1985-07-10July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on
July 10, 1985, at 9~00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, Joseph T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 3:15 P.M,) and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Mr. George R. St. John,
Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M., by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr.
Way, to approve Item 4.0 and accept the items of information on the consent agenda with the
exception of Item 4.9. Mr. Bowie requested that Item 4.9 be discussed by the Board. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Item 4.0. Street Sign: Running Deer Subdivision. Request received from Mrs. Edith
Louise Kirby for street signs to identify Running Deer Drive and Albino Lane in Running Deer
Subdivision and to have these signs incorporated for maintenance. Mrs. Kirby has agreed to
purchase the signs. The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the
following roads:
Running Deer Drive (State Route 808) and Whitetail Lane (State
Route 828) at the northeast corner of its intersection;
Running Deer Drive (S~ate Route 808) and Albino Lane (State Route
836) at the northeast corner of its intersection; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Item No. 4.1. The followin~ letter dated June 24, 1985 was r-eceived from Senator John
Warner referencing the Board's resolution on Superfund legislation:
"Thank you for providing me with a copy of the resolution recently adopted by
the Board of Supervisors~n support of the Superfund program for clean-up of
hazardous waste sites.
As you may know, the Superfund legislation reported from the Committees on
Environment and Public Works, and Finance renews the clean-up program for five
years and expands its funding from $1.6 billion to $7.5 billion. This legis-
lation does not, however, include the provisions you specifically addressed
such as victims compensation, but it is likely that floor amendments will be
offered on these issues.
The Senate leadership has indicated their intention to bring this bill before
the full Senate for debate and vote before August.
Please be assured that I will keep in mind the Board's support for these pro-
visions during the floor debate."
Item No. 4.2. The following letter dated June 26, 1985 was received from William K.
Norris referencing radioactivity in area groundwater:
"The Rand McNally 'Places Rated Almanac' published in February of 1985 listed
the Charlottesville area as an area that had high levels of radioactivity in
its groundwater. Due to the concern and inquiries that this publication
generated, I have obtained the following information:
A) During a phone conversation with Mr. Jim Moore of the Virginia State
Health Department, I was assured that there were no problems with high radio-
activity levels in the groundwater or surface waters of the area. (Tests are
conducted every three years on groundwater wells and annually on surface water
supplies).
398
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
B) The reference used by Rand McNally was the United States Geological
Survey Water Supply Paper ~2250. This Water Supply Paper contained the
-following:
'Natural radioactivity that exceeds state drinking water standards of 15
picocuries per liter for gross alpha radiation and 5 picocuries per liter
for total radium is present in groundwater from supply wells at Fort A,
P. Hill in Caroline County and at the Defense General Supply Center in
Chesterfield County. Water from some public supply wells in the Piedmont
also contains radioactivity in excess of state drinking - water
standards. Maximum reported concentrations have been 45 picocuries per
liter for gross alpha radiation and 15 picocuries per liter for total
radium.'
C) The USGS paper listed a Mr. R. Taylor with the Virginia Department of
Health as their source of groundwater information in Virginia. I contacted
Mr. Taylor in Richmond and inquired about the USGS and Rand McNally state-
ments. He indicated to me that:
1. The only areas close to Albemarle County which exhibited high gross
alpha counts have been a few small areas in Orange, Culpeper and Louisa
Counties (none of these sites exceed the state standards).
2. There have been a couple of violations of state standards in Henrico
County on the north side of Richmond.
3. Most of the high readings have been far south of Albemarle County in
Pittsylvania County and around Smith Mountain Lake.
4. Generally, the type of rock structures in the Piedmont area
(basically granite and igneous rock), occasionally have areas of naturally
occurring radioactivity. (This formation'extends from Georgia to Maine).
5. The Virginia State Standards are based on the consumption of two
liters of water per day containing the state limits over a 70 year lifetime.
(The state standards incorporate a safety factor of approximately one in one
million.)
6. The main areas of concern are where there have been a lot of man-made
radioactivity generated and/or where there has been groundwater injection of
waste permitted. (The State of Virginia has banned groundwater injection of
waste since 1946.)
A review of this information leads me to believe that we do not have a problem
with high levels of radioactivity in our groundwater or surface water, public
or ~private water supplies. Occasionally, there may be pockets of naturally
occurring radioactivity located on a site specific basis in the area.
However, due to the safety factors incorporated into the state standards; I do
not believe that we should be overly concerned with this problem in our area
at this time.
I have requested a copy of a computer printout from Mr. Taylor of the Health
Department which identifies all the water resources in the state which have
been tested for radioactivity and lists their tested radioactivity levels and
their current status. As of this date I have not received this information.
Upon its receipt, I will review it for groundwater and surface water resources
that have been~tested in our area and summarize it for our use locally."
Item No. 4.3.
information.
Planning Commission Minutes for June 18, 1985 were received as
Item No. 4.4.
information.
Planning Commission Minutes for June 25, 1985 were received as
Item No. 4.5. The following letter dated June 24, 1985 was received from Dan S.
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, referencing Route 866 (Greenbrier Drive):
"Reference is made to your letter dated June 18, 1985, which transmitted Mr.
Ronald H. J. Langman's letter of May 30, 1985, to this office. Both letters
concern Route 866, Greenbrier Drive, east from its intersection with Route 29.
I am, by copy of this letter to the District Traffic Engineer, asking that he
review the parking along the north side of Greenbrier Drive to determine if it
should be restricted. The curb and gutter and turn lane work in front of
Daly's Rent-All is being constructed under permit. This permit expires in
August 1985. It is our intention to have the work completed by that time or
to draw upon the developer's bond to complete this work.
I am also requesting that the Traffic Engineer review the stop light timing at
the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29. This signal is part of a
traffic signal system which includes all the signals between Hydraulic Road
and Rio Road. As a result, traffic on:Route 29 receives a priority over the
traffic on the side streets. I believe it will be difficult to work phases
into this signal for through traffic and turning traffic on Greenbrier without
affecting the system. We will review it, however. The U-turn movements on
Greenbrier Drive just east of 29 have concerned me for some time. We will
post this location for no U-turns and advise the County Police Department as
well as Comdial since their employees are the major violators.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
397
The marking of'streets with street signs is the initial responsibility of the
County. The County supplies the Department with the original signs which we
install. Once installed, the Department will maintain the signs from that
time forward. It should be noted that the Department has placed advance
signing along northbound and southbound 29 indicating the Greenbrier Drive
intersection. These signs are located just under the traffic signal warning
signs at each location.
The Department does not feel that pedestrian access across.Route 29 is some-
thing we should encourage. Route 29 is an arterial route and as such is
expected to carry large volumes of through traffic through this area. We are
all aware of the lack of capacity already existing along Route 29. To add
additional green time for pedestrian crossings will only add to the delay of
this through traffic.
Once I have received a reply from the District Traffic Engineer concerning the
parking and signal timing I will be in further touch with you."
Item No. 4.6. The following letter dated July 1, 1985, was received from Dan S.
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, referencing replacement of culvert along Route 810
between Routes 629 and 687:
"The Department of Highways and Transportation intends to replace an existing
culvert along Route 810 between Routes 629 and 687 on July 9, 1985. This will
make it necessary for the road to be closed to through traffic between the
hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Attached is a sketch indicating the location
of the culvert (on file)."
Item No. 4.7. The following letter dated July 1, 1985, was received from Dan S.
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, referencing replacement of superstructure over Jumping
Creek on Route 633 at intersection with Route 712.
"The Department of Highways and Transportation intends to replace the existing
superstructure over Jumping Creek at the intersection of Route 712 during the
period of July 8, 1985 through July 12, 1985.
Attached is a sketch indicating the location of the bridge (on file) and
signing to assist traffic while the structure is closed."
Item No. 4.8. The following letter dated June 28, 1985, was received from the Department
of Highways & Transportation referencing addition and abandonment of Route 627:
"As requested in your resolution dated May 8, 1985, the following addition to
and abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective June 28, 1985.
ADDITION LENGTH
Section 1 of new location Route 727 from
Route 627 to 0.06 mile South Route 627
0.06 Mi.
ABANDONMENT
Section 2 of old location Route 727 from
Route 627 to 0.12 mile SW Route 627
0.12 Mi."
Item No. 4.9. JAUNT - Use of Carryover Balance. Mr. Bowie offered motion to defer
JAUNT's request to use $5,000 of its' carryover balance to fund the salary of a half-time
outreach worker until July 17, 1985 and requested information in writing from the JAUNT Board
of Directors on whether they ratified this request for unexpended funds. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: July ll, 1984. Mrs. Cooke offered motion that
pages 1-7 of July 11, 1984 minutes be approved. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters:
under Rural Addition Law.
Request to take Brookhill Avenue into State System
Mr. Agnor reported that the Board had agreed in 1983 to take Brookhill Avenue in
Lakeside Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways using the Rural Addition Law.
The property owners were allowed until June 30, 1985 to comply with the conditions set by the
Road Viewers. The following letter dated May 23, 1985 was presented to the Board:
398
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
"Mr. Fred Hermanson
Barnes Lumber Company
P. 0. Box 38
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Hermanson:
Reference is made to our recent conversations concerning Brookhill Avenue, a
proposed rural addition, in the Lakeside Subdivision.
As requested, I have developed a new estimate of cost to construct Brookhill
Avenue to a cul-de-sac located at a point between lots A6 and Cl in the
Lakeside Subdivision. Location of a cul-de-sac at this point would shorten
construction on Brookhill Avenue by approximately 400'. Attached you will
find the revised estimate. You will note that this estimate gives credit of
$23,839 for the work to be done as a part of the Willow Lake Subdivision
construction. It is estimated that the remaining work to be done by the
Department will cost approximately $26,670. The total of the subdivision
credit plus the work by VDH&T is estimated to be $50,509.
Based upon a previously agreed upon breakdown, 58.5% of the total cost- must be
borne by other than the Department of Highways and Transportation (58.5% of
$50,509 = $29,547). Since the credit given for the subdivision construction
amounts to $23,839, this leaves approximately $5,708 as the citizens' costs.
The Department will require that the citizens put up at least $5,708 toward
the cost of this addition before construction will be authorized. Please
recognize that this is an estimate and should the total actual cost of the
project be higher, the citizens will be expected to bear 5-8.5% of any cost
overrun.
In addition to the construction costs there are still the problems of utility
relocation costs and the right of way needed for this improvement. One
hundred percent of the cOst for both utility relocations and clearance of the
right of way, if necessary, will have to be borne by other than the
Department. Since I have dealt with Rev. Daniel Lowe on this matter from its
inception, 1 am sending him and the County Engineer, as the county representa-
tive, a copy of this letter for their information.
Yours truly,
(SIGNED)
D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer"
The following letter dated June 28, 1985 from William L. Hiter, Jr., and Daniel R. Lowe,
representatives of Brookhill Avenue, was presented to the Board:
"We, the property owners on Brookhill Avenue, with the accompanying papers
submitted with this letter, feel that we have fully met our part of the
requirements for this proposed Rural Addition. (Accompanying papers contained
a note from Central Fidelity Bank that it has on deposit in Acct. 97500176710
in the name of "Buddy Hiter for Brookhill development," in the amount of
$5,713.50 as of June 27, 1985.) (Also attached was copy of plat to record on
June 27, 1985, showing survey of parcels R, S, T, U and Y, Lakeside, parcels T
and U are to be dedicated to public use; parcels R, S and Y replace portions
of Lakeside Drive that are to be vacated, plat drawn by "Gloecknor, Lincoln &
Osborne, Inc., dated June 18, 1985.)
We, therefore, request that the promised funds will be released to the
Department of Highways and Transportation for this Rural Addition."
Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. Roosevelt suggests the Board proceed with a resolution
requesting that the road be taken into the system and anything needed as the project proceeds
can be filled in by his office or by County staff.
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution requesting that Brookhill Avenu~
be taken into the State system. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant
Resident Engineer, Highway stated that before this road can be taken into the system, it must
tie into an existing State road. The existing road is going to be realigned as part of Willo~
Lake Subdivision. He stated that the Board can go ahead and ask for Brookhill Drive to be
accepted as a Rural Addition, but it cannot occur until the section of Willow Lake Drive
becomes a part of the State system. Mr. Fisher asked when this will happen. Mr. Maynard
Elrod, County Engineer, replied that Willow Lake Drive is now under construction by the
developer, but Willow Lake Drive will not be eligible to come into the State system until at
least three homes are occupied along its length. Mr. Agnor said the Board can proceed with
this resolution today.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
399
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into
the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, in accordance with Section 33.1-72.1Cl and D the following road in
Lakeside Subdivision:
Beginning at station 10+100 of Willow Lake Drive, a point common
with the centerline and edge of pavement of the southbound lane
of Route 20, thence in a westerly direction with Willow Lake Drive
232.95 feet to station 12+32.95, a point common with the centerline
of Brookhill Avenue at station 10+100, thence in a northerly direc-
tion approximately 1,040 feet to station 20+40, the end of the
cul-de-sac of Brookhill Avenue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this
requested addition. In addition, property owners in Lakeside Subdivision have deposited in an
account in Central Fidelity Bank "Buddy Hiter for Brookhill Development, Account No.
7500176710," $5,713.50 toward the cost of this addition.
Mr. Fisher stated that he is very pleased the residents have been able tO raise the funds
to do this project. Years ago, when this first started, he did not think the residents would
be able to raise the money.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Request to vacate a portion of plat on property of
William A. and Mary A. Coughlin. (This request was brought on the Board's agenda by a letter '
dated June 24, 1985, from Janice Coughlin stating this is the last remaining step necessary to
complete subdivision of their property.)
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, addressed the Board. He stated that William and Mary
Coughlin own approximately eleven acres in Wispering Pines Subdivision, a small subdivision
located adjacent to Glenaire Subdivision. The applicants want to divide the property into two
parcels. One of the conditions placed on the subdivision plat was approval of a private road.
The applicants are seeking to vacate the portion of. the dedicated right-of-way which has never
been constructed and to construct a 20 x 20 foot turnaround at the point where roadway
physically ends. The County Engineer has approved the existing road but required some minor
repairs. The County Attorney's office has approved the maintenance agreement of the private
road. This is the last condition that the Coughlin's need to meet to obtain their subdivision
approval.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Keeler if he could tell the Board of what the subdivision consists.
Mr. Keeler replied that the subdivision is of an eleven, plus acre tract and the applicants
are dividing the subdivision into two parcels, one a 6.107 acre tract and the other a 5.0 acr6
tract. Both parcels are to be served by this road. Mr. Fisher asked if the road is privately
maintained and publicly dedicated. Mr. Keeler replie yes. Mr. Fisher then stated if this
right-of-way is vacated there is no possibility of ever constructing a turnaround because
there will be no land dedicated for it. Mr. Keeler replied that is correct; there will be a
turnaround constructed, but not to Highway Department standards. The turnaround was approved
by the County Engineer in accordance with private roads standards. Mr. Fisher said his
concern is that if this righ'of-way is vacated and not replaced this will probably create
problems for other property owners in the area. Mr. Henley asked if anyone else would be
using the road. Mr. Keeler said the other property owners have signed the document agreeing
to this vacation.
Mr. Fisher asked why this vacation was required as a condition of the subdivision. Mr.
Keeler said he does not believe a vacation was directly required, but they must comply with
private roads provisions.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to have some time to investigate this request. This area
lies in his district and he is curious about the whole process and, therefore, requests that
this be deferred until he can have some time to talk to the people involved and see what is
actually and physically located there. He stated that he is concerned people will bring in
service vehicles and unless there is a substantial sized turnaround there is going to be a
serious problem. He has that problem where he lives. Mr. Keeler said the applicants are
running out of time on the subdivision plat approval. Most of this time has been spent trying
to obtain sight distance at Allendale Drive which the applicants just recently obtained.
