; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has taken action to
request a change in the Code of Virginia which would enable the county to
adopt an increased Transient Occupancy Tax as outlined in the Interim~
Report;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County does endorse the concept of a combined Convention and Visitors Bureau
as outlined in said Interim Report; and
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the General Assembly does enact, and the
Governor of Virginia does authorize, legislation enabling the County of
Albemarle to increase its Transient Occupancy Tax rate from two percent to
four percent on July 1, 1987.
Agenda Item No. 12. Rivanna Park Master Plan.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. William Rieley, of Rieley and Associates, with the consultants
who are developing the Master Plan for the new park, will refresh the Board's memory on the
Plan mentioned at the February 12, 1986, meeting of the Board. Mr. Horne will then ask for
some directions concerning the access problems being encountered.
Mr. Rieley gave a brief description of the property and discussed the activities planned
for the various areas. He said that it is hoped that the park will be well-balanced between
active and passive forms of recreation. He mentioned that the configuration of the tennis
courts has changed since last seen by the Board. The location for the maintenance facility
has also been altered. Mr. Fisher asked about the electric power lines. Mr. Rieley
explained that moving the power lines would cost about $150,000, so it was determined that
the architect should work the plan around them. He pointed out the access problem and stated
that Mr. Horne would discuss that problem later.
Mr. Fisher asked about the phasing of the various improvements. He mentioned that Mr.
Way has questioned whether this is the actual final development plan. Mr. Rieley said there
are three softball fields in Phase I, and at a cost of $60,000, four tennis courts. There
has been some discussion as to exactly what is to be included in Phase I. Mr. Rieley stated
that the consultants looked at the City-County Agreement for their information. Mr. Way
asked about the depth of the ponds. Mr. Rieley said the ponds will be shallow. He said that
parking areas are scattered about the park, but the primary parking lot for most of the
active recreational facilities is on a band of land between the softball fields and the
multipurpose fields.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the Preliminary Phasing recommendations which the Board had
seen are different from this Master Plan. According to this Plan, there are four tennis
courts in Phase I, and four tennis courts in Phase II. The original recommendation was for
four in Phase II and another four in Phase III. Mr. Henley asked what certain colors on the
site plan depicted. Mr. Rieley explained that one color illustrates the large picnic shelter
with open play area. The other shows the view as it would appear from the entrance with the
pond in the foreground. Mr. Fisher asked where the existing house is located. Mr. Rieley
pointed out the location and added that his firm has made provision during the evolution of
the Plan for a future pavilion in that area. It is not a part of the phasing of the Park,
but an idea for consideration. In order to do this, the existing structure would have to be
moved closer to the maintenance area. Mr. Fisher said that implies a change which has not
even been considered by this Board. He asked if this change is reflected in the Master Plan.
Mr. Rieley said yes, that the Master Plan expresses the idea as a possibility to consider in
the future. Mr. Fisher said he objects strongly to that. He stated he feels there should be
nothing in the Master Plan suggested or implied that has not been agreed to by both City
Council and this Board. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any other changes. Mr. Rieley said
there is one area where restrooms have been added. Mr. Fisher said he fears this Master Plan
will be held up for many years as setting forth exactly what is to be done on this property.
There should be nothing in it that has not been completely agreed to. Mr. Lindstrom said
if the Park is developed as shown in the renderings, it will certainly be a significant
public asset. Mr. Bowie asked just what the problem is. Mr. Fisher said it is tearing down
the existing house to put up something else and building a new caretaker's house. Mr. Rieley
stated that it is very clear in the Plan that this proposal is not a part of the three phases
which have been agreed upon. Mr. Fisher added that the phasing needs to be put into the
Master Plan as well, so that the contents of this Plan control exactly what is done with the
Park.
Mr. Agnor said the reason this Plan is before the Board today is because the Planning
Commission wanted some directions on the access problem. The reason for discussing this
Master Plan is simply to refresh the Board's memory. Mr. Fisher asked if the Plan has been
adopted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Horne said that the Commission has endorsed the
Master Plan drawing and given staff authority to approve the actual site plan. They were not
aware of the issue that has been brought up today. Mr. Fisher said that this Plan has not
been adopted by this Board and that should be done. He feels the document should be adopted
by the City and County as the Master Plan for the park. Mr. Bowie said he agrees that the
correct phasing should be in the Master Plan book. Mr. Fisher said if the Board is not to
adopt the Rivanna Park Master Plan today, a process should be set up to accomplish that.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Following is the Staff Report on the Rivanna Park Master Plan, dated November 6, 1986:
Proposal: To construct an urban district park,
Acreage: Approximately 100 acres.
Zoning: R-1 Residential primarily, with a small area of Rural Areas zoning
on parcel 23.
Location: On the west side of Rt. 20 North, north of Rt. 1421 (Elk Drive)
and the east side of the Rivanna River. Tax Map 62, Parcel 23; Tax Map 76,
Parcel 1. Rivanna Magisterial District.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Rivanna (Albemarle-Charlottesville) Park is proposed in three phases
over a span of nine years. The initial phase is proposed to commence in the
spring of 1986, with completion for park use in the spring of 1988. When
complete, the park will include four softball fields, eight tennis courts,
four multi-use fields, three multi-use courts, picnic shelters, two ponds,
two playgrounds, a pavilion, a canoe dock, foot trails and a caretaker's
house. Night lighting is not proposed in any of the three development
stages for any competitive sports facility.
The purpose of the present review of the master plan is to discuss broad
issues to be resolved prior to submittal of detailed site plans with further
engineering and technical information. Providing that the Commission is
satisfied with the resolution of these issues, staff recommends admini-
strative approval of the individual detailed site plans. These site plans
will be reviewed by the Site Review Committee.
A review of the two major issues follows:
Flood plain. The County Engineer has reviewed the master plan and
proposed rough grading and determined that a special use permit is not
necessary.
e
Access. This issue concerns access from the site as it relates to
Elk Drive, Route 20 and Route 250E. The main entrance to the park is
proposed from Elk Drive, a secondary state road connecting to Route
250E, just east of Free Bridge and Route 20N, approximately one mile
north of Route 250E. The Commission wishes to encourage traffic to
utilize Route 20. The purpose of this is twofold: This will minimize
the additional burden on Elk Drive, presently listed as non-tolerable;
and this will avoid further burdening the presently inadequate inter-
section of Elk Drive and Route 250E. There are several long and short
term options to accomplish this goal. The long term options are as
follows:
Se
Close the entrance to Elk Drive at Route 250. This will force
traffic to access Elk Drive solely by Route 20. The Highway
Department has commented that this will change the traffic pat-
terns on this road and affect emergency response time to pro-
perties along Elk Drive.
be
Permit only right turns onto Elk Drive from Route 250 and out of
Elk Drive onto Route 250. This restriction on left-turns onto Elk
Drive will avoid the concern of congestion on Free Bridge and at
the signalized intersection with High Street/River Road. The
Highway Department has commented that this option would be diffi-
cult to enforce without a median, and a median is not possible in
this location. Signage and a physical alteration of the entrance
design to accommodate slip-in only may allow this to be a viable
option.
Ce
Abandonment of a portion of Elk Drive public right-of-way. This
option envisions a cul-de-sac just south of the park entrance, to
eliminate Elk Drive for through traffic. This will abandon the
public right-of-way between the cul-de-sac and the entrance to the
park, and allow that segment to be a private road for the Elk
Drive residents and the park service. Staff supports this as the
most favorable and workable solution. This action must be accom-
plished by the Board of Supervisors after public hearings and will
need further detailed study prior to those hearings.
d. Do nothing.
This will further burden Elk Drive and Route 250.
The following memorandum from Mr. Agnor to the Board dated December 2, 1986, summarized
the Planning Commission preferences on solutions to the access questions involved:
"The Planning Commission has reviewed the master plan and given their
approval, however, there were two issues of concern in their review:
Grading of flood plain to balance cut and fill to
avoid any flooding of playing fields; and
Access to the park from Route 250 East via Elk
Drive (old Route 20).
DeCember 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
The first issue has been resolved so that the cut and fill areas are
balanced to prevent any flooding of the playing fields.
The second issue concerning access from Route 250 East via Elk Drive has
three alternatives:
A. Close the entrance to Elk Drive at Route 250.
Permit only right turns onto Elk Drive from Route 250 and out of Elk
Drive onto Route 250.
Ce
To abandon a portion of Elk Drive public right-of-way and create a
cul-de-sac just south of the park entrance.