Unless the Board has an objection, he would concur that the deadline on the subdivision plat
be extended accordingly. Mr. Fisher said he would like for this request to be deferred until
the August day meeting so he can investigate.
At this point, Mr. Henley offered motion that this item be placed on the August 14, 1985,
agenda and if the deadline expires on the subdivision approval before that time, that the
deadline be extended accordingly. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Mrs. Coughlin was present and stated that they have signatures of all neighbors that will
be involved. There is no problem from the neighbors point of view. Mr. Coughlin stated that
the only people who presently use the road are his parents. There is not really a road. He
stated that they are pressed for time and he is a school teacher and this is his time to build
a house, which he is building himself. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Coughlin how big of a turnaround
he proposes to build. Mr. Coughlin said they have built a 20 foot by 20 foot turnaround that
as required. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod to explain. Mr. Elrod said the applicant is talking
about is a square turnaround; you pull into the turnaround and back out. This is a 20 foot
square, not a circular turnaround. Mr. Elrod said the number of lots using the road are
small. Engineering has not approved turnarounds smaller than the normal Highway Department's
turnaround whether or not it serves two or three lots. Mr. Fisher asked how many lots will be
served by this road. Mr. Coughlin replied that there are three. Mr. Fisher said he sees
about six lots on the plat. Mr. Coughlin said that is correct; their's is the sixth lot. Mr.
Coughlin replied this area is extremely steep and there would be no consideration of putting a
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
road there. Mr. Fisher asked if a circular turnaround could be put at the end of the existin~
road. Mr. Coughlin said the proposed turnaround is adequate. Mr. Fisher said if the
applicant thinks this will be sufficient and everyone agrees, he withdraws his request. He
does believe that this is a mistake and will create a problem in the future. If a problem
occurs it will be very diggicult to get the neighbors back together to approve another turn-
around. Mr. Coughlin said the neighbors have already agreed to the turnaround.
Mr. Henley withdrew his motion. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Elrod if the 20 foot by 20 foot
turnaround complies with current regulations for this particular size subdivision. Mr. Elrod
replied that there is no set size in the regulations. He has been looking at each one on an
individual basis.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve the request to vacate a portion of a plat
requested by William T. and Mary A. Coughlin with the Chairman being authorized to sign the
following legal document:
VACATION OF A PORTION OF A PLAT
By approved subdivision plat prepared by William S. Roudabush, Jr. dated October, 1962 ol
record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 383, page
445, Hugh F. Simms, Jr. dedicated a 50 foot road to public use and placed to record the
approved subdivision plat. William A. Coughlin and Mary A. Coughlin, husband and wife,
Guenter R. Berthold and Margot Berthold, husband and wife, and William T. Roscoe and Edna I.
Roscoe, husband and wife, now own Lots A, B and C respectively on said plat and now wish to
vacate a portion of the 50 foot road in accordance with Section 15.1-482(a) of the Code of
Virginia (1950 as amended). The portion of the 50 foot road to be vacated, which has not beer
constructed, is shown on the attached plat of Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc., dated 28,
March 28, 1983; revised March 12, 1984; and June 10, 1985, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit Az
NOW THEREFORE, William A. Coughlin, Mary A. Coughlin, Guenter R. Berthold, Margot
Berthold, William T. Roscoe and Edna I. Roscoe do hereby declare that the portion of a 50 foot
roadway as shown on the attached plat of Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc. (Exhibit A) is
hereby vacated and abandoned as a public right-of-way and as a portion of the 50 foot road.
The effect of this vacation and abandonment shall be to vest fee simple title to the center-
line of the 50 foot road so vacated to the owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any
rights of the public or other owners of lots shown on the plat.
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle has caused this vacation to be signed by its duly
designated agent, to indicate its consent to such vacation, in accordance with Section
15.1-482(a).
WITNESS the following signature and seals.
(SIGNED)
(SIGNED)
(SIGNED)
(SIGNED)
(SIGNED)
(SIGNED)
W. A. Coughlin
Mary A. Coughlin
William T. Roscoe
Edna I. Roscoe
Guenter R. Berthold
Margot Berthold
County of Albmearle
By: (SIGNED) Gerald E. Fisher
Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Way commented to the Highway Department about the tremendous aid the cutting away of
brush at dangerous intersections has been in obtaining sight, particularly in the Scottsville
District. Mr. Echols said he appreciated the comment since most people just thought the
Highway Department was destroying a lot of trees.
Mr. Way also expressed concern about traffic not being stopped during the Fourth of July
parade in Scottsville. There is one way traffic going along with the parade. This is a
dangerous situation and it completely distracts parade viewers from seeing the parade, and he
is totally dismayed that this continues to go on. This problem started about three years ago
and last year he also commented on this problem. Next year something should be done to ease
the situation. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Way if he felt the traffic should be stopped. Mr. Way
replied yes. Mr. Bowie stated that he has been in the parade two years and that for some
reason the northbound traffic is stopped at the bridge, but the southbound traffic is not.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:28 A.M.)
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Echols when mowing is scheduled for 29 North in the median strip.
Mr. Echols said he is not sure. Mrs. Cooke said there are a couple of spots that are
beginning to impair the vision of motorists trying to get onto 29; particularly in the area
near Real Estate III.
40,1
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: James B. Anderson - Problems regarding noise.
Mr. Fisher stated that he received a letter from Mr. Anderson dated June 11, 1985
regarding noise problems. He then requested comments ~from the staff concerning previous noise
problems in the area.
Mr. James B. Anderson addressed the Board and presented the following letter:
"You are no doubt aware that in the outlying sections of our~£ounty a good
many small cottages are being rented out by their'owners to Young pot
smoking hippies who seem attracted to Jefferson Country. on~ such' cottage
is in close proximity to my home and, in the tradition of their breed, the
occupants show no concern for their neighbor's peaceable enjoyment of their
property. It is not unusual for them to play either a radio or a record
player at such volume that we are unable to carry on a conversation in our
home. Nor is it unusual for them to operate the device at the
greater volume at 1:00 A.M. or later making sleep impossible.
Upon making inquiry to our County Police Department, I was ad~
there is no noise ordinance in parts of the County not zoned
In your capacity of supervisor from Samuel Miller district, I
ciate it if you would introduce an ordinance before the Board
control artificially or mechanically or electronically produc~
the same extent to which it is controlled in other parts of ti
Mr. Anderson stated that this type of behavior in this area of
to him and he does not see any reason why the so-called rural areas
deprived of the protection of an ordinance other areas have. Mr. Bc
he phoned the police when he had these noise problems. Mr. Anderson
they were unable to do anything. The police officer stated that the
ask the people to be quiet. Mr. Anderson said these people will not
He also does not think it is helping the situation when someone phon,
police at 1:15 A.M. and the police call back at 2:15 A.M. That is ti
before the Board. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:39 A.M
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandums received from Mi]
Administrator, and Police Chief, Frank Johnstone:
"DATE:
FROM:
July 5, 1985
Michael Tompkins
In response to your memorandum dated July 1, 1985 the followi~
report concerning noise problems in the County.
same or
rised that
residential'.
would appre-
which would
id sound to
~e County."
~he County is unacceptable
)f the County should be
~ie asked Mr. Anderson if
replied that he.did, but
police can do nothing but
consider that request.
~s in a request to the
le reason he has come
)
:e Tompkins, Zoning
~g is a brief
COUNTY CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not address noise as an enforcement
issue, other than in the performance standards that set acceptable noise
levels for industrial uses. Specific mention is not made regarding
residential zones.
The County Code does address noise in residential zoning districts as
evidenced by the following:
Section 12.1-3. Administration and Enforcement. The noise control program
established by this chapter shall be enforced and administered by the
sheriff with the assistance of other county departments as required.
SECTION 12.1-5. Maximum Nighttime Sound Levels in Residential Zones. No
person shall operate or cause any source of sound in such a manner as to
create a sound level in a residential zone during the hours between 11:00
P.M. and 6:00 A.M. in excess of 65 dBA when measured at the property
boundary of the receiving land. The foregoing shall not be deemed to
include sound generation from any bona fide agricultural activity,
including noise caused by livestock.
NOISE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY ZONING DEPARTMENT
From 1982 to the present, the Zoning Department has received only four
noise complaints.
1. CP-82-20 - involving Stromberg - Carlson, zoned LI
2. CP-83-27 - involving a public garage
3. CP-83-35 - involving noisy church services
4. CP-85-17 - involving a privately owned hydroelectric generator.
This final noise complaint was effectively abated through the enforcement
of the conditions for approval (regarding noise) of the special permit
application.
Based on the number of complaints received over a three and 1/2 year
period, noise does not appear to be a major source of complaints from the
County citizenry. However, should the Board so direct, I would be pleased
to conduct further study of this subject (i.e., are other counties
experiencing noise problems, and what they are doing about it).
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
"DATE:
FROM:
JULY 9, 1985
Frank W. Johnstone
I have checked Police Department records between January 1, 1985 and July
2, 1985 and found that we have received no noise complaints from Mr.
Anderson. However, if he had made that complaint as part of a more serious
complaint, then we would not have a record of it.
Following is a breakdown of complaints of loud music to date;
JANUARY - 2 APRIL - 29
FEBRUARY - 1 MAY - 52
MARCH - 10 JUNE - 58
JULY - 3 (to date)
Our policy is to locate the source of the noise and speak to the owners or
whoever is responsible and request them to turn it down. This is almost
always complied with but on occasions we have had to go back a second time.
Unless the source of the noise is located in a residential area we have no
enforcement authority other than that of persuasion.
On a couple of occasions where we have used the noise meter, the decibel
level was below 65dBA. This also points out another problem in
enforcement; noise i~trusion is relative. What may be obviously discon-
certing to one person, but not another, often falls below the decibel level
for enforcement.
The figures cited above deal only with music-related noise complaints. We
frequently get complaints of noise which sounds either like firecrackers or
firearms being shot off. These are extremely difficult to trace to their
source because they are often committed by people who are in vehicles and
mobile."
Mr. Agnor said if the police ask someone to turn the noise item down and they do not,
then the property owner has the right to request a warrant for disturbing the peace. Mr. St.
John said that is incorrect; disturbing the peace is a misdemeanor. Pure noise, unless it is
composed of language calculated to lead to a fight, etc., does not come into the definition
disturbing the peace. Noise such as rock & roll music does not constitute a misdemeanor. Th~
fact that it bothers someone or a group of people does not mean it lead to a breach of the
peace. The noise has to be 65 decibels or more at the receiving property line in order to be
an offense. If there is more to the complaint than noise then there is a nuisance situation
for which the landowner can bring private action in court. But, Mr. St. John said he does not
believe a magistrate would issue a warrant in the first place.~
Mr. Fisher said the above deals with private enforcement by individuals and what is
before the Board today is a request to make the provisions of the noise ordinance applicable
to the whole County. Mr. St. John said the Board also has the option of reducing the decibel~
to whatever level a reasonable person would consider tolerable. Mr. Fisher said he is not
prepared at this time to deal with reducing the decibel level. The decibel level is fairly
loud, but that is the definition of what would be objectionable to most people. He felt the
Board should request the Planning Commission to consider making the noise ordinance applicable
in the RA district. Mr. Henley stated that he would support something of this nature. Mrs.
Cooke said she feels the same way. People in rural areas should not have to put up with
anymore unpleasantness than people in other residential areas. A lot of the rural 'areas are
becoming closer knit. More people are moving into places that the noise ordinance does not
cover.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Anderson how many times during the last three or four months his
sleep has been disturbed by this noise. Mr. Anderson replied probably four times. Mr. Bowie
said he has no real problem supporting a regulation applying to rural as well as residential
areas. Since February he has also had the same problem about four times and he has just gone
and asked the people to turn the music down. He has had some complaints from constituents
about animals, particularly barking dogs. His response to them has been that he would not
support regulating 60,000 residents because someone has a problem with their neighbor. The
existing regulations do not seem overly restrictive. In rural areas there are some homes 200
yards apart and it seems logical to extend it to those areas. He feels the real problem is
enforcement.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Johnstone if he had any comments to make about the proposed
extension of the noise ordinance into the balance of the County. Mr. Johnstone said his only
concern is locating the property boundaries on which to use a noise meter. In the vast
majority of cases thus far, the police haVe been able to persuade people to cease and desist.
There are some hardheads that will tell the police no and there is literally nothing that can
be done. Mr. St. John said the noise is to be measured at the receiving property line, so the
noise can be located from the property line of the complaining person. Mr. Bowie asked if the
ordinance could be changed. It would be more logical to test the noise where the people are
sleeping instead of fifty yards away at the property line. Mr. Johnstone said that would be
fine with him. Mr. Henley said he does not think it will create that big of a problem. The
Board should leave the ordinance as it is and let the police use discretion as to where to
measure from. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Johnstone how many times an officer actually responds to
such a complaint? Mr. Johnstone replied that the majority of the time they do respond.
Mr. Fisher recommended that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to extend the noise regulations that are now present in residential areas to the
rural areas of the County. Mr. Agnor said the ordinance that covers the 65 decibels at the
receiving property line is not part of the Zoning Ordinance, but it is part of the County
Code. Since it is not part of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board just needs to advertise a
public hearing to amend the County Code. Mr. Fisher said then the Board should advertise for
a public hearing to amend the County Code.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Way offered motion that Mr. St. John draft an amendment to Chapter 12.1 of the County
Code in order to make the "Noise Ordinance" applicable to residential areas in the RA
District. This ordinance is to be advertised in late August or early September for a public
hearing. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Quarterly Report of Police Department.
Mr. Johnstone presented the following report to the Board:
"TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CHIEF FRANK W. JOHNSTONE
QUARTERLY REPORT APRIL-JUNE 1985
JULY 10, 1985
Following are the significant activities of the Police Department in the
second quarter of 1985.
1. Service Division Reorganization; during this quarter we continued
to experience turnover associated with the transition to the Joint Dispatch
Center operation and the changing nature of work performed by Service
Division personnel. The last two of our new staff are completing a month
long training program and the reorganization will be complete by August
1st.
Other planned changes in this division are proceeding on schedule.
2. Personnel Policies; a significant accomplishment during this
quarter was the completion of the assessment center for the promotion of
first line supervisors. Five dimensions of the candidates were measured by
the assessment center process and the five who achieved the highest aggre-
gate score were promoted to the rank of Commander I. Fourteen candidates
went through the process and the approach seems to have been very well
accepted by the members of the Department. They perceive it to be object-
ive and fair. This should give us a very firm foundation on which to build
our career development-program in the department.
Although some training had to be delayed because of budgetary con-
straints, we were able to train three instructors for radar use and
selective enforcement, one commander and four officers in Driving Under the
Influence Road Block techniques, one officer as a DUI/Selective Enforcement
instructor, a range officer as an armorer (to maintain department weapons),
two investigators in Interrogation and Interviewing techniques and one
investigator for the investigation .of Financial Crimes.
The department will be going on a twenty-eight day work cycle
beginning August 5th. This will help us deal more effectively with the
overtime situation created by the recent Supreme Court decision bringing
county law enforcement personnel under the Fair Labor Standards Act~ We
have designed the schedule so that we have four days a month where we can
train department personnel on department time, thus eliminating the primary
budgetary constraint which forced us to cut back significantly on our
in-house training at the beginning of this year. This will also be
enhanced somewhat with the addition of the new officers to our staff.
The Personnel Department conducted the second police officer selection
test and a department-staffed oral board interviewed 26 candidates. We
were able to fill the five newly authorized positions and two replacement
positions from this pool. Five of the officers hired have approximately 20
years experience among them and two will be sent to the recruit training
academy in late August. The selection process initiated last year
continues to attract very highly qualified and capable persons.
3. Communications; the delivery and installation of the radio system
was delayed somewhat by negotiations over gaining access to one of the two
antenna sites. That situation will be resolved in early July and the new
system delivered and installed soon thereafter.