The Planning Commission preferred option ~C'. The Highway Department
supports option 'C'. A memorandum from Fred Payne (Deputy County Attorney)
advises that option 'A' is legally more sound than option 'C'."
Mr. Horne stated that the Commission was very concerned that there be direct access to
this park from the lower portion of Elk Drive, the portion nearest the river. Using the map,
Mr. Horne explained the above options suggested by the Planning Commission. He also men-
tioned the letter from Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Horne said that
the Commission is strongly in favor of its first preference, abandoning a portion of Elk
Drive. If the Board decides not to support that preference, the Commission feels there must
be a large amount of signage indicating which route the traffic should use.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John what the Board must do to go along with the recommenda-
tion to abandon the portion of Elk Drive. Mr. St. John said he feels the Board should find
some other way to solve the traffic problem. Mr. Fisher said that portions of secondary
roads have been abandoned before. Mr. Bowie stated that he has been approached by some of
the residents on Elk Drive who are fearful that closing the road might impair any businesses
which wished to locate along that road. Mr. Bowie said he would like to speak to the people
who live on Elk Drive and come back to the Board with a report. Mr. Lindstrom said if the
Board can provide those people with reasonable access, he would be surprised if there are any
objections. Mr. Fisher said that if the residents have access directly from Route 250 and
the road is closed off so there will not be through traffic, they may be in favor of closing
the road. Mr. Bowie said he would like to speak to these people before making a motion. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if the members of the Elk's Club have expressed any objections. Mr. Horne
stated he had contacted them, but had not heard. Mr. Bowie said he would check with the
Elk's Club as well. Mr. Fisher said that if there is to be any abandonment, it will require
at least one public hearing.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, if he had any
comments. Mr. Mullaney stated that it~?.hoped that construction can begin on the project in
the Spring of 1987. Anything that can be resolved that will hasten that construction date,
will be supported by his Department. Mr. Bowie asked if a cul-de-sac is put in, and the road
becomes just a driveway, who pays for maintenance of the road. Mr. Horne said it can be
designed so that the existing state road becomes the driveway for the residents and the road
given to them. Mr. St. John asked if the abandonment is going to be at the curve in the road
where the road goes by the actual entrance to the Park, or at the beginning of Elks Drive at
Rt. 250. Mr. Bowie replied the abandonment would be at the curve in the road. Mr. Fisher
said the Board would expect a report from Mr. Bowie next Wednesday night.
Mr. Fisher reiterated that as far as the Master Plan is concerned, he believes it should
be formally adopted by the City Council and this Board. Mr. Tucker said the Plan can be
revised without a hearing if the only changes are the ones discussed this evening. Mr.
Tucker suggested that the Master Plan be adopted with the changes suggested today. Mr. Bowie
stated that he sees no need for another public hearing. He feels the public's desires have
been met by this Plan. Mr. Fisher mentioned the lighting problem. Mr. Tucker stated that
there is no lighting shown in the plan. Mr. Fisher said that what staff is asking is that
the Board adopt a resolution to adopt this as the Master Plan with the amendments for phasing
and the question of the caretaker's house put back to what was agreed to by the City and
County.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion that the Board adopt the Plan with those stated revisions.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher added that the Board will seek concurrence from
the City Council on this so that their approval will also be on record. Roll was called and
the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Land Use Assessment Values (SLEAC).
Mr. Agnor stated he wants to emphasize that the State Land Evaluation Advisory Commit-
tee's (SLEAC) publication of projected values was received by the staff in early November.
Staff has spent six weeks understanding and evaluating the data to make this report today.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, came forward.
values for Land Use Tax assessments are published annually.
reassessment, it can only change values every other year.
He stated that the recommended
As the County has a biennial
The following memorandum from Mr. Breeden, Director, and Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr.,
Deputy Director of Finance, explains the assessment values set down by SLEAC:
"The State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee (SLEAC) has published its'
recommended values for Land Use Tax Assessment. These values are effective
January 1, 1987, the same time the Albemarle County 87/88 Biennial
130
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Reassessment takes effect. SLEAC is a committee established by the Code of
Virginia which is responsible for the determination and publishing of
recommended values for real estate enrolled in the Land Use program. These
values are based on the productive earning power for use as agricultural,
horticultural, forest and open space lands.
The Department of Finance has prepared a twenty-eight page summary of the
SLEAC Procedure used to determine the recommended 87/88 biennium Land Use
values. The summary includes a survey of Tax Administrators for the
seventy-seven localities which have authorized Land Use Valuation. The
survey indicates that forty six of the fifty six respondents use SLEAC
values without modification. The summary is available in the Finance
Department for further research and analysis.
The recommended values for 87/88 show a 20 to 37 percent increase for
Agricultural land, a 11 to 26 percent increase for Horticultural land, an
eight to 21 percent increase for Forestry land and a 34 to 36 percent
increase for Open Space land. The average acre under Land Use will be
assessed at $292.83 and the annual tax will be $2.25. This is a 27 percent
increase from the current $230.20 assessed value and the $1.77 annual tax.
The increase in the Agricultural values is due primarily to three reasons:
Surveys by SLEAC are now conducted of farms with annual sales in
excess of $10,000. Formerly, the surveys were conducted of farms
with annual sales in excess of $2,500. This change was made so
that data would be gathered only from full-time bona fide agri-
cultural and horticultural operations.
The Structure of the composite farm has changed significantly.
The composite farm is the statistically average farm for
Albemarle County. The size of the composite farm has increased
from 220 acres to 359 acres and the acreage devoted to various
crops has changed. This is important because the combined
acreage and net returns per crop per acre data determines the
Land Use values.
The Net Returns per acre for crops has increased. This is due to
the elimination of the smaller, less efficient, farms from the
data base. Additionally, SLEAC and Department of Agriculture
personnel believe that recent yield data submitted by farmers is
more accurate. In the past, farmers have been reluctant to report
total yield data because they felt it would depress the market
price for their crops. At the present time, there are an array
of Governmental Payment Programs. Payments under these programs
are based on yields. This has resulted in an increase in
reported yields. Yields are now required to be certified before
they cab be accepted in the programs. These payments are
included in the net return data and consequently increase the
Land Use values.
The Horticultural values are derived from a combination of land value and
yield value. The land value component increased proportionally greater
than the decrease in the yield data. The land factor is based on a five
year moving average and the yield factor is based on a thirty-two year
moving average.
The County of Albemarle has used SLEAC's recommended values as the basis
for its tax assessment since the implementation of the Land Use program.
Prior to 1983 the Soil Classification Study was not completed and values
were averaged to the slope of the land. Subsequent to 1982, actual values
recommended by SLEAC for each soil type were used. The recommended values
are based on extensive studies conducted primarily at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg. The 'Summary of
Procedure for Determining Use-Value of Qualifying Land in Albemarle County'
is the result of a six-week study by Finance Department staff of the
Procedure and values published by SLEAC. The study utilizes the published
SLEAC Procedure, data available from the Department of Taxation and dis-
cussions with SLEAC and various Department of Agriculture personnel.
The values published by SLEAC are recommended values and each Commissioner
of Revenue (Director of Finance in the County of Albemarle) has the option
to set different values. When determining the use-values to apply to
eligible land, the Director of Finance is directed by law to consider the
use values suggested by SLEAC. The Director of Finance must be prepared to
justify and defend values other than those recommended by SLEAC. Finance
Department staff believes the procedure utilized by SLEAC to be concept-
ually fair and unbiased."
Mr. Breeden said that the 77 localities that are authorized to have land use taxation
have been surveyed and a response received from 56. Of those, 46 are using the values as
recommended by SLEAC. The remaining ten are using combinations of a little of everything.
He said that in the study of the SLEAC data, his office has found no problem with the data or
with the procedures and calculations they use. The figures are fairly presented. For
Albemarle County to use any values other than those recommended by SLEAC, the County would
have to produce some well-documented figures that are better than SLEAC's. In order to come
up with different data, a study would have to be made requiring primary source information
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
131
(the farmers themselves) to re-collect all the data. Mr. Breeden said he does not feel the
County is in a position to attempt that. His recommendation is that the SLEAC values be used
as submitted.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the last time this subject came up, the Board asked the
Department of Finance to study creating some method to establish Albemarle County values.