4. Statistics; the six month statistics for 1985 are attached. They
are compared with the first six months of 1984. As our new record system
was implemented in July, 1984, I anticipated that a significant increase
would be shown in the comparative statistics. I look for the percentage
increase to be smaller at the end of the calendar year.
Nationwide and statewide, crimes against persons are on the increase
so Albemarle County appears to be caught up in this trend. The greatest
portion of this increase is in the area of felonious assaults and this is
probably attributable to our emphasis on dealing with domestic situations
and assaults. All domestic calls are now answered and whether or not a
formal complaint is made, or an arrest made, the situation is dealt with
using a variety of alternative measures. It is also reported and cleared
in accordance with FBI-uniform crime reporting guidelines.
Contrary to the nationwide and statewide trends, crimes against pro-
perty appear to be up in the County. So long as the County continues to.
experience 'growth this is a predictable outcome. I also look for these
figures to stabilize over the next year and a half, but there are other
variables which could effect that.
404
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
/0
I am most pleased with our clearance rates. In the first six months
of 1984 the department cleared twenty-seven percent of its serious crimes
compared to thirty-four percent in 1985. The Virginia statewide average
for clearances is twenty-six percent.
1985 TRAFFIC STATISTICS/MISC. OFFENSE INVESTIGATIONS
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE TOTAL
SPEEDING
DUI
ALL OTHER
TRAFFIC
ACCIDENTS
INVESTIGATED
35 36 109 114 89 90 437
17 10 17 17 30 24 115
56 74 111 250 197 194 792
95 113 89 76 106 91 570
203 233 326 457 422 309 195
ALL OTHER
CRIMINAL
61 107 121 125 100 103 617
264 340 447 582 522 412 2567
OFFENSES
CRIME
COUNTY CRIME STATISTICS
JAN. - JUNE
1984 1985 %CHANGE
HOMICIDE
RAPE
ROBBERY
ASSAULT
BURGLARY
LARCENY
AUTO THEFT
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
1984 12
1985 42 +30
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
1984 580
1985 686 +106
CLEARANCES
1 4 +300%
2 3 + 50%
2 3 + 50%
7 32 +357%
162 109 - 33%
400 531 + 32%
18 46 +155%
592 738 (+136) + 23%
+250%
+18%
INDEX CRIMES
HOMICIDE 4/4 100%
RAPE 3/3 100%
ROBBERY 3/1 33%
ASSAULT 32/30 94%
BURGLARY 109/23 21%
LARCENY 531/150 28%
AUTO THEFT 46/34 74%
SIMPLE ASSAULT
728/245 34%
69/45 65%
797/290 35%
1985 CLEARANCE RATE 34%
1984 CLEARANCE RATE 27%
In regard to the training program, Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Johnstone if someone could be
taught in one week to take care of all weapons. Mr. Johnstone replied that the person they
sent is the range officer and he has been to a couple of other schools. He repairs guns and
has been doing so all along. This school gives the person factory training so additional
maintenance problems can be taken care of in-house. Mr. Fisher asked about the financial
school and what capability it gives an officer. Mr. Johnstone said the school is a week long
program conducted by the Henrico County Police Department and the State Police. Normally, if
there is an embezzlement, the State Police would be called for assistance. The Police
Department is trying to develop a little more in-house capabilities because embezzlements and
computer crimes seem to be on the rise. Mr. Fisher said he feels that if there is a serious
crime, the Police Department will still have to depend on the State Police. Mr. Johnstone
said the school does prepare this person to investigate some of the minor cases.
Mr. Bowie said crimes against persons were alluded to as being on the rise. He asked if
people are reporting crimes that they would usually just brood about; for example, someone
getting "punched". Mr. Johnstone replied yes. Domestic calls are one example. In the past,
unless the violence involved a weapon, these calls normally went unanswered. The person was
instructed to get a warrant and the department would serve it. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Johnstone
if his report could contain the number of calls the police get, the number responded to, and
response time. Mr. Johnstone said his department does not have the capability to give
response times. That may be possible by the end of the year. Mr. Fisher asked about the 911
central Dispatch System and how it is working. Mr. Johnstone replied that the system is
working about as well as it can right now. During the transition period, there has been quite
a turn over in personnel. There are still some policy and operational items that have to be
dealt with. By and large it is working quite well. It is hoped that the Management Board
will approach the governing bodies to request a telephone surcharge in order to get an
enhanced system. The technology is available to make all of the area departments more
responsive.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
405
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Johnstone if he attributed the decline in burglary statistics to the
neighborhood watch programs that are being instituted around the County. Mr. Johnstone said
he hopes the programs have something to do with the decline. Also, around this time last year
the police immobilized several burglars in the community and he feels that has something to do
with it. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:08 A.M.) Mrs. Cooke asked if they are still
requests for crime watch programs in the neighborhoods. Mr. Johnstone said they have received
three more requests.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transfer of Funds - Court Square Project.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum to the Board from Mr. Ray Jones dated
July 10, 1985:
"A meeting of the architect, contractor and sub-contractor, to determine
target dates for completion was held on Monday, July 8, 1985. The target
date for completion was set at September 20, 1985. There is considerable
work to be done in the Court House. It is anticipated that all work in the
Old County Office Building will be completed by August 1.
As a result of the above meeting and the target dates, problems were
anticipated in getting change orders through on some last minute details.
This is because there are several known changes as follows:
Repair of sidewalk on High Street side of the old County Office
Building.
Installation of some shelving in four rooms of the old County
Office Building.
Refurbishment of the railing and benches in the Court Rooms of the
Court House.
4. Payment of final moving costs once the buildings are complete.
In order to follow the normal process of a change order which requires
design work by the architect, pricing by the contractor approval by the
architect and submission to you for approval, a period of three to four
weeks will elapse. This lag time will utilize most of the time between now
and September 20, 1985. It also causes delays of work by the general
contractor as he coordinates the work with the subcontractors.
The contingency amount for change orders in the construction account is
approaching zero. Therefore, it is recommended that the unencumbered
balance of the telephone system appropriation for the project in the amount
of $16,548.15 be transferred to Court Square Buildings contingency code
with the authority of the County Executive to sign change orders up to this
amount."
Mr. Agnor said it is difficult to guarantee that $16,548.00 will finish the job. The
estimate at this time will be more than sufficient, but staff is constantly finding more items
that need repair that were not included in the contract for the old Court House Building and
we are expecting several more change orders beyond the ones that are listed in this
memorandum. The change orders are not expected to be of any major size since the major
portion of the remodeling is complete.
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution to transfer allocated funds from
the telephone system to the Court Square Building contingency code. In addition, the County
Executive has the authority to execute change orders up to the amount of the tranSfer. Mrs.
Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $16,548.15 be, and the same hereby is transferred from code
1-9000-06000-700300 Communication Equipment and coded to
1-9000-06000-976000 Court Square Building;
AND FURTHER, that this transfer is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 8.
Policy:
Use of Private Water Systems.
Mr. Agnor said this item was deferred from May to June and then deferred until today.
Mr, Fisher suggested the item be deferred until afternoon since Mr. Lindstrom was not present.
(Mr. St. John returned at 10:15 A.M.)
Not Docketed: At 10:15 A.M. the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
10:25 A.M. The Chairman recognized Mrs. Ella Carey, a new employee, in the Clerk's office.
He also announced that Mr. Lindstrom is in town but tied~up on a case. Mr. Lindstrom is
expected to join the Board before the end of the day.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-85-06. Work Session: To amend Zoning Ordinance to include
landscaping and screening requirements; related amendments.
Ms. Mary Joy Scala presented the following revised staff report to the Board:
"SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:
The proposal consists of four parts:
1)
New section 32.8 to be added to Article 32 Site Development Plan in
the Zoning Ordinance;
(This section requires a landscape plan to be submitted whenever a
site plan is required. Landscaping requirements consist of street
trees, parking lot landscaping, and screening of certain uses.)
2)
Recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to ~andscaping
and screening;
(In general, existing requirements are being deleted, and replaced
with the new, more specific, requirements of Section 32.8.)
3) A list of recommended plant materials; and
4) A tree conservation checklist.
(The last two items will not b~ included in the actual text of the Zoning
Ordinance, but will be incorporated by reference.)
EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:~
The site planners currently review landscape plans as part of the site
plan review procedure. Many site plans are approved "subject to" a
landscape plan being approved administratively by staff. The new proposal
permits administrative approval of landscape plans for sites with 80% or
less impervious cover, with Planning Commission approval of more intensive
plans.
There are currently no standards, other than a plan 'based upon accepted
professional design lay-outs and principles'. Developers now have a
general idea of what constitutes an acceptable landscape plan, but this
may vary depending upon which planner reviews the plan. Standardized
requirements will permit developers to plan and budget for landscaping by
knowing ahead of time the amount of plant materials that will be required.
The ordinance currently requires 10% minimum landscaped area in commercial
districts and 20% minimum in industrial districts. The proposal deletes
the 10%/20% minimums. Instead, the amount and location of required
landscaping will be determined by conditions of the site. More land-
scaping will be required on sites with long road frontages, with large
parking lots, or for uses which are incompatible with adjacent zoning.
There are currently no requirements to screen commercial uses in the CO,
C-1 and HC districts from adjacent residential districts. The proposal
provides for a buffer zone between commercial or industrial and residen-
tial districts, with screening required. Standardized requirements will
protect both developers and adjacent owners from arbitrary decisions.
There are currently no provisions for the preservation or maintenance of
landscaping other than notes on the plan, 'tree to be saved' or 'land-
scaping shall be maintained'. The proposal provides for a tree conserva-
tion checklist, based on the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook, to be submitted when existing trees are to be preserved in lieu
of planting new materials. In addition, a maintenance bond insures the
developer's responsibility for required plant materials for twelve months.
Thereafter, the owner assures responsibility for maintenance.
Most of the landscape plans submitted under the current ordinance are of
good quality. Staff has reviewed several existing plans under the pro-
posed requirements and has found that they generally meet or exceed the
proposed requirements.
The proposal will mostly affect the small number of developers who expect
to .get by with a minimum amount of landscaping; and will least affect the
majority of developers who are already doing a good job.
CONCERNS:
Staff would like to address several concerns raised at the Board meeting
on June 5, 1985.
Concern: The proposal constitutes a 'big brother' approach which may
result in regulation of landscaping for individual homes.
Response: The proposal will result in a fairer and more consistent
application of the landscaping requirements than is currently being
accomplished.
Standardized requirements will insure that similar sites will have
similar requirements. At the same time, flexibility is provided for
individual site conditions.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Landscaping must be required when it serves a necessary public purpose and
then there may otherwise be a lack of incentive for a property owner to
make the investment. Therefore, staff sees no need to require landscaping
for homes on individual lots except where high density warrants a unified
landscaping plan.
e
Concern: 'Significant landscape features' is not clearly defined.
There are few significant features worth preserving other than
Monticello and the Tarleton Oak. Rather than requiring the preserva-
tion of significant landscape features, a bonus should be granted if
such features are preserved.
Response: Attached are examples of precedent for Section 32.8.2.4,
which provides for the preservation of existing landscape features if
the Director of Planning determines that they 'contribute signifi-
cantly to the character of the Albemarle County landscape...' Staff
sees this section as a means to implement certain goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states the following natural resource
objective: 'Continue to identify and encourage the preservation of
unique areas of geology, vegetation and wildlife in the County.'
Chapter 11, Land Use Plan, Scenic Areas and Vistas, states: 'There
are numerous points within the County which are either nature's
'landmarks' or a pastoral landscape aided by the hand of man. In
both cases, such scenes instill some degree of appreciation and
refreshment to those who view them.' Chapter 10, Environmental
Standards states, 'It is the County's intent that development and
other human activities should adapt to the natural environment rather
than modifying the natural environment with unknown consequences to
accommodate development and man's activities;' and defines conserva-
tion as 'the practice of managing in a manner which avoids wasteful
or destructive uses and provides for future availability.'
Section 32.8.2.4 consists of two parts. The first part requires that
certain existing natural and man-made features be shown on the plan.
(The current ordinance requires that existing wooded areas be shown).
The second part requires that the Director of Planning examine the
existing features to determine if any features planned for removal
warrant preservation. His decision may be appealed to the Planning
Commission. Staff has clarified the description of existing features
to be shown.
It is possible to give a bonus for the preservation of existing
features, but this would limit the effectiveness of the provision by
making it voluntary. Also, bonuses only apply to certain residential
developments.
3. Concern: Is the staff qualified to review landscape plans?
Response: The staff currently reviews landscape plans as part of the
site plan review procedure. In reviewing landscape plans, the staff
does not judge aesthetics or impose personal preferences, but rather
assists in selecting plants which are appropriate to the site, which
are located to avoid utility and sight distance easements and which
will be easy to maintain.
o
Concern: How will the buffer zone affect the present grading permit
procedure?
Response: A grading permit may not be issued for a use which requires
site plan approval until that approval is obtained. This procedure
will continue. If a developer wishes to grade within a buffer zone
(for example, on commercial property within 20 feet of a residential
district) he must request a waiver from the Planning Commission when
his site plan is reviewed. The rule will be no grading within a
buffer zone unless an exception is specifically granted by the
Planning Commission.
5. Concern: Is a recommended species list necessary?
Response: The only purpose for the list is to make the approval
procedure more convenient for the applicant. Under the current
procedure, every change in a landscape plan must be approved by
staff. If the list is accepted, the applicant may substitute species
from the list within each category without further approval. If a
species is not on the list, staff must approve the change, as it does
now. The list is not intended as a substitute for professional
landscape advice.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the following changes to the text which have been
included as a result of the June 5 discussion:
Section 32.8.2.4 (Significant landscape features) has been
clarified.
t
Minimum sizes for screening shrubs and street shrubs have been
reduced. (Sections 32.8.3.1, 32.8.6.1, recommended species
list).
4O8
July 10, 1985 (Regular.Day Meeting)
j
Section 32.8.6.1 (Screening requirements) has been clarified to
permit staff to specify which method of screening is appropriate
at a particular site.
Staff also recommends that a workshop be offered by the County for
persons who prepare plans, to explain the requirements.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the list of recommended plant materials takes into consideration all
the plant materials that grow more readily in this area and have a better survival rate.
Ms. Scala replied yes. Mrs. Cooke asked if the VIP Extension Service was contacted.
Ms. Scala stated the tree checklist summarizes recommendations from the Soil and Erosion
Handbook for saving trees on a site for construction. This list does not refer to the trees,
shrubs or plants on the conservation list for Virginia.
Mr. Fisher made reference to Section 21.7.1. The present ordinance states in this
section that "off-street parking or loading space shall be located and/or screened so as to
minimize visual impacts on public streets". Under this revision, that section is being
deleted. He asked where this requirement will be covered. Ms. Scala stated the new section
does provide for off-street parking areas. The section is not called screening because a
parking lot should not actually be screened from a public street. Screening is covered by
requiring street trees every 50 feet and in between the trees would be low buffer shrubs which
do not exceed three feet in height. This provision is listed in Section 32~8.6.3. Under this
section, Mr. Bowie asked who will determine what is objectionable. Ms. Scala replied that if
the landscape plan is approved administratively, the Director of Planning will determine
objectionable items, and if the developer disagrees then the plan will go to the Planning
Commission. That is normally how such disputes are settled. Mr. Bowie asked where that is
specifically provided.
Mr. Bowie said he is still concerned that there is a potential these provisions will
apply to individual homes. Ms. Scala said the Zoning Ordinance clearly states when a site
plan is required. Single-family and duplex developments on individual lots do not require
site plans, but single-family, attached and townhouse developments do require a site plan.
Section 32.8.2.8 sets out the procedure.
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Board. He strongly objects to the term "significant
landscaping" as set out in section 32.8.2.4. He does not object to the intent of the
ordinance, but to the methods by which it is to be accomplished. The entire paragraph should
be stricken from the report or at least tested first. When there is a problem and the
Director of Planning and the builder are of differing opinions, then the ordinance should not
be "forced down the builder's throat". With the exception of~that item, the suggested
language of the ordinance is fine. The bonus section is a good example of a whole section of
new language that everyone hopes will work correctly, but it is untested. Bonuses should be
tested to see if the idea will work, rather than making it law and finding out it will have to
be changed.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres said basically she and the Piedmont Environmental Council support
the ordinance. The ordinance is specific and spells out the rules. This should also help
save a tremendous amount of time for the Planning Commission. Most site plan ordinances do
require showing the location and naming of individual trees. Right now Albemarle County is
actually requiring this so this will only make it more known.
Mr. Craig Van de Castle next addressed the Board. He stated that one of the purposes of
Section 32.8.2.4 is to try to, in advance, recognize certain features and the importance of
landscape. Albemarle County is undergoing a period of rapid growth. It is a very common
public-perception to appreciate a view along a road and then when the area is developed, to
suddenly miss that view. This is an attempt before it is to late to try to pinpoint these
areas in advance. He feels that it is a very good idea and asked the Board to give careful
consideration.
Mr. Fisher said if there were no further comments, he would prefer to wait and vote on
these .amendments when all the Board members are present this afternoon.
Ms. Scala addressed the Board again. She stated that a landscape plan is only required
with a site plan. The landscape plan must show three items: 1) street trees (only in
commercial and industrial districts, and residential districts develOped at a density of four
dwelling units per acre or greater); 2) parking lot landscape (if there is no parking lot a
site plan is not required); and 3) screening (most single family homes will not have any
reason to screen). One example of single-family units that may require a site plan is for
rental units. Development of three or more units on the same parcel require a site plan.
There may come a time with rental units when there is a parking lot and screening will be
required. Mr. Bowie stated that one of his problems is that what one person considers
objectionable and what he considers objectionable could be entirely different items.
Mr. Fisher said in response to Mr. Hurt's recommendation that this be moved into the
bonus section .is something he will never support. He can't imagine a site plan before the
Planning Commission where there is a significant historic structure and the developer says he
will push it down unless he is granted a bonus density. Mr. Fisher said he will never support
that sort of recommendation. There will be concerns brought up by persons wanting to use the
land and those issues should be recognized by the staff and brought to the attention of the
Planning Commission and discussed there. There are enough historical and other types of
features in the County that do need to have some kind of protection, and the staff needs some
clear directions, to identify those things, bring them to the public's attention, have a
public discussion, and then have those .issues resolved. He further stated that he intends to
support these amendments .and wants to commend the people who has participated in drafting of
same. This is one example of a complicated ordinance that has gone through a cooperative
review process that has been brought to the Board with basically only one issue unresolved.
This is an extraordinary effort and is to be commended.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
4O9
Mrs. Cooke stated that she too would like to commend the effort that has gone into these
ordinance revisions, and sees this as a very positive force and tool for the Planning
Commission and staff, as well as being very beneficial to applicants and developers.
Mr. Bowie said that he is impressed by the ordinance. It is well done and well thought
out. His problem is the same as he stated before, creating an "Ayotollah" of landscaping.
Anyone objecting to the Planning Director recommendations must appeal in writing which is ten
days and there will be another month before it gets to the Planning Commission. He will not
support the ordinance at all without specific exemptions for private homes. It is not the
government's business to tell people what size tree they must put on a lot. He said he has
the rest of the day to think about it, but he really does not see where it is worth all the
effort.
Mr. Way stated it to him seems that there is built into this ordinance a fair amount of
flexibility on the part of the people making the decisions about what is a significant
feature. He asked if items other than those on the list can be used. Ms. Scala replied yes.
Mrs. Cooke stated she sees this as giving the developer an opportunity to know what is
required of him from the outset.
Mr. Fisher stated that the vote will be deferred until this afternoon.
Agenda Item No. 10. Data Processing Study, Receipt of: ("Data Processing Study,
Internal Controls, Security and Long-Range Plan Update: Prepared by McGladrey, Hendrickson &
Pullen, Certified Public Accountants, dated June 1985.)
Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. John McGlenn of McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen is here to
present the study. The report has been reviewed with the Audit Committee, Mr. Fisher and Mr.
Bowie. Mr. McGlenn has also reviewed the report with Mr. Agnor's staff in the same amount of
detail. Today's presentation is the summary of the report. (Mr. St. John left at 11:08 A.M.)
Mr. McGlenn addressed the Board. The firm of McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen was engaged
to look at the computer department of Albemarle County for several major reasons. First, the
computer department is fairly new and running such a department usually costs a lot of money.
The other reason is the comments made by the County's auditors in 1983/84. This firm was
engaged to look into-these comments, and to look at the computer efficiency, security and
controls. Mr. McGlenn said the report will be highlighted and any questions answered.
The report is broken into two major areas. The first deals with security, automation
control, system efficiency, the employee management system, and anything else on which the
auditors commented. The second area reviews this as a long-range systems plan. If money is
to be spent on the computer department it makes sense to have a long-range systems plan.
Security: Overall security control in the DP Department is in good shape. Recommen-
dations were made and the County implemented those recommendations as the study progressed
which improved security control. Security for updating EMS (Employee Management System)
should be strengthened by keeping complete audit trails. All County employees should be paid
from the Employee Management System. The computer programs for the EMS should include a grade
for each employee with a salary associated with it which would allow the system to create the
payroll checks. McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen also recommended that a software program be
implemented on the mainframe computer because as the County gets into more application
systems, the additional systems will require security. Now is the time to implement a
security program on the mainframe computer. (Mr. St. John returned at 11:16 A.M.)
Disaster Contingency Plan: A formal disaster contingency plan must be developed for the
County's data processing operation. What would happen if there were a fire in the computer
room? If the County is unable to use the mainframe computer for a week, what would happen? A
formal plan approach and outline is included in this report. It should be recognized that the
development of the actual plan will require a substantial effort. For example, the Data
Processing personnel should come in one morning, pretend the computer had blown up, try to
process everything on an alternate plan. The County must come up with the alternate plan.
Employee Management System: The EMS has been of particular concern insofar as it has
been the subject of audit comments that it may not be efficient. The system was looked at
closely and determined to be an efficient, effective system. In fact, the EMS is using very
few resources on the mainframe computer.
Mr. McGlenn said a long-range systems plan is the other phase of the report. Most of the
applications developed are for planners and the personnel department. The County could, but
is not, receiving a lot of the system advantages from the mainframe computer system. This
report includes a systems plan for the next five years.
The DP Department periodically, in sharing in the operation of the County government can
become more effective and efficient. A computer system should be used to run the County much
more effectively. McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen projected a five year plan, looked at what
it would cost for hardware, software, staff and the major cost to run the DP Department.
Computers are changing so fast they should be reviewed each year by the County; therefore,
this five year plan should be looked at again in a year. The County should review the plan to
see what changes need to be made. This review should include the five year plan, the
mainframe, microcomputers, issues associated with office automation and phone systems.
Ail recommendation made by McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen are for the benefit of the
computer department. The first recommendation is to change the name from Data Processing
Department. This is not only a department for computer processing, but also for information
control. I~t is recommended the name be changed to Information Systems or Management
Information Systems or Information Resources. The key word is information rather than
processing.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
//
(Mr. St. John left at 11:25 A.M.) Responsibilities of the DP Department include more
than mainframe systems. The department cannot manage and control information if it is only
looking at mainframe computers. The DP Department should have the responsibility for the
mainframe computer system, minicomputer systems, microcomputer systems, word processing, and
phone systems. Microcomputers should not be used exclUsively for programming. The DP
Department should develop formal standards and criteria for the use of microcomputers,
education and training, software and hardware security and control, and overall support of
personal computers established. Word processing should include a group of professional
leadership. A consecutive plan for word processing is recommended. The plan should include
flexibility for today and the future for office automation. The word processor should inter-
face with the microsystems, micro networks and mainframe systems. Never get into a situation
where a machine or system is idle and unable to communicate with anything else. An idle
machine costs money. The up-front costs of the microcomputers and word processors is not the
total cost. Included in costs are maintenance, software and hardware which should also be
associated with a plan.
There are a large number of application systems available today. The County should place
more emphasis on acquiring systems from outside. Over the long run it is more cost-effective
to bring systems from outside, systems that someone else has develOped. McGladrey,
Hendrickson & Pullen recommends that the County place more emphasis on acquiring outside
systems and placing more emphasis on the users of these systems. (Mr. St. John returned at
11:45 A.M.) A system to consider is FQS (framequick query system). FQS is a program on the
mainframe computer which sits on line and allows access to systems. All County users of the
mainframe computer can use FQS. Although this system uses a lot of mainframe hardware system
resources, it is very cost effective for someone to get data from the mainframe, allowing the
person to retrieve data themselves. FQS does not restrict a person. To make a system more
efficient for users, more computer resources must be available. McGladrey, Hendrickson &
Pullen emphasizes efficiency.
The operating systems hardware was also reviewed by McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen. The
operating system is similar to the managing program on the mainframe computers. A
recommendation in this area is more effective software. Acquire software now. By purchasing
software, the County would probably save $58,000 over the next five years. Mr. Fisher said
there would be savings if the County continued using the same software for five years.
Mr. McGlenn responded that software should be able to pay for itself within twenty-four,
months, but it is projected that the County will need the software for five years.
The mainframe system is being heavily utilized right now and it needs to be upgraded.
The County should get into a lease agreement with an out-of-state financing company. If the
County enters into a contract with a financing company to capital lease, the County should be
able to get an interest rate between 8 and 8 1/2 percent. A lease cost over five years will
not create a huge impact on the County.
The DP Department has no resources or capability to address the exploding world of
microcomputers. More resources in the DP Department are needed to address the problem. An
expert who knows microcomputer systems is needed to offer a plan for the County. Most of the
staff, excluding operations, is on the computer. The programmers and systems analyst are on
the level of junior programmers and do not have a lot of experience. Excluding Fred Kruger,
the next most experienced person has only been with the County for five years. A position of
"manager of systems programming" should be developed to handle complex issues. There is no
need for any further new programmers for five years. However other personnel may be needed in
a year. Recommendations for the additional personnel presently needed, should be implemented
as soon as possible.
Mr. Bowie asked if the salary of the two positions recommended is included in this
report. Mr. McGlenn said yes. Mr. Bowie noted the cost of this plan ($455,000) is in effect
$10,000 less than the amount that is tentatively shown in the Capital Budget for the DP
Department. Mr.. Fisher asked if the amount in the study includes operating expenses.
Mr. McGlenn responded that the amount is operating not capital. Mr. Fisher said it seems to
him that the County could improve that system if people in various offices, such as Zoning,
Planning and Engineering, had access to stages of completion of applications at all times.
Mr. McGlenn said the system Mr. Fisher is referring to is called "Development Tracking System"
and it is a priority in this study.
Mr. Bowie said this is an excellent study. It should give the County some direction for
the next five years. He has four general comments that he feels are significant. The
County's management system is presently solid, but if the County uses something like FQS, it
must be tightly controlled by the Technical Committee. Priorities must be made and the
results compatible with present uses. The Technical Committee is going to have to make sure
the important factors are being implemented and not overlooked. The County must take a hard
look at lease/buy. Economically, leasing seems to be the way to go. Considering all of the
word processing equipment in this year's budget alone, the County has to see what is the
cheapest way to obtain the systems because the word processors could be obsolete in two years.
Mr. Bowie stated that he intends to use this study as a guide for as long as he is involved
with the Technical Committee. Mr. McGlenn said McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen also made
comparisons with other counties of the same size. Mr. Fisher said the Board's concepts of
efficiency are sometimes different and trying to determine priorities is the real key.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Ray Jones if he, or Mr. Fred Kruger, had any comments to make about
how the study will be applied, when and so forth.
Mr. Jones said he agrees with this report. It gives the County staff direction. Mr.
Fisher said the County had put funding for a number of microcomputers and word processing
systems in the current year's budget. It seems to him that one of the highest priorities for
management of the County is to make sure that the systems purchased can be connected to the
mainframe. There should not be a proliferation of units that will not be compatible. Mr.
Kruger said the DP Department has looked at how to develop the microsystems with the
mainframe. In addition, the Technical Committee and Data Processing Managing Committee has a
set of procedures to use. Mr. Agnor said the Technical Committee has been functioning for
about two years. With the exception of the word processors used in the School Administration
office, all of the systems in this budget have started through the the technical review
process. The Purchasing Agent cannot process a requisition for such equipment until it has
been reviewed by the Technical Committee.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said he did a comparison of the approved operating budget and the consultant's
recommendation, and just finished yesterday. It essentially deals with a decision he wants to
ask the Board to discuss today. It has to do with the contingency funds that are being held
in reserve in the operating budget until this study is completed. Mr. Agnor summarized his
memorandum to the Board dated July 9, 1985 which follows:
"Although the above report has just been presented to you, and it is an
extensive report with numerous recommendations, there are budgetary
decisions that need your immediate attention. This memorandum will
summarize those decisions, and request action on them, in the event the
balance of the report requires more study.
The following is a comparison of the 1985-86 operating budget requested by
the staff and recommended by the consultant:
Staff
Request
Consultant
Recommended
Difference
Salaries & Benefits
Hardware/Lease Maint.
Contract Services
Software Lease/Maint.
Other
292,915 $ 297,389 + $ 4,474
48,150 48,370 + 220
12,000 16,000 + 4,000
80,320 60,796 - 19,524
33,380 33,380 -0-
Total $ 466,765 $ 455,935 - $ 10,830
The major differences in the two budgets are:
1. The staff requested a Senior Programmer - Analyst position effective
July 1. The Board placed the funds in contingency until the consultant
report was completed. The consultant recommends this position plus an
additional position in January, 1986 of Manager - Systems and Programming,
estimated to cost for the half-year, $16,000.
2. The staff requested $12,000 for contract services which covered
technical assistance and consultations for upgrading systems software.
consultant added $4,000 for the same purpose.
The
3. Two software packages requested for purchase by the staff in the
operating budget were transferred in the consultants report to the capital
budget, totalling $18,000. These two packages were a security system to
improve protection of the data files, and a system to transfer authorized
data from the mainframe to micro.
4. The staff requested $14,000 in overtime expense to upgrade systems
operations, and provide operations staff for off-hours systems testing by
programmers/analysts. The consultant report did not take overtime into
account.
It is recommended that:
1) The consultants recommendations on staffing and contract services
be accepted.
2) The contingency appropriation of $60,553 carried in the Board's
budget for data processing be transferred to the Data Processing
Department budget.
3) The purchase of the two software packages be considered in the
capital budget.
4) The difference in the staff's operating budget and the consultants
operating budget (-$10,830) be retained in the Data Processing
Department budget for overtime expenses. The difference between the
staff's $14,000 estimate for overtime, and the $10,830 recommended for
that expense, will be made up in attritional savings of salaries from
staff turnover, or from delayed hiring of additional staff."
Mr. Bowie asked if the subject of overtime was discussed with the consultants since it is
not addressed in the report. Mr. McGlenn said it was discussed. In one section of the report
there is a reference that overtime will be needed occasionally, however any projected amount
for same was omitted by error. Mr. Agnor said the consultants recommend two additional
positions and the staff is asking for one.
Mr. Bowie stated that even after reading the report he does not know what he would be
voting to approve. Mr. Agnor referred Mr. Bowie to page 45 (Staff Plan) and page 80 (Summary
of Operating Expenses - Data Processing Department) of the report to help him understand what
is being requested. Mr. Agnor said the Data Processing Department needs money for overtime
and it must be a separate line item in the budget. Mr. Fisher said the request is actually
asking basically for two new positions. Mr. Agnor replied yes, one position the staff had
previously requested, and the second position Mr. McGlenn has recommended for hiring in
mid-year. He agrees with Mr. McGlenn's analysis that a management position is needed.