Mr. Bowie said that as he understands it, the County will have less land qualified for Land
Use because the small farms will no longer qualify. Mr. Breeden said it does not affect
whether a property qualifies for Land Use. The census data was collected to determine
yields, etc., and was only gathered from farms with a gross income of $10,000 instead of
$2,500. Mr. St. John stated that this has nothing to do with the question of who qualifies
for Land Use. The taxes paid once the land qualifies, are based not on the fair market value
of the land, but on its value to the reasonably efficient farmer using it as a farm or
timberland. There must be standards to determine what its use value is as opposed to the
amount for which it can be sold. Mr. Breeden said the Census Bureau is taking the position
that any farm that doesn't have in excess of $10,000 gross receipts is not a legitimate
farming operation and its acreage and production should not be taken into consideration when
setting values. These farms are only excluded for purposes of determining the value, not
whether or not they qualify for these programs. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that at a time
when the agricultural industry is in bad shape, this redefinition of farm qualification will
cause taxes to go up and the farmers will be poorer. Mr. St. John said that under the law,
the land use tax rate is supposed to be based upon efficient use of the land. The farmer is
not taxed on what he makes; it is not an income tax. The land is being taxed on the basis of
what could be generated from that land by a reasonably efficient farmer. They have taken the
position that people living in the country, but not really farming the land, are not true
measures of what that land could generate if it were used to the optimum efficiency.
Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Breeden and he would not like to see the County get into
the business of making predictions. Mr. Breeden emphasized the complexity of reaching the
figures. He mentioned that Mr. Walters has produced a 28 page report on this subject which
the Board can review.
There was no action taken by the Board on this subject, and no further discussion at
this time.
Agenda Item No. 14.
Control Ordinance.
Set Public Hearing Date to Amend the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Mr. Michael Armm, Director of Engineering, said that this ordinance has been under
review for some time. Several interim reports have gone out to interested parties and their
comments have been incorporated into the document before the Board. He pointed out the major
changes. First of all the authority to enforce this ordinance is placed with the Engineering
Director rather than the Zoning Administrator. Secondly, it allows for provisions that now
are incorporated in the State Code to be brought into the ordinance, such as enforcement
powers. The County does not now have the legal authority to put a stop work order on a job
because of soil erosion problems. This new ordinance would allow the County to post a stop
work notice at the site and have powers of enforcement. A third important item is the
provision for the Director of Engineering to actually enter into an individual agreement with
a lot owner for soil erosion and sediment control enforcement without that person having to
post a bond. The agreement that has been drafted has been reviewed by the County Attorney
and has been approved. The Engineering Department feels that these changes will bring the
ordinance up to State Code provisions. It will give the County much firmer control on the
enforcement.
The ordinance as proposed follows:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 7
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
Article 1. In General
Sec. 7-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water,
air and other natural resources of the county and promote the
public health and welfare of the people in the county by establish-
ing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation,
and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall
be administered and enforced.
Sec. 7-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this section:
13£
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agent. The engineer, surveyor, contractor, or other person
authorized by the landowner to act in his behalf.
ApDlicant. The landowner or his agent who submits plans and
specifications to the county for issuance of an erosion control
permit.
Ad¥&sery-eemm~eee~--The-Be~y-eha~ge~-w~h-~he-~ey-e~
~ew&ew&n§-p~ams-am~-spee~ea~ems-suBm~e~-pu~suam~-~-~h~s
w~h-~e~a~-~he~e~e?--The-eemm~ee-sha~-eems&s~-e~-~he
~}--A-~ep~esea~ae&Me-ef-~he-Themas-~effe~sen-Se~-aa~
Wate~-~emse~Mae~eB-B~se~&ee-e~-~ts-~es~gmate~-a§en~z
~B~--A-pe~sea-~uaEEf~e~-By-ex~e~Eemee-an~-expe~t&se-En
khe-f~e~s-~f-e~s~et~o~-am~-e~§~ee~a~-~s-se~ve-~-~he
so~s-t~-se~e-sueeessE~e-~e~ms-of-~e-yea~=
~he-eemm~ee-sha~-ferm~aee-r~es-ef-preee~re-fer-~ts-ewn
~pe~ae~n~--The-Bear~-~f-supe~&s~s-mayT-By-~es~~n-f~m-~me
~e-~meT-f~-~he-e~mpensae&~-~-mem~e~s-~-~he-e~mm~ee=
p~a~s-a~-spee~ea~ens=--A-~ee~mene-eem~a~&~-ma~e~a~-~e~-~he
e~nse~vae~en-e~-se~-am~-wa~e~-~eseu~ees-e~-a-~n~-e~-~e~p-e~
s~-a~-wa~e~-p~a~-&n~e~e~y-an~-mana~eme~-~ma~-w~eh
aee~e~-~m~e~p~e~a~ns?-aa~-a-~eeer~-e~-~ee&s~eas-eea~r~B~e~m§-~e
eemserva~&em-~rea~mem~v--The-p~am-sha~-eom~a~m-a~-mager-eemser-
w&~-Be-se-~rea~e~-~e-aeh&e~e-ehe-eemserva~&em-eB~ee~&vesv
Conservation standard or standards. The criteria, guide-
lines, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and
sedimentation] as shown in the handbook.
Director of engineering. The director of engineering of the
county of his designated agent.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A document which describes
the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems on a construc-
tion project and explains and illustrates the measures which are
to be taken to control those problems. The plan has a written
portion known as a narrative and an illustrative portion known as
a map or site plan.
Erosion control permit.
pursuant to this chapter.
A permit issued by the county
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook
as the same shall be amended from time to time.
Land disturbing activity. Any activity so defined by the
Code of Virginia in Title 21, chapter 1, article 6.1, section
21-89.3(a.), as the same may be amended from time to time.
Permit holder. The landowner or other person authorized to
act as agent for the landowner.
Subdivision. As defined in Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle.
Bem&mg-aSm~&m&s~ra~erv--The-zem&mg-aelm&m&sera~e~-e~-ehe
ee~m~y-e~-h~s-~es&~ma~e~-a~em~v
Sec. 7-3.
Approval required for certain activities and
conditions.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), it
shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any land disturb-
ing activity until he has submitted to the
director of engineering an erosion and sediment control plan
for such land disturbing activity and until that plan has been
reviewed and approved and an erosion control permit issued to
the person by the ~m~ng-a~m~m~s~a~ director of engineering.
It shall also be unlawful for any person willfully to fail to
conform to plans and specifications so approved in performing
such activities.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
133
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in
the county willfully to suffer or permit any portion, regard-
less of size or area, of his land to remain in such condition
that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable
damage or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads,
streams, lakes or ponds. The ~e~-a~m~s~a~e~ director of
engineering, on his own initiative or upon complaint of any
citizen, shall notify the owner of any such land that such
condition exists, and shall require such owner to submit an
erosion and sediment control plan to control such erosion and
sedimentation. If such owner fails or refuses to submit such
plan to the ~e~-aetm~s~a~e~ director of engineering within
the time specified in such notice, or if he fails or refuses to
provide the controls required by the plan approved by the
~e~g-aMm~s~a~ director of engineering within the speci-
fied time period after notice of such approval, he shall be
deemed to have violated the provisions of this section and
shall be subject to the provisions of section 7-8 hereof for
such violation; provided, that the ~~-a~m~s~a~ direc-
tor of engineering may, for good cause shown, extend the period
of such compliance for a reasonable time. In addition to all
other remedies, the ~e~-a~m~n~s~a~ director of engineer-
ing may, upon proper finding, proceed in accordance with
section 7-6(c).
(c) Any person owning, occupying, or operating private
agricultural, horticultural or forest lands shall not be deemed
to be in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activi-
ties from the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural,
horticultural or forest crops or products or engineering
operations under section 21-2(c) of the Code of Virginia;
provided, that such person shall comply with the provisions of
this chapter when grading, excavating, or filling~7-a~-~u~he~
~~e~?-~ha~-~-m~-ease-sha~-~he-e~s~ue~m-~-a~y-~a~s
Be-eEemp~e~-~m-~he-~e~u~emen~s-e~-~h~s-eha~e~ Clearing
of agricultural areas of greater than ten thousand (10,000)
square feet when such areas are not tilled and planted with
agricultural, horticultural or forest crops within sixty
(60) days shall be deemed to be land disturbing activity. The
disturbance of land areas greater than ten thousand (10,000)
square feet for the construction of farm structures, including
but not limited to feed lots, agricultural structures or roads
not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting, are not
exempt from the requirements of this chapter. In no case shall
the construction of any roads, other than those used exclusive-
ly for access to tilling, planting and harvesting fields, be
exempted from the requirements of this chapter.
(d) Any person whose land disturbing activities involve
lands which extend into the jurisdiction of another local
erosion and sediment control program and who chooses to have a
conservation plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission shall notify the
director of engineering of such plan approval by the Virginia
Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
(e) Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be
conducted by a contractor performing construction work pursuant
to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and
approval of the required erosion and sediment control plan
shall be the responsibility of the owner of the land.