Mr. Bowie stated that basically he has no problem with the report, but he does not
understand why when the consultant shows $19,000 less for software lease and maintenance, the
Board should be asked to approve the $466,765 budget. Mr. Fisher said if $19,000 is taken out
of the original staff request for that category, how can the staff justify making its original
budget request? Mr. Agnor said in order to fund the second position, overtime requirements,
and provide for additional contract services noted by the consultants, the budgeted amount was
$12,000 short. Mr. McGlenn said there were some items in the staff's budget, such as office
furniture for the systems control manager that the consultants made no recommendations on.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said there is already more than $400,000 in the Data Processing budget. This is
only the second week of the fiscal year, so the urgency for the dollar amount is not so great.
What the staff really need is approval to hire the two new positions Mr. Agnor said yes.
Since the staff and consultant were so close to the total budget figure, he had decided to
leave the total alone. Mr. Fisher said this item came up suddenly, was not part of the
scheduled agenda, and he would prefer to have time to study the report. Mr. Agnor said staff
does need authorization to proceed with the hiring procedures on the one position immediately.
Hiring of the other person will not start until September for someone to begin in January.
Mr. Bowie offered motion that the Data Processing Department be .authorized to proceed
with the hiring of two additional persons. In addition a revised, detailed 1985-86 budget be
drafted for the Data Processing Department to be considered at a later date. Mr. Henley
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 10a. Executive Session: Personnel, acquisition or sale of County
property, legal matters involving Greenwood Chemical. At 12:13 P.M. Mrs. Cooke offered motion
for an executive session on the above noted subjects. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:50 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10b. Review of architect's sketches for auditorium improvements.
Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. Byron Sample, architect with Steinbach and Scribner, is present
to review with the Board some of the plans for improvements in the auditorium. He has
requested that a committee of Board members work with him on a continuing basis until the
auditorium improvements are completed.
Mr. Sample addressed the Board. He explained that the engineers could not be present at
this meeting today. He assured the Board that Hankins and Anderson of Richmond does have
suitable personnel to do the sound system. As far as the basic scheduling for improvements,
it will take three weeks to receive bids and then a week for review of the bids. Hopefully
the documents will be ready for bidding by the end of July, using August as the bid phase,
with work to begin in September.
Mr. Sample said his firm is to prepare drawings and specifications for a new lighting
system, including provisions for dimming. This will be done by a series 'of recessed lights in
the ceiling providing about 30 candle power on the working surface. There will also be
specifications drawn for a new sound system. Only a minimal amount of work was done in these
respects when this building was renovated. For a sound system to wor.k acoustically some
acoustical materials will be required. There will be draperies installed on the windows on
each side of the auditorium and some sound absorbent material on the back wall of the
auditorium and the balcony wall, and a curtain on the back wall of the stage. This will stop
some of the reverberation which occurs now when the curtains are open. For the purpose of
Board meetings, the curtains will be drawn close. Mr. Sample said a cooling coil will be
added to the existing air handling system. This is for air handling and not air conditioning.
For prolonged use or when a large number of people present, this system will not handle the
air in the auditorium. Mr. Sample then went on to explain the changes which' will be made in
the Board table and lectern.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to meet with the architect and engineers and also have the
Clerks present. The meeting was set for July 18 at 1:30 P.M. to discuss sound system changes
for the auditorium.
Agenda Item No. 8. Policy: Use of private water systems.
Mr. Fisher said this item came about from a report by Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle
County Service Authority back in April. Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning in April,
recommended to the Board that "central water systems and central sewer systems be permitted
only by special use permit in all zoning districts". A number of events have transpired since
that time including the consideration of the Keswick Planned Unit Development and whether or
not it would have a private water system, or center water provided by a public agency, so the
recommendation has never been dealt with. He asked Mr. Agnor how the Board should proceed.
Mr. Agnor said that at the last Board meeting Mr. St.John was asked to speak about this
verbally, but Mr. Bowie was absent, so he was requested to restate his thoughts today.
Mr. Fisher said the Service Authority has taken the position that any central well system
should be built according to Service Authority standards. The idea being that if or when the
system ultimately failed, it could be taken over by the County Service Authority and would
meet their standards. He asked Mr. St. John to repeat his comments and those he made during
the public hearing on the Keswick petition.
Mr. St. John said this will be the third time and his comments may be somewhat different.
He has talked to Mr. Brent and Mr. Keeler about this. They do not disagree on the major
premises. His view from a legal perspective as to how this issue affects the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance is that the County should not really have any communities,
subdivisions, villages, or any development of a density that is dependent on a central water
system unless communities will be served by the Albemarle County Service Authority. In other
words, if the area is not in the Service Authority's jurisdictional boundaries, and the
Service Authority is not authorized to provide the utilities, then no community requiring
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
4.13
public utilities should be allowed to be built. Earlysville PUD is an example where the
County allowed development without utilities, and Keswick is an example where the County did
not approve the development. Right now Earlysville is trying to create a legal public
utility because the law requires that any central system of 50 or more connections be given a
charter. That gives it a monopoly in its operating area and makes it immune to condemnation,
and it becomes a competitor to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. St. John said there are some pros and cons on this. In this area the Service
Authority gets its water from a surface impoundment, where most of the private central systems
get their water from groundwater and there is a big difference. Surface impoundments are not
infinite, but at least you can see what you have from day to day and it is measurable. With
groundwater there is no way to know what is there, and problems arise suddenly. Beyond that,
if the Board followed the minimum recommendation of the Albemarle County Service Authority and
the Planning staff, and allow these systems but require that they be built to Service
Authority standards, that is a presupposition that some day the Service Authority will have to
take over that system. The Service Authority would not be able to plan for that day until the
day were here. West Leigh Subdivision and the areas around Lewis Hill are examples where such
an emergency occurred.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John, if the Board were going to follow that advise, what woUld
be changed in the County's current ordinances? Would the County have to eliminate the ability
for people to have central water systems and central sewage systems or allow them only by
special permit, so that each one could be reviewed on its merits. Mr. St. John replied that
the Board should give itself and the owner some flexibility by leaving the request under a
special use permit, but put down some special criteria for the issuance of a special use
permit applicable to central water and/or sewer systems. Do not just use the general
standards for issuance of other special use permits. Mr. St. John said he has not formulated
those standards in his mind, but he thinks size would certainly be one criteria. He does not
think what he has said applies to a central system of only three connections - the definition
of a central system is anything with more than three connections. What he is talking about is
something the size of Earlysville PUD or the Keswick PUD proposal. Certainly anything over 50
connections because that is the statutory limit above which the system must be categorized as
a public service corporation a public utility. That category gives the power to expand,
condemn, and is immune from condemnation by other authorities.
Mr. Henley said he owns three houses served by one spring, and when the spring goes dry
he has to do something about it, and that is probably considered a central water system. He
said it would be ridiculous if the Board were to put them under some special criteria.
Mr. St. John said three connections gives this Board the power to review the request. He
mentioned a letter which had been forwarded to the Board by Bill Norris on a different
subject. The letter had to do with the question of whether the County has any business
reviewing wells of any kind. The question was triggered because Clarke County got an opinion
that they were acting beyond their powers. What Clarke County did was to say that no well
could be built in the County unless it was built to county standards, just a single well for a
single county residence. This Board has never taken the position that it has anything to do
with that. That is left to the State Health Department. The County has no power to prescribe
standards for a single family well - never has asserted any such power. The statutory three
connections means that the applicant must come before this Board. Fifteen connections means
the applicant must get Health Department approval for the system as to adequacy of supply,
pipes and so forth. Fifty connections is where the system is required to become a public
utility.
Mr. Fisher said he would like Mr. St. John take into consideration the request from the
Planning staff, the Service Authority's opinions, the Code of Virginia, and the County's
Comprehensive Plan and then recommend to the Board in an outline form what the Board should
do. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see something by next month. Mr. St. John said that is
a reasonable time period and he will have something for the August 14 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 11. Work Session: Proposed 1985-1990 Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Agnor addressed the Board and suggested that the Board go ~hrough the proposed
program item by item. Minor amendments staff recommended in regards to Planning Commission
recommendations will be highlighted and also the addition of a couple of projects. The
following is a summary of project requests:
ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS - A total of $10,000 is requested for the provision of
administrative and court-related functions of the County government.
Old Jailor's House Improvements - Removing and relaying brick wall cap on Old
Jailor's Courtyard wall. Total project costs of $10,0~0; $10,000 requested for
FY 85-86. Urgent Priority.
II.
EDUCATION - A total of $12,595,370 is requested by the Education Department for seven
separate projects including new construction, renovation, additions, etc. Of the above
amount, $1,632,320 is requested for FY 85-86 with the remainder planned to be requested
in future years.
(The Planning Commission is recommending a total of $12,595,370 of which $132,320 is
recommended for FY 85-86. The narrative below details the Planning Commission's recommen-
dations and comments.)
Mr. Agnor stated that before the Board gets into a discussion of these projects, he would
like to note that Piedmont Virginia Community College has discovered a need for local funds
for their expansion project which is already out for bid. The cost of the improvements
allocated to local governments will exceed those resources. DrJ George Vaughan asked him if
he could incorporate an amount into this budget review so the College will not have to wait an
entire year to build its project.
4!4
July 10, 1985 (Reqular Day Meetinq)
Mr. Paul Jenkins, representing Piedmont Virginia Community College, addressed the Board.
He stated that the bid opening is going on at this time and Dr. Vaughan needed to be present
at that opening so was unable to come today. He stated that during the planning session for
this new building, the cost for site development was expected to be one-half of the final cost
Site development is that part of the building project which lies five feet beyond the
building. Anything within five feet is completely a State responsibility. This particular
project includes some revisions to the driveway into the loading dock, a new short driveway,
storm drain, sewer connection, water connection, electrical connection, grading curbs, paving,
etc. Today the actual cost will be known. Mr. Jenkins said this building is for the
laboratory wing which is approximately 30,000 square foot wing costing $2.2 million which is
to be paid by the State.
Mr. Agnor said Piedmont has asked for $12,484. Dr. Vaughan asked if there were anyway to
get the approval of that amount today so the bids could be awarded. He indicated to
Dr. Vaughan that the project would have to go through the hearing process and an appropriation
made later. Piedmont has 45 days in which to award the project. If they do not have the
local funds allocated, they cannot even use the State money for the contract. Mr. Fisher said
this is the culmination of a long process. It involved the sale of the Bicentennial Center
and getting the Governor and both houses of the General Assembly to approve the sale, etc.
This has been a very long process and there is no way he will allow $12,000 to get in the way
of finalizing this plan. He stated that Mr. Agnor did we'll in reserving the $25,000 that it
was felt this building would cost. He said the Board should go ahead and put the project in
the CIP and move ahead. The total cost of the project is $27,802 in terms of the additional
funds needed. The County's share is $12,484 of the $27,802. (Mr. St. John left the meeting
at 2:35 P.M.) At this time, the Board returned to discussion of the Education Projects
listed.
Broadus Wood Addition and Remodeling - Completion - This project is already underway
and has already been funded. It requires no further action by the Board.
Ivy Area School Construction - Planning and construction of a 500-600 pupil K-5
school in Ivy. Total project cost of $5,000,000; request of $500,000 for FY 85-86.
Urgent Priority. A literary loan will be sought for this project with the maximum
limit of $2,000,000.
(Due to the pending consultant's study of the Albemarle County School System, the Planning
Commission does not recommend inclusion of this item at this time in the 1985-1990
Capital Improvements Program. Instead, the Planning Commission is recommending that
funds be earmarked under a new sub-category "Contingency Fund for Future School Needs."
See item 8 below for additional information.)
Mr. Agnor said the School Facilities Plan Committee met yesterday with the consultant and
has a verbal report for the Board. Mr. Tucker said the Committee met for the first time with
the consultants yesterday. He then read a memorandum dated July 10, 1985 from Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman of the School Facilities Plan Committee.
"At our meeting on July 9, 1985, the School Facilities Plan Committee,
after motion by Reverend Peter~Way, seconded by Dr. Charles Tolbert,
unanimously recommended the following:
That the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors include in its 1985-90
Capital Improvements Program an amount of $250,000 in FY 85-86 for planning
and acquisition of an elementary school site in the general Ivy area and an
amount of $4.75 million in FY 86-87 for design and construction. The
committee also recommended that the facility be designed for an initial
capacity of 400-500 students with future plans to accommodate up to 600
students."
Mr. Way said the Committee feels it is obvious that a new school must be built in the Ivy
area. Growth will be primarily north and west of that area. The consultants said if an
addition is added to Murray Elementary to take care of the present students at Meriwether
Lewis it will accommodate that school as it is now, but will not provide any space for
additional growth. On that basis, the Committee felt a new school should be constructed.
There are still a lot of things about the project, particularly the location, which are still
not decided. The main purpose is to get some allocation in the CIP so initial planning can be
done during this coming year.
Mr. Way also stressed that the consultants have not finished their overall study. A
major part of that study is to examine all of the County schools as to bringing them up to
some kind of parity level. That study has not been completed and will not be completed until
Fall. It is critical to at least begin planning for this new school. Although money for the
planning of this new school is appropriated, that should not send a message to other concerned
parents that other schools will not be included in the very near future. Of course, the
consultants recommendations on needs will have to be prioritized.
Mr. Way said the Committee has found that between 1985 and 1990, the total school
population will increase by approximately 500 students. The high school population is
expected to decrease by 500, while the elementary school population is expected to increase by
1000, while the middle school population will remain static. There will definitely be a
crunch in the elementary schools. However, in the northern part of the County, the schools we
are in good shape. This is the only pace in the County where a change will be needed.
Mr. Fisher asked if a written report has been received from the consultant about the
issue of separate site vs. building on the Murray site. Mr. Way replied that the Committee
has not received a written report on that phase. They have received a written report on
enrollment and population. Mr. Tucker stated that the consultant has received the engineering
and architectural studies on Murray and Meriwether, but it has not been put into a final
report form. Mr. Fisher said he agrees with including funds for planning and perhaps site
acquisition, but he is not ready to take a "leap" to say that the school should be on a
separate site until he has a few answers to questions. Mr. Bowie concurred. There is only
$10,000,000 shown in this CIP to do all school projects. He will not support acquisition or
July_10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
construction funds until he sees the total report on all school requirements. Mr. Way said he
personally tends to agree, but would hate to have the Board decide in November or December to
acquire some site, and then have to wait until next August when the CIP is amended again.
Having the $250,000 in there will not hurt. The money would at least be in the Plan if
needed.
Mr. David Papenfuse said the consultant recommended that Meriwether Lewis School be
replaced as the first priority of school system. (Mr. St. John returned at 2:41 P.M.) In
addition, the consultant did not feel the topography of the land or the Meriwether Lewis site
would support the size school needed for that area. Mr. Fisher said the basis of the
consultant's first recommendation the Meriwether Lewis site would be abandoned. Mr. Henley
said he felt the site could have land added. Mr. Papenfuse said the Murray site would not
support a large enough school to take the current population, plus expected growth.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any possibility of adding to the Meriwether Lewis land.
Mr. Papenfuse said the consultant has received some offers and he has reviewed them, but the
topography of the land does not support playing fields or parking areas. Mr. Fisher said the
assumption would be to sell that land and use those funds for acquisition of a better site.
Mr. Papenfuse said providing the choice is to go to another site.
Mr. Bowie recommended the $250,000 be included in the CIP for FY 85-86, but leave the
funds in the contingency account and not appropriate anything at this time. Mr. Way said as
long as the funds can be used for that purpose. Mr. Agnor stated he had no problem with that.
Mr. Agnor asked for clarification if the Board, after the public hearing on this Capital
Improvements Program will appropriate $250,000 into a contingency account which can be trans-
ferred during FY 85-86 to a specific project or this project.
III.