(f) No permit shall be issued by any administrative
officer of the county for the construCtion of any building or
other development requiring a permit, nor shall any subdivision
plat be approved relating to land subject to this chapter
unless and until the requirements of this chapter have been
complied with.
~a-~h&s-eha~er-sha~-affee~-aa~-~e~ee~-eemmeaee~-~e~-~e
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan and issuance of an erosion control permit
pursuant to section 7-3 hereof shall submit with his applica-
tion to the ~&~§-adm~s~ra~ director of engineering an
erosion and sediment control plan with specifications for
temporary and permanent controls of soil erosion and sedimenta-
tion in such detail as the mem~mg-a~m~m~s~ra~er director of
engineering shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the
nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity.
Unless otherwise specified by the men~ng-aMm~m~skra~er director
of engineering, ~ve four copies of all plans and specifica-
tions shall be required.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
(b) Ail plans and specifications submitted pursuant to
this chapter shall be in accordance with provisions of the
handbook; provided that the ~en~-aelm~n~s~a~ director of
engineering may require such additional information as may be
necessary for a complete review of the project. The foregoing
notwithstanding, in the case of any approved subdivision which
is subject to the provisions of this ordinance, the director of
engineering may allow, in lieu of an erosion and sediment
control plan for the construction of buildings on individual
lots in such subdivision, the provision of a contract satisfac-
tory to him and to the county attorney, executed on behalf of
the owners of individual lots, provided that an approved plan
exists for the development of such subdivision, including all
land disturbing activities in connection with the development
of such subdivision other than construction of buildings on
individual lots. Such contract shall ensure that the construc-
tion to be performed on such lot shall be so performed as to
provide protection from soil erosion and sedimentation to a
degree satisfactory to the director of engineering and shall be
executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for such
construction.
(c) Ail plans and specifications submitted pursuant to
this chapter relating to land ~n-~he-w~e~she~-e~-~he-S~h
R~va~a-R~ve~-Rese~¥~? within any public drinking water
supply watershed, in addition to all other provisions of law,
shall be ~n accordance with the provisions of
kh~s-ehap~e~ Chapter 19.1, Article II, of the Code of
Albemarle, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
of-Appe~x-A-are-ava~aB~e-~-~he-eff~ee-ef-~he-~e~-~m~-
~s~a~e~
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
section 7-3, of this article, the applicant shall pay to the
county a fee of seventy-five dollars to cover the cost to the
county to review and to act upon such plan. For each and every
erosion control inspection necessitated by this plan, a fee of
twenty-five dollars shall be paid by the applicant. The
maximum fee chargeable under this section, inclusive of inspec-
tions, shall not exceed three hundred dollars.
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications.
(a) A~-~he-t~me-ef-the~ After submission, all plans and
specifications required hereby shall be reviewed by the ~e~
a~m~st~ate~ director of engineering in order to ascertain
whether all items required by the handbook are shown thereon
where applicable. ~-~ss~B~e-~h~s-~e~ew-sha~-~a~e-~aee-~
~he-~esemee-e~-~he-a~eam~-a~-~he-~me-e~-s~hm~ss~m-~-~he
~a~s-am~-spee~ea~msT-am~-~n-m~-evem~-sha~-~h~s-~e~ew
~aRe-p~aee-m~e-~ha~-~w~-~-we~R~-~ays-a~e~-s~eh-s~hm~s-
s~ea~--A~-p~aas-an~-spee~ea~ems-sha~-shew-a~-~ems
~eqa~e~-B~-~he-ham~BeeR-p~e~-~e-~he-saBm~ss~n-~e-~he-a~M~s~-
~-e~mm~ee? Regular meetings will be held to review and
discuss submitted plans with the applicant.
~B~--Hpea-eer~ea~ea-~ha~-~he-p~aas-aa~-spee~ea~eas
a~e-~-e~mp~a~ee-as-p~e~-~-%a~-aB~ve~-~he-~§-a~m~s-
~a~e~-sha~-s~Bm~-~hem-~e-~he-a~se~-eemm~ee?--~he
a~ser~-eemm~ee-sha~&-~hea-Dreeee~-~e-re~ew-~he-D~ans-aa~
spee~f~ea~ms-~e-asee~a~m-whe~he~-~he~-a~e-~m-e~m~a~ee-w~h
~he-eeaser~a~ea-s~aa~ar~s-e~-~he-haa~Bee~?--~he-~ev~ew-sha~
~a~e-p~aee-a~-~he-aex~-re§~ar-mee~ag-e~-~he-eemm~ee-~e~ew-
~ag-~he-s~Bm~ss~a-~-~he-p~aasT-e~eep~7-~ha~-~h~s-re~ew-sha~
~a~e-p~aee-ae~-mere-~haa-~h~r~-~e-ea~ea~ar-~ays-a~er
~he-a~s~r~-eemm~ee-maM-req~es~-s~eh-~aferma~ea-as-~-ma~
~as~--A-memBer-ef-~he-a~v~s~r~-eemm~ee~-aeeempaa~e~-B~-~he
app~eaa~-sha~-ma~e-aa-~aspeee~ea-e~-~he-s~e-~a-~es~ea-as
Dar~-e~-~he-re~ew-e~-D~aas-aa~-spee~ea~eas~--A~er-~s
re~ew?-~he-eemm~ee-sha~-re~ra-~s-reeemmea~a~ea-ee-~he
~ea~ag-a~m~a~sera~er-as-~e-whe~her-~r-ae~-~he-p~aas-aa~-spee~-
~ea~eas-as-s~Bm~e~-are-~-aee~r~anee-w~h-~he-s~aa~ar~s-~
~e~ (b) The ~n~ag-aS~a~s~ra~r director of engineering
shall?-~a-aee~r~aaee-w~h-~he-reeemmea~a~eas-~-~he-a~ser~
eemm~ee? proceed to review the plans and specifications to
ascertain whether they are in compliance with the conservation
standards of the handbook and thereafter approve or disapprove
the ~a~s-a~-s~ee~ea~s application as submitted~T-~~-
e~-~ha~-D~-~-~a~g-ae~7~he-~~-a~m~s~a~-may
re~er-~e-khe-eemm~ee-s~eh-sDee~e-~es~eas-eeaeera~ag-~he
apD~ea~n-as-ma~-be-~eas~naB~y-~eeessa~M-~e-~he-p~e~
a~m~a~s~ra~ea-e~-~h~s-ehaD~e~T or notify the applicant of any
changes necessary for approval. Comments concerning any
required changed to the plan will be furnished to the applicant
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
!35
within seven calenda¥ days of the regular scheduled meetin~s~
but provided further, that in any event, the ~o~§-a~m~s~a-
~ director of engineering shall approve or disapprove the
plans and specifications within ~e~y-~ve thirty calendar days
after application is made.
The foregoing notwithstanding, except as specifically
provided herein, the ~~-a83a~s~a~ director of engineer-
in~ shall not approve, and no permit shall be issued for any
activity which is necessitated by or which is to be done in
connection with, any use, change in use, development, subdivi-
sion of land or other action for which a subdivision plat or
site development plan is required by law unless and until such
subdivision plat or site development plan shall have been
approved as provided by law. For purposes of this section
only, such subdivision plat or site development plan shall be
deemed approved if it shall be approved conditioned upon the
issuance of such erosion control permits as may be required
pursuant to this chapter.
Permits may be issued for the following activities in
accordance with law prior to the approval of a site development
plan or subdivision plat under the conditions set forth herein-
after:
(1) The correction of any existing erosion or other
condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occa-
sioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of
God or other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided,
that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the
correction of such condition;
(2) Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other
activity directly related to selective cutting of trees as
permitted by law;
(3) Installation of underground public utility
mains, interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for
which plans and specifications have been previously approved by
the operating utility and approved by the county in accordance
with Code of Virginia, section 15.1-456, if necessary;
(4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from
grading, excavation or other lawful earth-disturbing activity;
(5) Clearing, grading, filling and similar related
activity for temporary storage of earth, equipment and materi-
als, and construction of temporary access roads; provided, that
in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substan-
tially its previous condition with no significant change in
surface contours within thirty days of the completion of such
installation or temporary use or within thirteen months of the
commencement of any land-disturbing activity on the site which
is related thereto, whichever period shall be shorter; and
(6) Borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 10.2.1.18 and 5.1.28 of the zoning ordinance.