3. Asbestos Removal (seven schools) - Removal of asbestos from Burley, Crozet, Murray,
Rose Hill, Stone-Robinson, Stony Point and Yancey Schools. Removal planned for summer of
1985. Total project cost of $71,000; request of $71,000 for FY 85-86. Urgent Priority.
(Mr. Agnor said these funds have already been appropriated.)
4. Hollymead School Reroofing - Replacement of entire roof due to present leaking and
potential deterioration of entire structure. Total project cost of $160,000 for FY 87-88
Desirable Priority.
5. Equity Projects - Remodeling and additions to older school buildings in order to
provide equal educational opportunities at all schools. Schools included are Burley,
Crozet, Rose Hill, Stone-Robinson, Stony Point and Yancey. Funding is requested to
implement the results of consultant's comprehensive study currently underway. Total
project costs of $5,000,000 to be distributed over five years; $1,000,000 requested for
FY 85-86. Desirable Priority.
(Due to the consultant's study of the Albemarle County School System, the Planning
Commission does not recommend inclusion of this item at this time in the 1985-1990
Capital Improvements Program. Instead the Planning Commission is recommending that funds
be earmarked under a new sub-category "Contingency for Future School Needs". See item 8
for additional information.)
6. Burley Baseball Field Lights - Replacement of-baseball field lights at Burley as
present poles are rotten and replacement of bulbs is hazardous. This total project cost
is $74,640; however, the Department of Education is splitting the cost of this project
with the Department of Parks and Recreation. Total project cost to Education Department
is $37,320 requested for FY 85-86. Urgent Priority.
(The Planning Commission recommends that this project continue to be handled in
conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department but that steel poles and metal
halide lights be utilized. This increases the total project cost of $74,640. See Parks
and Recreation for more information on this project.)
7. Western Albemarle Stage Structural Improvements - Replacement of original rigging
for stage lights since weight of light fixtures is causing supports to bend. Potential
danger to students as lights may drop. Total project cost of $24,000; $24,000 requested
for FY 85-86. Urgent Priority.
(Planning Commission notes that the above request is to correct design deficiencies. The
structural flaw as discovered last year when the stage lights and rigging were replaced.)
8. (Contingency Fund For Future School Need(s) - While the Planning Commission recogniz(
that the school system is going to have requirements for upgrading existing facilities
and possible replacement of some schools, at the present time no specific planning has
been done either for necessary improvements to any schools specifically, or to what needs
are for the replacement of schools. For the above reasons, the Planning Commission
recommends not indicating funding in the Capital Improvements Program for the Ivy School
Project or Equity Projects but rather indicating under a new subcategory "Contingency
Fund" $10,000,000 in Total Project Costs and County Share with no proposed funding for
fiscal years 1985-1990.)
Two projects with requests of $1,050,000 are shown in
The first item, discussing dry hydrants, is for
POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY -
the Capital Improvements Program.
information only.
1. Dry Hydrants - East Rivanna, North Garden, Earlysville, Crozet, Stony Point and
Scottsville
Installation of dry hydrants at selected sites in each of six fire districts. The
Jefferson County Firefighters' Association is withdrawing previous Capital Improvements
Program requests for hydrants due to difficulties encountered in obtaining landowner
easements and due to successful efforts of the Fire Official and the Zoning Department in
requiring dry hydrant installation by the developer in new subdivisions. Total project
cost of $48,000 to be deleted from previous Capital Improvements Program utilities
requests.
416
July 10, 1985 (Regular D~y Meetinq)
2. Fire Service Training Center - Construction of a training center for area fire
service organizations. Project is currently underway and is 50 percent complete. State
and private funding sources uncertain. Total project cost of $288,975; County share is
$125,000; $25,000 appropriated in 82-83 and 83-84 and 84-85; request of $25,000 for 85-86
and 86-87. Urgent Priority.
3. Volunteer Fire Department Advance Allocation - Provision of $200,000 annually to
Advance Allocation Program for Jefferson County Firefighters' Association for equipment
purchase. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a plan for a five-year trial
period (continues through FY 86-87) and is allocating $200,000 a year to the plan.
Jefferson County. Firefighters' Association is requesting funding as well for FY 87-88
through FY 89-90 since they are unsure as to how the Finance Department will administer
the total fund. If returns are deposited in the overall capital fund, they are
requesting continued funding; however, if the $1,000,000 fund is administered separately,
then funding requests past FY 86-87 are inappropriate. Total project costs of
$1,600,000; $600,000 appropriated previously; request of $200,000 for each year of five-
year Capital Improvements Program. Urgent Priority.
(The Planning Commission supports the original concept of a $1,000,000 loan fund and has
therefore not recommended Capital Improvements Program funding past FY 86-87. The
Planning Commission also requests that in future Capital Improvements Program funding
requests that the Jefferson County Firefighters' Association detail how the $200,000 will
be allocated. The Planning Commission would like an opportunity to review all requests
for compliance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan.)
Mr. Agnor said his item needs attention today. It is a continuing project. It is
Mr. Agnor's recommendation that the Board appropriate the $200,000 for FY 85-86 today because
the Jefferson County Firefighters' Association has already allocated the $200,000 to equipment
needs and the fire companies who will be receiving the funds had already ordered the equipment
with six months of lead time so the equipment is scheduled for delivery in July. They will
need those monies to pay the bills for the equipment coming in. Mr. Agnor said this is the
only item which needs an appropriation today.
IV. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Hydraulic Road Pathway - Construction of a walkway or pathway to serve as a connector
for the Jack Jouett/Albemarle middle and high school complex to the Berkeley/Four Seasons
area. This walkway could be constructed either along Hydraulic Road, similar to the
Georgetown Road walkway, or in an off-road location. Total project cost of $50,000;
$50,000 requeSted for FY 85-86. Necessary.
(The Planning Commission recommends that $5,000 be allocated in FY 85-86 to study
alignment, location, design, right-of-way requirements, etc., for this pathway. It was
noted that the County's Pedestrian Obstacle Study will be completed in July 1985 and may
have pertinent recommendations for this proposal. The remainder of the total project
cost, $45,000, was recommended for FY 86-87.)
Mr. Agnor said a sidewalk study needs will be circulated to the Board in the next month
or so. The Planning Commission has recommended that this project be funded over a two-year
period of time instead of funded all in one year. Mr. Agnor said the Highway Department is
getting out of the sidewalk business. It is going to become either a local government
responsibility or there will be no sidewalks constructed in areas where there are now some
pedestrian walkway needs. That is the subject of the sidewalk study.
V. LIBRARIES - No request for Capital Improvements Program funding.
VI.
MISCELLANEOUS - This category has in the past included proposals ranging from microfilm
center establishment and aerial mapping to County computer center projects. Only one
proposal is outlined below for a total request of $288,000 for the five-year period.
1. County Computer Upgrade:
a. Control unit for additional parts $ 16,000
b. Upgrading of main frame 122,000
c. Additional disk drive 35,000
d. Tape drive 5,500
e. Microcomputer, printer & software 8~500
FY 85-86 $187,000
Items (b) through (d) are currently being studied by a consultant. Item (a) is required
for microcomputers currently budgeted by the County for purchase in FY 85-86.
f. Letter quality printer for microcomputer $ 6,000
g. Disk drive 26,000
FY 86-87 $ 32,000
h. Upgrade tape control unit $ 39,000
FY 87-88 $ 39,000
i. Upgrade main frame FY 88-89 $ 30,000
FY 88-89 $ 30,000
Total $288,000
Total project costs of $288,000; $187,000 requested for FY 85-86. Necessary Priority.
(The Planning Commission noted that presently a data processing study of the County's
system is underway. This study should provide a five year plan for the hardware and
software needs of County departments. The Planning Commission recommended in addition
that establishment of a centralized purchasing system for all County computer purchases
be studied.)
July 10, 1985 IRegular Day Meeting)
Mr. Agnor handed to the Board members and then summarized the following memorandum
addressed to the Board, dated July 10, 1985, entitled "Comparison of Capital Budget - Data
Processing Staff vs. Consultant Report".
"For your information, the following comparison between the staff request
and the consultant's recommendations in the capital budget for Data
Processing needs is compiled:
FY 1985-86
1. Communication Controller
2. Upgrade Main Frame
3. Additional Disk Drive
4. Used Tape Drive
5. Microcomputer and Software
Staff Consultant's
Request Recommendation
$ 16,000 $ 16,000
122,000 122,000
35,000 35,700
5,500 5,500
8,500 6,000
Sub Total (Hardware)
$187,000 $185,200
6. Purchase DOS/VSE System
7. Security Package
8. Mainframe to Micro Download
9. User Report Writer
10. On-Line Report Viewer
-0- $ 39,000
-0-* 14,000
-0-** 6,000
-0- 10,000
-0- 8,000
Sub Total (Software)
$ 77,000
Grand Total FY 85-86
$187,000
$262,100
*$14,000 requested in operating budget
**$4,000 requested in operating budget
FY 1986-87
1. Printer for Microcomputer
2. Development Printer
3. Disk Drive
4. Micro Software
Staff
Request
$ 6,000
--0--
26,000
Consultant's
Recommendation
13,000
26,000
4,000
Sub Total (Software)
$ 32,000
Sub Total (Hardware)
$ 43,600
5. Utilities
6. Application Packages
12,000
25,000
Sub Total (Software)
$ 37,000
Grand Total FY 86-87
$ 32,000
$ 80,600
FY 1987-88
1. Upgrade Tape Control
2. Disk Drive
3. Micro Software
Staff
Request
$ 39,000
--0--
--0--
Consultant's
Recommendation
$ 39,000
26,600
4,000
Sub Total (Hardware)
$ 69,600
4. Utilities
5. Application packages
$ 14,000.
25,000
Sub Total (Software)
Grand Total FY 87-88
$ 39,000
FY 1988-89
$ 39,000
$113,600
1. Upgrade Main Frame
2. Communication Controller
3. Disk Drive
4. Micro Software
Staff
Request
$ 30,000
--0--
--0--
--0--
Consultant's
Recommendation
$ 60,000
16,000
26,600
4,000
Sub Total (Hardware)
$ 30,000
$106,600
5. Utilities
6. Application Packages
-0-
$ 16,000
40,000
Sub Total (Software)
$ 56,000
Grand Total FY 88-89 $ 30,000 $162,600
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
FY 1989-90
Disk Drive
Sub Total (Hardware)
Staff
Request
$ -0-
Consultant's
Recommendation
$ 26,600
$ 26,600
2. Database System
3. Utilities
4. Application Packages
-0- $140,000
-0- 20,000
-0- 30z000
Sub Total (Software)
$ -0- $190,000
$ -0- $216,600
Grand Total FY 89-90
Grand Total FY 85-90
$288,000 $835,600
An update of the cost figures for FY 85-86 of the consultants recommendations
are:
Original Revised Difference
Communications Controller
Upgrade Main Frame
Disk Drive
Used Tape Drive
Micro and Software
Freight
16,000 $ 16,000 $ -0-
122,000 133,800 + 11,800
35,700 35,700 -0-
5,500 5,500 -0-
6,000 7,000 + 1,000
-0- 1,500 + 1,500
Total $185,200
$199,500
+$ 14,300
Original
Revised
Difference
Purchase DOS/VSE System $ 39,000
Security Package 14,000
Mainframe to Micro Download 6,000
User Report Writer 10,000
On Line Report Writer 8z000
Total $ 77,000
45,000 +$ 6,000
15,700 + 1,700
6,000 -0-
5,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 3,000
76,700 -$ %00
Grand Total $262,200
$276,200 +$14,000
SUMMARY
Recommendations
85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 Total
Staff Requests
Consultant's
(original)
Consultant's
(revised)
Consultant
(lease/purchase) $121,500
$187,000 $ 32,000 $ 39,000 $ 30,000 $ -0- $288,000
$262,200 $ 80,600 $113,600 $162,600 $216,600 $835,600
$276,200 $ 80,600 $113,600 $162,600 $216,600 $849,600
$ 92,450 $113,450 $146,770 $286,100 $760,270
It is recommended that the consultants recommendations as revised for FY
85-86 be included in the advertised public hearing for the Capital Improve-
ment Program for FY 85-90, and that funds for lease/purchase of the items be
included for the hearing. It is realized that items in the third through
fifth year of the program will probably be amended in future capital budget
cycles, but that the consultants recommendations are the most accurate
projections that are currently available."
(Mr. Lindstrom joined the meeting at 3:15 P.M.)
VII. PARKS AND RECREATION - Fourteen projects with requests of $888,920 are shown in the
Capital Improvements Program FY 85-86 to 89-90. The majority of these costs are distri-
buted over a three-year period; $389,320 for FY 85-86, $471,600 for FY 86-87 and $28,000
for FY 87-88.
(The Planning Commission is reCommending funding for eleven projects with a total project
cost of $815,920. For FY 85-86 $205,320 is recommended. The narrative's below details
the Planning Commission's recommendations and comments.)
*1. Chris Green Lake - Handicap Access - Modifications to pathway, parking area and
facilities in order to provide handicap accessibility in accordance with federal regula-
tions at Chris Green Lake. Total project costs of $66,000; $66,000 requested for
FY 85-86. Urgent Priority.
*2. Meadows Community Center - Handicap Access - Replace door thresholds and handles,
minor modification to restrooms and purchase and installation of an audible and visual
alarm system. Federal regulations require accessibility. Total project costs of $3,000;
$3,000 requested for FY 85-86. Urgent Priority.
*3. Greenwood Community Center - Handicap Access - Provision of handicap accessibility
to two-story center and picnic shelters. Construction of ramps, hard surface pathways
and audible and visual fire alarm, etc. Federal regulations require accessibility as
this is the only facility at which certain activities can be offered. Total project
costs of $10,000; $-0- requested for FY 85-86 with $10,000 requested for FY 86-87.
Necessary Priority.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(The Planning Commission notes that the starred (*) items indicated above are required
under the terms of Federal Revenue Sharing to be completed by October 1, 1986. The
Planning Commission felt that savings in cost might be obtained by putting all three
projects up for bid at the same time; therefore the Planning Commission recommends that
the Greenwood Community Center Handicap project be moved from FY 86-87 and $10,000 be
included for funding in FY 85-86.)
4. Scottsville Community Center - Handicap Access - Provision of handicap access to
gymnasium, cafeteria, and restrooms. Construction of parking area and walkway~i entrance
and exit ramps, modification to restrooms, audible and visual alarm system. D~e to
distance from other gymnasiums, handicap access is recommended although not required. FY
Total project costs of $10,000; $-0- requested for FY 85-86 with $10,000 requested for
87-88. Desirable Priority.
(Although not required to be improved under Federal Regulations, the Planning Commission
recommends funding the Scottsville Community Center Handicap Access project due to the
heavy utilization of the Scottsville Community Center and also due to the amount of other
improvements envisioned for the center. For the reasons noted above under item 93, the
Planning Commission also recommends that the project date be moved from FY 87-.'88 and
$10,000 in funding be included in FY 85-86.)
5. Mint Sprin~s Valley Park - Handicap Access - Provision of handicap accessibility for
swimming, picnicking, installation of hard surface pathways and modification ~o physical
facilities. Not required if County complies with federal regulations by making Chris
Green Lake accessible. Total project costs of $45,000; $-0- requested for 85-86 with
$45,000 requested for 86-87. Necessary Priority.
6. Beaver Creek Park - Handicap Access - Provision of handicap access to bank fishing
and comfort station. Installation of hard surface paths and modification
to comfort station. Not required if County complies with federal regulations by making
Chris Green Lake accessible; however, this would provide bank fishing access~in Western
Albemarle. Total project costs of $20,000; $-0- requested for FY 85-86 witheS20,000
~requested for FY 87-88. Necessary Priority.
(The Planning Commission does not recommend inclusion of the Mint Springs Lley Park and
Beaver Creek Park handicap projects at this time in the 1985-1990 Capital Improvements
Program.)
Mr. Agnor said he feels handicapped people need access to anything close t~ where they
live, so he recommends that the Planning Commission recommendations not be followed on either
~5 or ~6.
7. Greenwood Community Center - Window Replacement - Replacement of 19 windows at
community center with energy efficient storm and safety windows. Current windows are
inefficient and dangerous during skating. Total project cost of $10,000; $10,000
requested for FY 85-86. Necessary Priority.
(The Planning Commission requests that the cost of this project be closely examined prior
to finalization of a bid.)
Mr. Agnor said it is estimated that this cost could be recovered in approximately two to
three years.
8. Greenwood Community Center - Parkinq Lot Surfac~ Treatment - Surface treatment of
existing dirt/gravel parking lot, entrance and exit roads. Total project cost of $8,000;
$8,000 requested for FY 85-86. Necessary Priority.
(The Planning Commission does not recommend inclusion of this project in the 1985-1990
Capital Improvements Program as need for the project was not demonstrated given other
higher priority projects.)
Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission removed this item at the request of staff. There
are two problems with the parking lot. During the Arts and Crafts Fair that occurs in this
building, there is so much dust generated from the parking lot, there is a real problem with
not only the people breathing it, but settling on all of the exhibits. The other problem is
that during the winter, with no parking area that is graveled, there is a mud hole, and people
track mud into the building. The staff felt it was worth spending $8,000 to surface treat the
parking lot to eliminate the dirt and mud. The Planning Commission did not but it was
important enough to indicate in the plan. However, when the Planning Commission was working
on the CIP, they did not know what funds would be available.
9. Greenwood Community Center - Outdoor Basketball Court - Construction of hard court
area with two basketball goals for use during summer Playground programs. Currently,
children cannot participate in a variety of programs due to a lack of outdoor courts.
Total project costs of $10,600; $-0- requested for FY 85-86 with $10,600 requested for
86-87. Necessary Priority.
(The Planning Commission requests that cost of this project be examined prior to
construction.)
10. Scottsville community Center - Parkin~ Lot Resurfacin~ - Path and surface treatment
of existing parking lot. Total project costs of $6,000; $-0- requested for FY 85-86 and
$6,000 requested for FY 86-87. Necessary Priority.
(The Planning Commission recommends that this project be scheduled for FY 85-86 rather
than FY 86-87. As noted previously, the Planning Commission felt that savings in cost
could be obtained by economics of scale or by multiple projects at a site in the same
fiscal year.)
420
July 10, 1985 (Reqular Day Meetinq)
11. Scottsville Community Center - Asbestos Removal - Removal of asbestos from ceilings,
hallways, classrooms, cafeteria and for removal of asbestos from piping in unused portions
of building. Asbestos must be removed regardless of future disposition of building.
Total project costs of $57,500; $57,500 requested for FY 85-86. Urgent PriOrity.
12. Crozet Park - Softball/Baseball Field Improvement - Replacement of deteriorated
backstop ~nd improvement to playing field support. The Albemarle County Department of
Parks and Recreation has joined the Claudius Crozet Park Board in cooperative agreement
to maintain the grounds. Total project cost of $4,000; $4,000 requested for FY 85-86.
Urgent Priority.
13. Burle¥ Baseball Field Lighting and Backstop Replacement - Replacement of current
lighting system as current poles are hazardous and light inefficient. Funds ($4,000)
also requested to replace backstop which is currently in very poor condition. Lighting
project will be half-funded by the Education Department. The Parks Department's share
is $37,320. Total project costs of $41,320; $41,320 requested for FY 85-86. Urgent
Priority.
(The Planning Commission recommends maintenance-free steel poles with metal halide lights
be installed (rather than wooden poles). This increases the total project cost of
$74,640 which is split between the Department of Education and Department of Parks and
Recreation. Both departments have programs which utilize the field at night. In
addition, the Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing to replace a backstop for
an additional $4,000.
The Planning Commission recommends steel poles as they have a life expectancy of 50 years
versus 20 to 30 years for treater wooden poles and the cost difference is approximately
$10,000. Metal halide lights also provide three times more light and have ten times
longer life expectancy than incandescent lights.)
14. Southern Regional Park - Selection of a site and construction of regional park to
serve southern part of Albemarle County as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan (goal
12, objective 6). Facilities to be similar to Chris Green and Mint Springs Parks. Total
project costs of $600,000; $200,000 requested for FY 85-86 and $400,000 in FY 86-87.
Necessary Priority.
(Given the delay to date on the initiatiOn of this project, the Planning Commission
recommends that this project be scheduled for FY 86-87 $200,000) and FY 87-88 ($400,000)
rather than FY 85-86 and FY 86-87, respectively. A year delay would provide time for
planning and engineering studies.)
Mr. Agnor said the staff recommend that this project not be delayed as recommended by the
Planning Commission. The site selection process is nearing completion and acquisition of the
site will proceed this year. Mr. Agnor recommended the staff's request be split between FY
85-86 and FY 86-87 and be retained. Mr. Fisher clarified that .Mr. Agnor was recommending
items 5, 6, 8 and 14 be retained as the staff requested. Mr. Agnor responded that is correct.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was any objection to this by Board members. Mr. Bowie stated he
had no objection but, a tremendous change was just made to Data Processing budget. Mrs. Cooke
stated she would support going to public hearing with the recommendations of the staff.
Mr. Bowie agreed.
VIII.
UTILITIES - Eight (8) County projects are requesting funding from the Capital
Improvements Program. Total requests for County funds are $150,000, with the majority of
funding, $117,000, requested for FY 85-86.
Projects from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle County Service
Authority are shown later in this report for informational purposes only, as no County
Capital Improvements Program funding is requested. The Albemarle County Service
Authority has noted that due to commitment to the Crozet Interceptor project, major
Capital Improvement Program projects have been delayed more than five years (i.e. beyond
the 1985-1990 Capital Improvements Program review). The figures and projects shown for
the Albemarle County Service Authority are not yet formally adopted.
Mr. Way asked if he could make a request at this time. Mr. Tom Bruce from Scottsville
Town Council is present and has a presentation he would like to make. This request has come
at the last minute because a problem has developed.
Mr. Tom Bruce, president of the Town Council of Scottsville, addressed the Board. This
request is in connection with construction of the floodwall in Scottsville. The first phase
of the floodwall has been completed and the Army Corps of Engineers has assumed responsibility
for completion to bring it to the one-year flood level to protect the town from such a flood.
The Corps earmarked $4,000,000 for completion of this floodwall. The Town Council was under
the impression that the Corps would assume the responsibility for all costs connected with the
floodwall. In the latter part of May the town was notified of certain required items to be
funded locally. These items were classified mainly as utility items which turned out to be
many things; sewer modification/relocation and alterations, some for water lines, sidewalk and
street pavement, some electrical work, and storm drainage. In conference with the Corps of
Engineers, the storm drainage was eliminated and related just to the floodwall. Now, the
total of the local cooperation item is $93,000. Through the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission, a block grant application was made to the State in the amount of $41,000.
The Town has requested participation from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the
Albemarle County Service Authority. The Rivanna Authority has indicated that they do not have
any funds available. The Albemarle County Service Authority's participation at this point is
not known.
Mr. Bruce said originally the Town was given the impression they had two years in which
to come up with local funding. The latter part of June they received a telegram from the Army
Corps of Engineers stating they had to produce the funding by June 28. They had an emergency
meeting with the Corps and called in Albemarle County Service Authority representatives. The
final date for the local commitment has been postponed to the latter part of July. Mr. Bruce
said the reason for this escalation in timetable is that the Corps has the $4,000,000 on hand
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
if they have the project under contract by the end of current fiscal year on September 30. If
the project is carried over into FY '86, funding and priorities may change and they may not be
able to do the work. The Town is requesting that the County include in its CIP budget,
$93,000 for FY '86 to help with this funding which he understands will be subject to public
hearing in August. It is possible that by that time, there will be some commitment from the
Service Authority or from some other agencies.
Mr. Way said he did not know about this request until yesterday. Mr. Bruce apologized
for the short notice. He said there is no way the Town can fund any of this project.
Mr. Lindstrom what the consequences of not getting this funding will be. Mr. Bruce replied
that the Corps will not advertise for bids on the project until they have an assurance that
the $93,000 will be funded. The Corps wants to have the contract let by September 30. If not
done by that date, the project will be carried over to FY '86. The amount of funds available
for FY '86 is unknown at this time, as also would be the priorities. Mr. Bowie stated he
became aware of this problem Monday at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, who,
on behalf of the Town of Scottsville, applied for a block grant of $80,000, with the local
match coming from the Albemarle County Service Authority. It looks like the grant has a good
chance of being approved, but nobody knows for sure. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County
approved an appropriation if it would jeopardize application. Mr. Bowie stated he did not
think it would. There is a gamble involved, but the alternative is to say you are on your own
in Scottsville.
Mr. Agnor stated that the Rivanna Authority Board of Directors has not looked at the
request. Although the Rivanna staff said there are no funds available, the Rivanna Authority
does have funds reserved for unknown emergencies. Mr. Way said if this amount is included in
the CIP for the public hearing, there should be more accurate facts available at that time.
Mr. Ray Jones said the Town Council could go to the bank and get a letter of credit, allow the
Board .to put an amount in the CIP for public hearing, and by that time there should an answer
concerning the block grant. Mr. Henley said he never thought Mayor Thacker would get this
far, so he is willing to help. Mr. Bowie suggested that the money be included.
Mr. Fisher said he wants to help the town, but he has never been convinced that the
expenditure of millions of dollars for this project is justified. He has no objection to
leaVing the amount in to go to public hearing but some serious choices will have to be made
following the hearing. Mr. Fisher stated that he did not want to be silent about this
concern, go through the public hearing process, and then surprise Mr. Bruce by not supporting
the project for use of public funds. Mr. Lindstrom stated he feels the County will be buying
a very substantial project for $93,000. It is kind of hard to resist. Mr. Bruce said he will
furnish Mr. Agnor and the staff with all the information he can. Mr. Henley said the County
has quite an investment in the Old Scottsville School that might be made useful property
through this process.
Berkshire Road Channel - Provision of adequate drainage facilities to accommodate
proposed development .approval prior to passage of the County Stormwater Detention
Ordinance. Total project costs of $15,000. County share is $14,000, since $1,000 is
anticipated to be contributed by a developer. Appropriation must be for the entire
amount. $-0- requested for FY 85-86 with $15,000 requested in FY 86-87. Deferrable
Priority.
Solomon Road Improvements - Enlargement and extension of existing culvert
to relieve flooding and erosion problems. Total project costs of $15,100;
County share is $14,000; since $1,000 contribution is anticipated from a developer,
entire amount must be appropriated. $15,000 requested in FY 85-86. Desirable Priority.
Four Seasons Drive Channel - Improvements of entrance and outlet conditions at existing
culverts. Total project cost of $19,000; $19,000 requested in FY 85-86. Desirable
Priority.
Berkeley Storm Sewer - Phase II - Construction of 1,000 feet of storm sewer in existing
channel between Berkeley Subdivision and Shopper's World. Total project costs of $65,000;
$65,000 requested in FY 85-86. Necessary priority.
(The Planning Commission recommends, given the problem of rodents in this area, that the
priority of this project be changed to Urgent Priority.)
Lynchburq Road Storm Sewer - Repairing of existing storm sewer in order to relieve
erosion problem. Total project costs of $8,000; request of $8,000 in FY 85-86.
Desirable Priority.
Camile Detention Basin - Replacement of existing open detention basin with an underground
pipe to act as a basin. Total project costs of $10,000; request of $10,000 for FY 85-86.
Necessary Project.
(The Planning Commission, based on comments made by the County Engineer, agreed with his
suggestion to delete this project from the Comprehensive Improvements Plan. After
forwarding this project for Planning Commission consideration, the County Engineer
determined that the lots in this subdivision were owned by one person and a contribution
to the regional detention basin might be feasible. Therefore, the Planning Commission
does not recommend inclusion of this item in the Capital Improvements Program at this
time.)
Lickinghole Creek Basin - Construction of detention basin to safeguard existing water
supply and natural streams from effects of future development in Crozet growth area.
Total project costs of $551,235; $91,675 appropriated previously by Albemarle County;
$-0- requested for FY 85-86, $459,560 projected in FY 86-87 to be obtained 50 percent
from an Environmental Protection Agency grant and 50 percent from the Rivanna Water
Service Authority. The grant has not been approved. Urgent Priority.
Mr. Agnor said there is no appropriation required in the five years, but it is being
shown as a County project with the County having approved $91,675 already. Mr. Agnor talked
with Mr. Elrod several months ago (both serve on the Rivanna Authority Board) and they agreed
422
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
this is a protective device for the Smith Fork Rivanna Reservoir. They discussed this project
with the Rivanna Board, which agreed to pick up the cost of same from Rivanna resources, and
agreed to apply to the EPA for a substantial amount. There is an indication that the grant
will be approved. He recommends that this project be removed as a County project and listed
as a Rivanna Authority project, and that the funds which were allocated and which remain
unspent (an amount was used for surveying) be returned to the Capital Improvement Fund
balance. The Rivanna Authority Board has agreed to fund this project. Mr. Fisher said he is
very pleased.
Woodbrook Channel - Widening of channel in vicinity of Old Woodbrook Sewage Lagoons to
relieve stream erosion problems. Total project costs of $18,000; $-0- requested for FY
85-86 with $18,000 requested for FY 86-87. Necessary Priority.
PROJECTS LISTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY - NO COUNTY FUNDING REQUESTED
OTHER UTILITIES
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Projects
1. Ragged Mountain Dam Repair - Enlargement and repair of spillway. Fill and regressing
of eroded sections; total project costs of $250,000; no request for County funding.
2. Crozet Sewer Interceptor - Completion of final segment of regional wastewater interce
tor from Bellair Subdivision to Crozet. Total project costs of $6,469,100; no request
for County funding.
3. South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant Improvements - Increasing treatment capacity of
plant to 8 MGD. Addition of sludge clarifiers, repair and rehabilitation, addition of
bulk lime facilities. Total project costs of $2,833,825; no request for County funding.
4. Observatory Water Treatment Plant Improvements - Increasing of chemical feed and
addition of 3 MGD finished water storage facilities; demolition and burial of old slow-
sand building. Total project costs of $1,372,000; no request for' County funding.
5. Buck Mountain Reservoir Land Acquisition - Acquisition of land and easements for
future supplemental water supply impoundment and buffer zone. Total project costs of
$4,877,000; no request for County funding.
Albemarle County Service Authority Projects
1. Mapping of remaining storage area - Present tax maps not adequate for describing
utility locations. Updating of maps so as to have similar plenimetric base maps as
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Total project costs of $125,000 in FY 85-86; no
County funds requested.
2. Maintenance Storage Building - Relocation of maintenance storage building to urban
area from Crozet service area. The new location would offer more centralized location to
serve customers more economically. Total project costs of $329,000 in FY 85 and FY 86;
no County funds requested.
3. Scottsville Improvements - Phase I - Installation of additional storage tank so that
existing 250,000 gallon tank can be serviced and maintained without interruption. Line
extension to shopping center for fire protection and to encourage commercial and residen-
tial growth along Route 6. Phase I and future Phase II will lead to better flow and
pressure characteristics. TOtal project costs of $426,000 in FY 86-87; no County funds
requested.
4. Brownsville Extension to West Albemarle High School - Construction of 12-inch line
extension from Tabor Street to high school in order to provide sufficient flow for fire
protection. Total project costs of $418,000 in FY 86-87; no County funds requested.
5. Pantops - 250 Extension - Tie in with an existing unused 8-inch line along Route 250.
By completing the loop between State Farm Boulevard and Riverbend Drive, public water
will be supplied to the 250 corridor. With completion of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority's Pantops tank and 12-inch transmission line, this loop should help to
strengthen the flow and pressure characteristics in the area. Total project costs of
$140,000 in FY 87-88; no County funds requested.