(d) In the event that the plans and specifications so
submitted shall be approved, the ~o~-a~m~s~a~ director
of engineering shall require, prior to the issuance of an
erosion control permit, a performance bond with surety or other
security of a type satisfactory to the ~n~-a~m~s~a~e~
director of engineering in an amount determined by the ~~
a83a~s~a~e~ director of engineering to be sufficient for
completion of the controls specified in the plans and specifi-
cations, including, without limitation, maintenance during the
execution thereof, should the person receiving the permit not
complete the controls as required.
~e~--Whea-a-D~a~-saBm~e~-~e~-app~eva~-p~saaae-~e-~h~s
ehap~er-~s-~n~-~-Be-~a~e~a~e?-~he-z~-a~m~s~ra~7-~n
aeee~a~ee-w~h-~eeemme~a~e~s-~-~he-a~se~y-eemm~ee?
sha~-s~ee~y-s~eh-me~f~ea~ens~-~e~ms-am~-eem~e~s-as-w~
Derm~k-apDr~Ma~-ef-~he-p~an-an~-sha~-semmma~ea~e-~hese-re-
~m~emea~s-~e-~he-app~eam~w--~he-app~eaB~-may-~hea-resmBm~-a
reM~se~-~aB-shew~a§-saeh-eer~ee~eas-as-may-Be-aeeessary-~e
eemD~-w~h-~he-s~aa~a~s-e~-~he-ham~Bee~w
~ (e) The ~ea~a~-a~m~a~s~ra~er director of engineering
may require the submission of amended plans and specifications
in any case in which inspection reveals that the controls set
forth in the plan are inadequate to accomplish the erosion and
sediment control objectives of this chapter; or where the
permit holder finds that because of changed circumstances as
for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively
carried out.
..!1.38
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Sec. 7-6. Inspections.
(a) The men&n¢-a~m&n&s~aee~7 director of engineering ~he
a~v&se~y-eemm&eeee and ~he&~ his respective designated agents
shall have the right to enter upon property at all reasonable
times for the purpose of making investigation and inspection
relating to compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
(b) If it is determined under subsection (a) above that
the permit holder or his agent has failed to comply with the
plan, the ~~-a~m~s~a~ director of engineering shall
immediately serve upon the permit holderz By-~e¢&see~e~-e~
ee~e~-ma~-~-~he-a~ess-spee~e~-By-~he-perm~-h~e~-~
h&s-perm&~-app~ea~&~m in writing, a notice to comply= and
stating a reasonable time for such compliance. Such notice
shall be served by registered or certified mail to .the address
specified by the permit holder in the permit application, or by
hand delivery to the site of the permitted activities and
presented to the agent or employee of the permittee supervising
such activities, as per section 21-89.8 of the Code of Virgin-
ia, as amended, instructing that corrective measures be taken
immediately when immediate action is necessary to prevent
erosion or sedimentation problems. Such notice shall set forth
specifically the measures needed to come into compliance with
such plan~ am~-sha~-s~ee~f~-~he-~me-w~h~m-wh~eh-s~eh-meas~e
sha~-Be-eemp~e~e~= If the permit holder or his agent fails to
comply within the time specified, he may be subject to revoca-
tion of the permit and shall, in addition, be deemed to be in
violation of this chapter.
(c) In the event that the permit holder shall fail to
comply with a notice as provided in subsection ~a~ (b) above,
upon flnding that such action is reasonably necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare, the ~em&mg
aelm~s~ra~r director of engineering may cause the necessary
measures to be taken and shall proceed to recover the expenses
of such action as provided in section 7-8 hereof.
(d) Upon receipt of a complaint of a substantial viola-
tion of either section 21-89.6 or 21-89.8 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, from the designated enforcement officer,
the director of engineering may issue an order requiring that
all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the
site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have
been taken. Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is
in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or
sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the
Commonwealth, such an order may be issued without regard to
whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as
specified in subsection (b) above. Otherwise, such an order
may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply
with such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the
same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect
for a period of seven days from the date of service pending
application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for
appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon
completion of corrective action, the order shall immediately be
lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the director of
engineerinq from taking any other action specified in section
7-8.
Sec. 7-7. Review by board of supervisors.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the ~e~&~¢
a~m&~&s~a~ director of engineering in disapproving plans and
specifications submitted pursuant to this chapter, or in the
interpretation of the regulations of this chapter, shall have
the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by
the board of supervisors. In reviewing the ~m&m§-a~m&m~sera-
~erXs director of engineering's action, the board shall consid-
er evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the
~~-a~m~s~a~r? director of engineering, ~he-a~v~s~y
eemm&~ee and such other persons as shall be deemed by the
board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter. The
board may affirm, reverse or modify the ~em&m~-a~m&m&s~raee~s
director of engineering's action and the board's decision shall
be final, subject only to review by the circuit court of the
county by appeal taken pursuant to section 21-89.10 of the Code
of Virginia. For purposes of this section, the term "person
aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, owners of adja-
cent and downstream property and any interested governmental
agency or officer thereof.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
!37
Sec. 7-8. Penalties and legal remedies.
(a) Any person violating any provision of this chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof
shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
or not exceeding thirty days imprisonment, or both such fine
and imprisonment.
(b) In addition to any other remedy, the
~a~e~ director of engineering may institute any appropriate
proceeding, either at law or in equity, to prevent violation or
attempted violation of this chapter, to restrain, correct or
abate such violation, or to prevent any act which would consti-
tute such violation; provided, that in order for the
a~m~s~a~ director of engineering to obtain injunctive
relief to prevent or restrain violations hereof, it shall not
be necessary to show that there does not exist an adequate
remedy at law.
Sec. 7-9.
Authority of ~e~g-aSm~n~s~a~e~ director of
engineering to establish administrative procedures.
The ~e~n~-aelm~n~s~a~e~ director of engineering shall
have the power to establish reasonable administrative proce-
dures for the administration of this chapter.
Mr. Fisher an enforcement policy which had been presented to the Board at an earlier
meeting. Mr. Armm said that earlier there had been a bonus system proposed where developers
who complied with the ordinance would be credited on bonding requirements and exempt in
certain cases from filing plans or having to bond. Mr. Armm stated he feels this could lead
to a lot of controversy. Mr. St. John said that the County Attorney's office feels such a
policy is beyond the powers of the county. Mr. Lindstrom recommended that the word "sub-
stantial'' be removed from Section 7-6, paragraph "d" of the ordinance. He said he feels that
word has many meanings. Mr. Bowie said he had some editorial corrections. Under "Defini-
tions,'' Section 7-2, "Conservation standard or standards", a handbook is referred to that has
not been mentioned before. Mr. Bowie suggested putting the words "see below" in parentheses
after the reference, or spell out to what handbook the reader is referred.
Mr. Fisher suggested the ordinance be set for public hearing on January 14, 1987. Mr.
Way offered motion to set the public hearing to amend the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance for January 14, 1987. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15.
Basin.
Approval for Acquisition of Property - Berkmar Stormwater Detention
(Note: Mrs. Cooke excused herself from the discussion because of a possible conflict of
interest, and left the room.)
A memorandum from the County Executive, Mr. Agnor, to the Board of Supervisors dated
December 3, 1986, discussing the status of the Berkmar Stormwater Detention Basin, follows:
"In 1984, you approved in the Capital Improvement Program a project to con-
struct a regional stormwater detention basin in the Berkmar Drive area.
This basin is designed to handle the stormwater detention needs for this
area as well as provide additional storage capacity for the drainage improve-
ments associated with the proposed highway improvements on U. S. 29 North.
An appropriation for $193,487 was approved to fund the acquisition of land
and construction of the basin. Attached is a summary of the estimated costs
and resources (revenues) to fund the project.
Negotiations for the acquisition of the property have now been completed and
you will find attached a memo from the County Attorney's Office outlining
the necessary deeds of conveyance as well as copies of those deeds. Staff
recommends that you authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the appro-
priate documents for the purchase of the basin property.
Once acquisition of the property is complete, construction of the basin is
planned for Spring 1987.
Summary of Estimated Funding
Berkmar Storm Drainage Basin
Purchase of Land
Less Sale of Land Not Required for Basin
Net Cost of Land
Construction of Basin (estimated)
Total Project Cost
$250,000
-125,000
$125,000
+ 60,000
$185,000
Contributions from Developers:
Funds on Hand $42,702
Funds to be Received 20,903
Total Contributions $63,605
Net County Funds Required
- 63,605
$121,395
Current Appropriation in Capital Budget $193,487
.!.38
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, using the plans, showed the Board exactly where the
various parcels of land are located. He said the land under consideration for purchase is
known as the Spangler Tract. It is made up of three parcels, 2A, 2B and 2C. What the County
is proposing to do is to buy all three parcels and immediately sell a portion of the pro-
perty, since the entire tract is not needed for the detention basin. Out of the original
purchase, the County would retain Parcel 2C. The other two lots are proposed to be sold to a
developer working on an adjacent property. Mr. Caleb Stowe has shown an interest in
acquiring that piece of property from the County once it is purchased. It is proposed that
the rear portion of the land owned by Mr. Stowe (Lot 1) would be purchased by the County for
the basin. In turn, the County would trade the unneeded part of the Spangler tract to Mr.
Stowe. There are also several easements that must take place. Mr. Stowe wants to have
access to two properties from his two parcels, Nos. 1 and 7. The County would be granting an
access easement to the existing homes on the proposed Stowe property through an easement
across the berm of the detention basin. Mr. St. John stated that the right-of-way is a
general easement for all purposes. Mr. Fisher asked if a road can be built there. Mr. Armm
responded that the plans reflect the widening of the berm so a roadway can be established.
In one of the agreements, Mr. Stowe gives the County the right to enter upon Lot 7 through
what will be the parking lot of his proposed development in order to have access to the basin
for maintenance purposes. There is also a need for a small easement on Lot No. 5 so that
improvements can be made downstream of the basin. Mr. Donald Foss is the owner of Lot 5.
Mr. Spangler has let the County know that he will sell this property as one piece only.
Calculations show that if the County buys only the detention basin portion of land, the
damages, easements and other related costs would add up to approximately $18,000 more than
under the present arrangements. One key item is that Mr. Stowe has a use for the excavated
materials from the site. This will result in a savings of about $7,000 in potential removal
costs. Mr. Stowe wants that material placed on Lot 7, where he can use it in his
development.
Mr. Fisher asked which watershed this detention basin serves. Mr. Armm responded that
the public purpose covers quite a large area. The entire block encompassed by Route 29 to
Rio Road and back down Berkmar. There has been quite a bit of development in the area and
there is potential for more. Serious flooding problems exist just downstream of this site on
the Jefferson Supply property and on the land where the new small commercial center was built
at Berkmar and Route 29. This water is also a tributary down to the Pizza Inn where there
has been quite a problem. Mr. Armm said he feels this is the best-suited lot for the pur-
pose. He said he feels there will be great benefit derived from the basin. It is expected
that a substantial amount of the cost will be reimbursed to the County from developers within
this watershed. Some of those funds have already been collected although the project has not
started. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be future developments in this watershed? Mr. Agnor
said that it is not estimated that the basin would be totally funded from off-site contri-
butions. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much more of the $121,000 will the County receive. Mr.
Armm explained that there is a provision in the ordinance that if you build under 20,000
square feet of hard surface area, you are exempted from detention basin requirements. It
depends on how much development goes into the remaining lots. Mr. Fisher asked how the land
values in this transaction compare to the appraised values of the property. Mr. Agnor said
he did not remember the figures, but it is within the price the County is paying.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the County Executive's recommendation be accepted and
he be authorized to sign the documents necessary for the purchase of this basin as outlined
in this and the other memorandums received. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs~ Cooke.
(Note: Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 3:45 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Amend Joint Jail Agreement, re: Compensation - Jail Board Members.
Mr. Agnor discussed a memorandum from him to the Board, dated December 3, 1986, on the
Compensation of Jail Board members. Excerpts from the memorandum follow:
"Attached is a letter from Mr. McMahan, Jail Administrator, setting forth a
request of the Jail Board to increase the compensation of all members from
$20 per meeting to $100 per meeting not to exceed $1200 per year. The
action by the Jail Board is intended to include payments to elected offi-
cials. Section 15.3 of the County Code prohibits payments to County
employees and members of the Board of Supervisors for their service on
Boards and Commissions. This would have to be amended in order to approve
the Jail Board's request.
This issue was considered by City Council and action was deferred. They are
requesting the Jail Board Chairman appear to explain the justification of
the request. According to City staff there was concern by Council of paying
anyone that is currently compensated by public funds.
Staff recommends your review of this request in conjunction with all Boards
and Commissions compensation for inclusion in the 1987-88 budget. It does
appear that the compensation for citizen members of the Jail Board, other
than elected officials and employees, should be paid at $25 per meeting
instead of $20 since the Code of Virginia has been amended in 1986 to allow
up to $1200 per year for Regional Jail Board members. Prior to that the
maximum was $240 per year. The $25 would be comparable to what the county
compensates members of other Boards and Commissions."
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Henley offered motion to accept the recommendation of Mr. Agnor. Mr. Way seconded
the motion'. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion of Legislation, re: Transient Occupancy Tax.
The following is a memorandum from Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way on the subject of an increase
in the transient occupancy tax:
"You will remember that the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau Study Com-
mittee, on which we serve, promulgated an Interim Report in September which
outlined a plan for the establishment of a combined Convention and Visitors
Bureau which may be established through an unusual private-public partner-
ship. We knew that the Board felt that any such operation should be largely
funded from private sources, and we have taken the position that any new
arrangement must provide for this. The partnership which is proposed would
require that private sources ultimately account for one-half of all funds
expended for the bureau, with the County and City providing for the other
half through a reservation of one-fifth of all collections from room taxes.
The formula contained in the Interim Report calls for just such a shared
cost arrangement.
The response from the private sector has been positive, and the Board of the
Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the concept. So has the City Council. The
joint Study Committee has met again and considered the responses received
from various interested parties. It is clear to all parties, we believe,
that the County's support of the Convention and Visitors Bureau is predi-
cated on approval by the General Assembly of an increase in the County's
"Room" (Transient Occupancy) Tax, from which the County will partially
support the Bureau. Gaining such approval will not be easy, but there are
indications that we will receive some support from this community if we
endorse the Bureau concept. We recommend that the Board adopt a resolution
which supports the concept of the Bureau, provided that the room tax
increase is approved.
We believe that this innovative approach will solve a recurring controversy
about support for such activities, and it will generate more money for
tourist and meeting promotion, which will in turn generate more public and
private revenues. This is the closest thing to a profit generator that we
have tried recently, and we recommend that you support it."
Mr. Fisher stated that Mr. St. John has drafted specific changes in the State Code for
the Board to review. There are two methods that can be followed. He said he presumes the
area legislators who are going to introduce the legislation will choose the one they would
prefer to support. Mr. Fisher said rather than have a decision from the Board on which way
to go, he would like to take the drafts to the legislators and ask them to choose one or come
up with their own version. There was no further discussion of this subject.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Mat~ers Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he had
received a letter from Dr. Prindle at the Thomas Jefferson Health District. Dr. Prindle says
that on December 12, 1986, at 1:15 p.m., Dr. Christopher Buttery, State Commissioner of
Health, will be visiting that Health District. The Board members are all invited.
Agenda Item No. 5.
minutes assigned to him.
mistakes.
Approval of Minutes. Mr. Henley said he had finished reading the
Mr. Henley said he read November 5, 1986, pages 1 - 5, and found no
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way mentioned they had not been present for Agenda Item No. 5 and had
read their minutes.
Mr. Way said he had read February 5, 1986, page 9 to the end and found them all right.
Mrs. Cook said she had read February 5, 1986, pages 1 through 7 and found them in order.
No other minutes had been read. Mr. Way offered motion to approve the minutes which had
been read and Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor made two
announcements: One, Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres has asked the staff to give him, Senator Tom
Michie, and Mr. George Allen a briefing on the evolution of the County's Comprehensive Plan,
and the history of the transportation plans which are a part of that Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Tucker is going to do this next Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m.
Second, the Governor has granted state employees two extra holidays; the Friday after
Christmas and the Friday after New Year's. Mr. Agnor said that in response to queries from
County employees as to the possibility of having these days given by the County, he has
reminded them that there will be no extra days given (a policy the Board has followed the
last few years), but that they may take annual leave on those days is satisfactory with their
department head.
!40
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
The Board recessed at 3:59 P.M., and reconvened into session at 4:11 p.m. in Room 95.
Agenda Item No. 17. Joint Meeting with City Council. Present at this time were members
of Charlottesville City Council: Mr. Frank Buck, Mayor, Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason, and Messrs.
E. G. Hall, Lindsay Barnes and Darden Towe. Also present were Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres,
Member of the General Assembly, and Mr. Ray Haas, representing the University of Virginia.
Mr. Fisher said this meeting had been set in order to discuss the issues of trans-
portation in general and to discuss the concept of a study if theses two bodies can agree on
what the study might accomplish. He felt the questions which need to be answered by such a
study should be defined first.
Mr. Buck said City Council had a work session last night to review road plans in the
City and the County. Mr. Lindstrom attended that meeting and presented his idea concerning
the reconstruction of Route 29 North which he recently presented to the Board of Supervisors
(see minutes for December 3, 1986, afternoon). Mr. Buck said that in 1978, City Council
decided to go forward with plans for the Meadow Creek Parkway, and in so doing relied on
information from the period of 1974 and 1975. Now, ten years later they are being asked to
make a decision on roads based on information from the mid-1970's. The City Manager, Cole
Hendrix, went over the history of many of the road projects. Council was surprised to find
that many of the projections for the year 2005 had been met by 1985. Now, the City and
County are forced by the State into making decisions because of a change in funding sources.
The situation now is quite different from a year or two ago. Mr. Buck said the decisions
made now will probably have a great impact on the quality and shape of the community for the
rest of its existence.
Council feels it would be helpful for the County and City, along with the University of
Virginia, to look at what will happen and how to direct things to happen in a certain way.
Probably the only way to do that is to do a comprehensive review of road projects already
planned and how one project may impact on the others. Otherwise, decisions might be made in
isolation and might be bad decisions for the community for the next fifty years.
Mr. Fisher said one of the problems is that the origin and destination study was done in
1974. In that study it was determined that fourteen percent of the total traffic on Route 29
North was through traffic. Since 1974, traffic on Route 29 North has increased almost one
hundred percent, but the Highway Department still assumes that through traffic is fourteen
percent of the total. Mr. Fisher said he personally feels it is much less. The decisions
that must be made now on how to deal with local traffic are dependent on knowing how much is
actually through traffic. If the Highway Department cannot be convinced to change those
projections, the localities may need do something else.
Mr. Way said in his three years on the Board of Supervisors, there is nothing new about
the planning for Route 29 North or the Meadow Creek Parkway. He feels a decision on these
projects could be delayed just for the sake of a study, and although he is not opposed to the
idea of a study, he does not know how long the localities can continue to use taxpayer's
money to study the question and not make a decision.
Mr. Lindstrom said since the CATS study was processed, there have been changes that
effect the patterns of use for the Route 29 corridor that were not taken into consideration
when the CATS study was being made. More particularly, he referred to the concept of a
Western Bypass, which was deleted from the final CATS plan. Also, since the CATS study was
developed, the Board took action to remove from any development category all lands lying in
watershed areas west of Charlottesville as a potential source of residential development.
Mr. Buck said that there have been many changes since 1974, and City Council now feels
that the Meadow Creek Parkway may not be in the best interests of the city. When the deci-
sion was originally made this road was viewed as being purely access from the northern and
eastern parts of the County to the central business district, and it was assumed that there
would be some sort of western bypass for the people travelling around the City. Now that
idea has been deleted from any plans, and people in the City are afraid the Meadow Creek
Parkway might become an internal expressway or bypass. Decisions have been made based on
assumptions made in 1978 that do not seem valid now, but those decisions were actually
formulated ten years before that date. According to plans, the Meadow Creek Parkway should
be under construction, but the route had not been selected because there has been no money
for the project.
Mr. Barnes said it appears from information received from the State Highway Commission
that something will be done whether or not the decision is made on the local level. He feels
there Would be positive input from having new data.
Mr. Henley asked if current origin/destination data were available, if City Council
would be willing to go ahead with a decision on Route 29 North.
Mr. Buck said there are a number of issues, and not just the origin and destination
information. There needs to be an evaluation of some of the alternatives, but he, person-
ally, is not interested in doing a study if the final decision is to be made in Richmond.
Mr. Lindstrom said since he made his presentation last week, a news reporter called Mr.
Jack Hodge, Director of Engineering, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, to
ask about Mr. Lindstrom's idea for Route 29 North. Mr. Hodge then called Mr. Lindstrom and
they talked about the Board's concerns on the proposed Route 29 North project. Mr. Lindstrom
asked how long the Board will have to make a formal response to the Highway Department about
this project. Mr. Hodge indicated he wished to make a formal presentation to the Highway
Commission in February, so the Board can wait until late January to make its response. Mr.
Lindstrom said he has heard from sources which he considers reliable, that if a study is
proposed locally by the three entities, the Route 29 North project would be deferred, and the.
State Highway Commission and the Governor would allow time for that study to be done. First,
it must be decided if a study is feasible. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees in principle with
the concept.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
141
Mr. Way said if a study is done, and then the Highway Department decides to do the
project the way they want to do it, that will have an impact, and will deny the Board the
opportunity to vote on anything done on Route 29.
Mr. Fisher said the Route 29 North project does not go to bid until late 1988, with the
detailed design work being done in the meantime. He asked Mr. Van Yahres for his comments.
Mr. Van Yahres said the General Assembly has funded a transportation program for the
State, raised the taxes for the program, and the projects will happen. The Legislature has
no position as to what the localities do. That decision must be made locally. He had gotten
a lot of questions about the Route 29 North project, so he talked with Mr. Ray Pethel,
Highway Commissioner. He feels this area will get a lot of cooperation from the Highway
Department as to future planning. The Highway Department is to do a comprehensive study of
all of the highways that could go around Charlottesville to handle the Route 29 traffic. He
understands that instead of having just one route proposed, there will be four or five that
could be studied. The Highway Department would make a study on the basis of not only trans-
portation, but on economic impact, social impact, aesthetic, environmental, etc. Mr. Fisher
asked about land use implications. Mr. Van Yahres said that land use would probably be a
local responsibility. Mr. Fisher said that is his concern. If the Highway Department makes
a study, because any highway going through relatively undeveloped land will change the
character of that land. Mr. Van Yahres said he does not know how much weight that portion of
a study would carry. It seems that a highway is to be put in, and if the localities do not
get together, it will be built according to what is wanted at the State level. Local land
use may not be a factor considered at all.
Mr. Van Yahres said Mr. Pethel understands that the data is old and that new data is
needed and the Meadow Creek Parkway would be part of that data search. He does not feel this
group should make a decision to go ahead with a study at this time because the localities
need to know what the Highway Department will propose for Route 29 North, and that will not
be known until the end of January. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposals will be different from
those already seen by the Board. Mr. Van Yahres said he understands there are some other
options being studied as a result of the intense reaction received at the Highway Depart-
ment's public hearings. They realize there is a difficult situation to deal with, and they
have created a lot of controversy in this community.
Mr. Lindstrom said he asked Mr. Hodge how significant the changes are which are being
considered and he indicated that the changes are not really significant. He said the Highway
Department may propose having an informational meeting here to discuss why they have proposed
certain things rather than making any changes.
Mr. Buck said that sort of reaction on the part of the Highway Department is one of the
reasons he feels a study needs to be done. Too many of the decisions have been driven by
reaction to particular criticisms, without looking at-the problems from the standpoint of how
all these things fit together.
Mr. Lindstrom said his proposal is similar to proposal No. 5 of the Highway Department.
At the time they studied proposal No. 5, the Highway Department said it would give a Level C
or better service for southbound and northbound traffic, but the cost of that proposal was
prohibitive. The real problem was that east/west traffic would never get to better than
Level F service. He was curious as to how a grade-separated interchange at Rio could give
better than a Level F service. He found that they did it by using a three-phase turn signal
instead of a four-phase turn signal. By doing that one little thing, they changed that level
of service in the year 2005 from a Level F to a Level C which is one of the best available
for an urban-type road.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Van Yahres has indicated that the Highway Department is considering
its own study beyond the immediate Route 29 North improvements. He asked if that includes
Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Van Yahres said Meadow Creek would be part of the data studied to
get the effect it would have on other areas, but he does not believe it is being looked at as
any kind of a bypass. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department is amenable to allowing
a reasonable period of time for a study to be undertaken. Mr. Van Yahres said yes.
Mr. Fisher said it seems the question to be addressed is whether or not the perspective
of the Highway Department, which is primarily for State-wide transportation, shares the same
kinds of concerns the localities have as to where the traffic goes and what influence that
traffic will have on our lives.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Highway Commissioner had indicated that the Highway Department
studies would be sensitive to local concerns. Mr. Van Yahres said he felt they would be.
They recognize there will be impacts on other aspects of the community. Mrs. Cooke said she
is concerned that the local needs will get lost in the process if the localities do not have
technical input into the decision-making process. She would like to see the Commissioner's
comments on whether or not the localities will be allowed to have input in the decision and
participate in the process.
Mr. Fisher said if it is decided not to have a local study, but to cooperate and
encourage a study by the Highway Department, he thinks it is up to the localities to set the
questions to be answered, and the assumptions to be made in some of the analyses, and to
suggest a role for the localities to play. Mr. Lindstrom said the Highway Department has a
long history of commitment to proposals which locally have been resisted, but they keep
coming back with the same proposals. He feels it would be a mistake to participate in a
study, the results of which would make the localities uneasy. He said it is hard to discuss
this matter without stepping on toes.
Mrs. Cooke said the Board has been burned very badly in this decision-making process. A
year ago, this Board thought there was a "done deal" with the Highway Department on the Route
29 North improvements. She and Mr. Bowie went to Culpeper with a formal "thank you" and
acceptance of the plan which had been presented to the Board. Six months later the picture
!4£
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
was completely changed with no prior knowledge on the part of the Board members. She would
like to have some definite answers to a hard question. How' will the Board be involved .in the
decision-making process? This project affects the entire character and the economic situa-
tion in this community for a life time.
Mr. Van Yahres said he feels it is not too early for the three entities to get together
and do what has been discussed; ask the Highway Department what role the community will be
playing. He thinks this group should go to the Highway Department with its' questions.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the localities invest financially in this study, he feels that
will only make sure that it is an independent and unbiased study. He asked the University's
reaction to all of this.
Mr. Haas said he appreciates the opportunity to listen. The thought occurred to him
that probably everything the Highway Departnment does is according to a procedures manual.
He asked if other communities have been faced with what this community is now facing. All
agreed that this not an unusual situation. Mr Haas said the University is interested in
this study, but he wondered if this needs to be a study of just roadways or a study of
transportation in general.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would be concerned about any study the Highway Department con-
ducted on its own because they obviously have foremost concerns which effect the State as a
whole.
Mr. Fisher said he asked County staff to put together a list of alternatives and he
suggested that it be used as a starting point to decide what a study might entail:
"Comprehensive Urban Area Transportation Study (possible scope and parameters):
Update of CATS data base;
Investigate local and through traffic problems and solutions;
Socio-economic impact of improvements;
Environmental impact of bypass alignments;
Develop transportation systems for highways, public transit, park and ride, etc.
To be completed in six to twelve months. While this study is taking place, the
Route 29 North improvements and bypass planning should be deferred.."
Mr. Haas asked if anybody had started from the other side, and looked at the solutions
which should be provided and then looked to see how a road might contribute to that solution.
Mr. Fisher said that is a pretty radical idea. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought about what
would happen as the localites involved themselves with a consultant, and felt it would be
impossible to prohibit the consultant from looking at certain things specifically, but things
that should be clearly avoided could be stated.
Mrs. Cooke said she feels threatened by what the Highway Department has said to the
Board so far about the Route 29 North project, and she wonders if they will wait for six to
twelve months while this study is taking place. Mr. Lindstrom said he had spoken to an
individual who in turn spoke to the Governor about this question, and heresay has it that his
office will allow a reasonable period of time for the study to go forward. As to a request
for a deferral for a comprehensive study, the communication he got is that the deferral would
be much longer than that period of time.
Mrs. Cooke wondered if it would be possible to get an official word from the Highway
Department that the County has a longer grace period than the end of January. She does not
feel that anything can be done effectively by the end of January. She is uncomfortable about
that.
Mr. Buck suggested it might be easier to get that official word if there were an agree-
ment that a study is the right approach, and then a delegation contact someone at the Highway
Department to present the request. He finds it difficult to believe the Highway Department
would continue with its current plans if they saw what the community was committed to. If
they intend to go ahead without any local input, there is no reason to do a study. He is not
interested in doing a study simply for the sake of a study.
Mr. Bowie said he recently received a copy of a list of 23 different studies made. He
firmly believes that if there is a big, independent study, and it disagrees with the Highway
Department, they will not accept it, and he would be surprised if the people in this room
today Would accept it if they don't like it. It will obviously be two years out of date when
received. If it gives exactly what is wanted, that is wonderful, but he thinks that most of
these people know what they want, so he does not know that the study is needed. He would
suggest that the committee appointed just last month - the Mayor, the Chairman, Mr. Barnes
and himself, with appropriate planning commission and staff - get together with the Highway
Department and try to add this input to the plans. Why have another study if this group can
have meaningful input?
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor for his comments. Mr. Agnor said a lot of good points have
been made today, one in particular by Ray Haas. The Highway Department does have a pro-
cedural and policy manual and they will go about a study in the same way they do for any
other locality in Virginia. He has heard that the Highway Department is interested in a
study, primarily to be sure decisions are based on current information. It seems to him that
if these bodies want to have any "say-so" in what is going on, they must "buy-in" and if the
three entities want to have a study, they should buy-in to it and be a partner with the
Highway Department. He feels the Highway Department will reject a request for a community-
wide, independent study.
December 10, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Buck said although he is uneasy about being only a participant to the Highway
Department study, he agrees someone can sit down and design a road to take care of both the
local traffic and a bypass to get people through the area, but the State Highway Department
has said that solution will help for only a little while. They have said there is still a
need to have some sort of bypass either east or west of town. If the road does not serve the
function of a bypass, it seems the road might be designed somewhat differently if it is to
serve a more limited purpose. That type of issue must be addressed. Although this Board has
said there will be no western bypass, there is a lot of noise from Richmond that there will
be a bypass and it will probably be to the west of town. Is the Highway Department going to
do this anyway, or study the idea until the time that everyone feels comfortable with a
western bypass? If it is found that a western bypass just is not feasible, it may be that
the only solution is to reconstruct Route 29 North with some sort of internal expressway. He
thinks the big issues need to be decided before talking about the design of Route 29 North.
Mr. Lindstrom said it sounds like there is some support for a study, and he thinks the
committee mentioned earlier, with the addition of a member from the University, would be the
correct group to do this, reporting back immediately after the first of 1987.
Mr. Barnes agreed. He felt the list presented by the Chairman is a good starting place
for a scope of the work, with the addition of involving the Highway Department in some
meaningful way. Mr. Lindstrom also agreed that items which should be avoided be added to the
list. Mr. Lindstrom said it has been mentioned that there might be private sources available
for such a study, and he would want this committee to also check to see if this is fact.
Mr. Towe said there seem to be many people living in areas to the north and south of
Charlottesville pushing for the Route 29 North improvements, and it appears that the cost of
the project will be paid by those people. He agrees with Mr. Henley that the question has
been studied. For the sake of all parties agreeing, he will agree to go forward with a
study, and he thinks it would be encouraging if some financial commitment were made today for
a study, and that the committee ask the Governor and the Commissioner if the project can be
deferred.
Mr. Buck asked if Mr. Towe were suggesting there be a financial commitment made today to
go forward with a study. Mr. Towe said yes, if the cost can be divided three ways with the
University, that the Commissioner be told the localities are agreeable to a study. He does
not know why the localities funding the study would change the impact on the "guy" who has to
pay the bill. Mr. Buck said it would allow the localites to control the study.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the three jurisdictions jointly undertake a study locally, and if
the study accommodates what seems to be a decision made on the state level that there will be
a different major north/south traffic route in this community, and if the localities can
support that route, he thinks the localities will have a significant influence on how and
where this route is built. He does not think it can be said that it will not be built. He
also thinks that after the study, it might be found that such a route will also do some good
for local traffic. What the Highway Department is proposing at this time will not do much
for local traffic and not take care of a lot of through traffic. In deference to Mr. Towe,
he does not think he can vote for the study without deciding first what is to be studied, and
the cost involved.
Mr. Buck said he thinks Council is committed to going forward with a study on that
basis. The Council will only agree to a study if it is a joint effort, and would hope that
the University will participate. If the Board members need more information before making a
decision and feel an ad-hoc committee will help, he is agreeable. Mr. Way said he is not
ready to make a decision without knowing a dollar figure. Mr. Fisher said there is no way to
arrive at a dollar figure until it is decided what questions need to be answered, how long it
will take, etc.
Mr. Henley said he has always thought more "headway" would be made by working with the
Highway Department, so he is not receptive to putting any money into a study, but he thinks
they will cooperate if the localites work with them. For at least the last fifteen years,
the Board has asked the Highway Department to do something about Route 29 North, and now that
they have decided to do it, "we are about to go crazy."
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt a preliminary report should be back to the Board and Council
by the first week in January. Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member disagreed with the
committee meeting and deciding what should be done. No one disagreed.
There was no further discussion concerning this item.
Agenda Item No. 19. At 5:35 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.