6. Annual Water System Improvements Program - This program was established to set aside
certain funds for improvements to the water system on a yearly basis. It is assumed that
$100,000 is the yearly appropriation. It is planned that any improvements to the water
system, whether they be engineering studies, system rehabilitation, leak detection, new
construction or design of system, may come out of this fund as long as the total projects
in any one year do not exceed $100,000.
Examples of projects which may be undertaken in FY 85-86 with these funds follows:
Urban Service Area
a. West Leigh - replace existing lines
b. Woolen Mills - replace existing lines
c. Ednam Forest - loop lines for pressure
d. Flordan increase size of feeder line
e. Barterbrook replace existing lines
f. Route 29 soUth - clean existing line
Amount
$97,000
34,000
12,000
57,000
44,000
15,000
North Rivanna Service Area
g. Terrybrook - replace existing lines
43,000
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
423 -
Co
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
Secondary Road Six Year Plan
Six year construction plan of secondary roads in County. Funds are included for
improvements to the following roads/projects during 1984-199'0:
Hydraulic Road (Route 743)
Meadowcreek Parkway
Route 671
Route 618
Route 640
Route 664
Route 622
Route 643
Route 727
Route 686
Route 652
Undesignated
$ 225,000
3,498,154
109,000
365,000
80,000
310,000
285,000
11,000
10,000
1,000
50,000
660,000-
$5,604,154
No funds are requested from the Capital Improvements Program for these
projects.
HOUSING
Two projects are shown: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the
Office of Community Services Discretionary Grant Program.
1. Community Development Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program FY 85-87.
Proposal to rehabilitate 73 low income, owner-occupied housing units in the six housing
strategy areas identified in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. Funded
by Community Development Block Grant funds in conjunction with operating monies of
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). AHIP requested a $166,950 operating budget
from the County for FY 85-86, and is anticipated to request approximately $175,300 in FY
86-87. The local and regional Community Development Block Grants are for two years.
Total project costs of approximately $1,042,250 of which $700,000 is a Community
Development Block Grant; no requests for Capital Improvements Program funding.
2. Office of Community Services (OCS) Discretionary Grant - FY 84-85.
Proposal to rehabilitate 18 low-income, owner-occupied housing units. Of these 18 units,
eight are major rehabilitation efforts that will be jointly funded through the Community
Development Block Grant Program. These units are located in communities and rural
neighborhoods lying within those areas identified by the Comprehensive Plan as areas with
the greatest housing assistance needed. Total grant amount of $116,260 for FY 84-85; no
County funding requested.
3. Section 8 - Moderate Rehabilitation Program - Recently authorized the total of $1.4
million.
AIRPORT
The Airport Authority has a pre-application document pending Federal Aviation Agency
review for their approval of the following items:
1. Ramp construction
2. Crash fire rescue building - Total project costs of $329,923; no County funding
requested.
The Airport is requesting a two year funding request, As a requirement of the A-95
Review Process, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission provided written review and
comments.
Also, the Airport has previously been given approval for construction of an improved
(vehicular) circulation loop access road. Phase I is under construction. Phase II is
scheduled to begin June 1, 1985. All three of theses items are shown on the approved
Airport Master Plan.
No local funds are sought from either the City or County. State funding will come from
aviation grants. The Airport will provide all required local grant match amounts.
Mr. Agnor read the following memorandum to the Board dated June 6, 1985, entitled "1985-9(
Proposed Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P)":
"Transmitted herewith for your review and approval is the 1985-90 Capital
Improvement Program as recommended by the Planning commission. Additionally,
estimated revenues for the five-year period are included for your review.
The revenues were not examined by the Planning Commission.
The comparison of requested and recommended project costs to estimated
revenues is as follows:
424
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 Total
(Cost in Millions of Dollars)
Requested Projects
2.61 6.42 1.27 1.20 1.23 12.73
Planninq Commission Recommendations
Recommended Projects
Recommended School Contingency
0.87 0.71 0.44 0 0.03 2.05
..... 10.00
12.05
Estimated Revenues
6.30 1.30 1.13 1.18 1o17 11.08
As you will find when you examine the projects, the significant difference
in requested and recommended costs is the Planning Commission's proposal
that $10 million in school projects be deferred and carried as a 'Contingency
Fund' until receipt of the School Facilities Plan being prepared by consultants.
Mr. Agnor stated.that the CIP does not have to have a balanced budget since it is a
planning document. Mr. Agnor said revenues could be enhanced by showing the use of literary
fund loans during the five year period of time, or the $10 million contingency account could
be adjusted. Mr. Agnor recommended balancing the CIP by adjusting the revenue side.
Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to have a balanced budget at least as far as the total
amount is concerned. Mr. Bowie stated he also supports a balanced budget concept, but there
have been a lot of changes.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to set a public hearing for August 14, 1985 for the Capital
Improvements Program as presented and for the 1985-86 Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-85-06. Work Session: To amend the Zoning Ordinance to include
landscaping and screening requirements; related amendments.
Mr. Fisher stated that the primary issue still in contention on the final draft is
Section 32.8.2.4. Mr. Henley stated that he can support the amendments. Mr. Bowie said he
realize that his vote will have absolutely no affect on the outcome of this issue, but the
staff report indicates that most of the developers already do more than what Will be required.
Some people do not. He objects to a regulation that regulates everybody who is doing things
properly instead of going after those that do not. He feels it is better for those who do not
comply, to disapprove their plans, and let them file all the appeals. The County does not
need a complicated, lengthy, regulation on landscaping. He had already stated that he would
not support it under any condition if it did not specifically exempt private homes
permanently, and also up through the small three-unit development. He will not support it.
Mrs. Cooke said she thought it was pointed out very clearly that these amendments do not
affect the private homeowner. This takes care of a lot of unimportant "housekeeping" measures
with which the Planning Commission must deal. This lets the developer know exactly what is
expected so the developer has the opportunity to make provisions within his budget as to what
must be done. She is prepared to support these regulations as recommended by staff.
Mr. Lindstrom said although he missed the work session this morning, he has ~read the
ordinance and the staff report carefully. He has talked with others who have been at the
hearings, and he supports .the staff recommendation. Like most of these ordinances, there will
certainly be ample opportunity to change it, modify it or whatever, as time goes on.
Mr. Henley stated he feels this is standardizing requirements so everybody will know what
to expect. In that respect, it will be better than it is now. Mrs. Cooke said there is no
standardization and this erases confusion and wasted time at Planning Commission meetings.
Mr. Way said that he has had some reservations, but he can support it. There are
standardized items which make it easier to deal with. There is enough flexibility in the
requirements so as not be so stringent that it will tie the developer's hands. He responded
to Mr. Bowie's comments and said that if he thinks people are going to misinterpret it, there
is nothing wrong with attaching a sentence to the front of this to make it very clear that it
does not apply to single-family, detached dwellings.
Mr. Henley said he understood Ms. Scala to say those types of units do not require filing
a site plan anyway. Mr. Way said that is true, but people do misinterpret things. Mr. St.
John said he is not sure the site plans are requested for everything except single-family
dwellings. There are other uses for which no site plan is required. If you make such a
statement, then by implication you are saying it applies to everything else in the ordinance
and it does not now to apply to everything else. In the first place, Section 32.8 is a part
of the Site Plan ordinance, and at the beginning of the Site Plan ordinance it states what it
applies to and what it does not apply to. There is no ambiguity about that at all.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the simple adoption of ZTA-85-06 accomplishes all of the
amendments or if there are other~ provisions of the ordinance to be adopted, as well as the
adoption of this. Mr. Tucker said that was the intent of the recommendation the Planning
Commission forwarded to the Board. Mr. Fisher stated these revisions have been revised by a
staff report dated July 10 which has changed some of the language. That is the version which
has the best acceptance right now; not the version forwarded by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom offered the motion to adopt ZTA-85-06 as forwarded by the Planning
Commission, amended through these work sessions and as outlined in a planning staff report
dated July 10, 1985. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
425
Mr. Fisher asked what the effective date will be.
amendments will be effective when enacted.
Mr. St. John suggested these
With no further discussion roll was called and the motion to amend and reenact certain
portions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as set out in the following two adopting
ordinances carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Bowie.
ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted
through the following changes:
SECTION 21.0 - Commercial Districts - Generally
21.6 Minimum Landscaped Area - delete existing language and
in its place put the following sentence "See section 32.8 for landscaping
and screening requirements."
21.7 - Minimum Yard Requirements
21.7.1 - Delete sentence reading "Off-street parking and loading
space shall be located and/or screened so as to minimize visual impact from
public streets." Paragraph will now read:
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure except signs
advertising sale or rental of the property shall be erected closer than
thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of-way. No off-street parking
or loading space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public
street right-of-way.
21.7.2 - Amend language to read:
Adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No portion of any
structure except signs advertising sale or rental of the property shall be
located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas
district. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer
than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
Add a new section 21.7.3 to read:
Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No construc-
tion activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur
closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.8.
Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a particular case
where it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary o~r
would result in an improved site design, provided that:
a. minimum screening requirements are met; and
b. existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially
restored.
SECTION 22.0 - Commercial - C-1
22.3 - Additional Requirements - Strike all language but the sentence
reading: "In addition to the requirements contained herein, the requirements
of section 21.0 commercial districts, generally shall apply within all C-1
districts.
SECTION 25.0 - Planned Development - Shopping Centers - PD-SC
25.4 - Site Planning - External Relationships
25.4.3 - Screening - Delete in its entirety
SECTION 25A - Planned Development - Mixed Commercial - PD-MC
25A.4 - Site Planninq - External Relationships
25A.4.3 - Screening - Delete in its entirety
SECTION 26.0 - Industrial Districts - Generally
26.9 - Minimum Landscaped Area - Delete existing language and in
its place put the following language: "See section 32.8 for landscaping
and screening requirements."
26.10 - Minimum Yard Requirements
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
26.10.1 - Amend language tO read:
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any struCture, except signs
advertising sale or rental of the property, shall be erected closer than
fifty (50) feet to any public street right-of-way. No off-street parking
or loading space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public
street right-of-way.
26.10.2 - Amend language to read:
Adjacent to residential districts: No portion of any structure, except
signs advertising sale or rental of the property, shall be located closer
than fifty (50) feet to any rural areas or residential district and no
off-street parking space shall be closer than thirty (30) feet to any rural
areas or residential district. For the 'heavy industry (HI) district, no
portion of any structure except signs advertising sale or rental of the
property shall be located closer than one hundred (100) feet to any rural
areas or residential district and no off-street parking shall be closer
than thirty (30) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
Add a new section 26.10.3 reading:
Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No construc-
tion activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer
than thirty (30) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening
shall be provided as required in section 32.8.
Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a particular case where
it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary or would
result in an improved site design, provided that:
a. minimum screening requirements are met; and
b. existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially
restored.
26.12 - Site Planning - External Relationships
26.12.2 - Screening - Delete in its entirety
SECTION 32 - Site Development Plan
32.4 - Specific Items to be Shown
32.4.33 - Amend language to read as follows:
A landscape and open space design plan, based upon accepted professional
design lay-outs and principals. The plans shall include outdoor lighting
proposals; recreational areas and open space; location and type of plantings;
location, type, size, height and illumination of signs. See section 32.8
for landscape and screening requirements.
ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition
of Section 32.8 entitled "Landscaping and Screening Requirements" under
Section 32.0, Site Development Plan, reading as follows:
32.8
32.8.1
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
PURPOSE
The objective of these requirements is to provide for the installa-
tion, preservation and maintenance of plant materials in order to:
insure development which is consistent with the goals of the
comprehensive plan related to natural resources and with the
plan's environmental and land use standards;
b. promote the public health, safety and welfare;
c. conserve energy by providing shade and wind breaks;
provide pervious area which helps to reduce runoff and to
recharge groundwater;
e. improve air quality;
f. minimize noise, dust and glare;
ge
promote traffic safety by controlling views and defining
circulation patterns;
to protect and preserve the appearance, character and value
of the neighboring properties.
32.8.2 ADMINISTRATION
July 10,1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
427
32.8.2.1
32.8.2.2
32.8.2.3
32.8.2.4
32.8.2.5
32.8.2.6
32.8.2.7
Whenever a site plan is required by this ordinance, a landscape
plan shall be submitted for approval. The site plan shall not be
deemed approved until the landscape plan has also been approved
by the director of planning. If the impervious cover of the site
exceeds eighty (80) percent of the total site, the landscape plan
shall be submitted concurrently with the site development plan.
Otherwise, the landscape plan may be submitted for approval prior
to the issuance of a building permit and prior to any clearing of
the site; except that the director of planning may require that
any landscape plan be submitted concurrently with the site
development plan due to unusual circumstances or conditions
peculiar to the site, or if requested by the commission.
The landscape plan shall show location, size and type of all
proposed plant materials, and verification that minimum landscap-
ing and screening requirements have been met. Plant materials
may be indicated in the following generic terms on the landscape
plan: large or medium shade tree, screening tree, screening
shrub or street shrub. The required plant materials shall be
chosen from a recommended species list approved by the director
of planning. Plant material not listed may be used as required
plant material only if its use shall be expressly approved by the
director of planning.
Existing trees or wooded areas may be preserved in lieu of
planting new materials in order to meet the landscaping and
screening requirements, subject to the director of planning's
approval. In such cases, the landscape plan shall indicate the
trees to be saved, limits of clearing, location and type of
protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls
and trenching or tunnelling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist -
approved by the director of planning, to insure that the specified
trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise
expressly approved by the director of planning in a particular
case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in
the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284
through III-297.
In addition, the landscape plan shall indicate existing landscape
features on the site. Such features may include, but shall not
be limited to:
wooded area indicated by general type (evergreen or deciduous)
and location of tree line;
bm
small groups of'trees and individual trees of six (6) inch
caliper or greater, or ornamental trees of any size, indicated
by common name, approximate caliper and location;
Ce
natural features which distinguish the site, such as prominent
ridge lines, rock outcroppings or water features;
d. man-made features of local, historic or scenic importance;
e. scenic vistas across the site from a public road.
The director of planning may require that any or all such features
be preserved if the director determines, following a site inspection,
that the features contribute significantly to the character of
the Albemarle County landscape and that the preservation of such
features is necessary to meet the purpose and intent of this
ordinance.
The purpose of this section is to protect unique amenities which
could otherwise be irretrievably lost due to careless site
design. It is not intended that this section be applied indiscri-
minately, nor solely to prohibit development.
The planning staff in its review of the landscape plan shall
consider comments from other agencies before approving the plan,
including the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Once the landscape
plan is approved, no changes may be made unless the revision has
been approved by the director of planning.
Required landscaping may be bonded to insure completion prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All required landscap-
ing shall be completed by the first planting season following the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
A maintenance bond for the required landscaping shall be posted
by the developer in favor of the county. If the landscaping is
completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
then the maintenance bond shall be posted prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy. If the landscaping is bonded for
completion, rather than completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, then the maintenance bond shall be
posted when the materials are planted but before the completion
bond is released.
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinq)
32.8.2.8
32.8.3
32.8.3.1
32.8.3.2
32.8.4
32.8.4.1
32.8.4.2
32.8.4.3
32.8.4.4
32.8.5
32.8.5.1
The maintenance bond shall be in the amount of approximately
one-third of the value of required trees and/or shrubs, and shall
be held for a period of twelve (12) months following the planting
date.
At the end of the twelve (12) month time period, the bond shall
be released if all required plantings are in healthy condition as
determined by the zoning administrator. Thereafter, required
landscaping shall be maintained in healthy condition by the
current owner or homeowners' association, and replaced when
necessary. Replacement material shall conform to the original
intent of the landscape plan. When existing plantings are
preserved in lieu of required new plantings, the bond shall be
calculated according to the replacement value of plantings which
meet the minimum requirements of this ordinance.
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the director of planning
may demand a review of the plan by the commission. Such a
request shall be made in writing and filed with the director of
planning within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such
decision. The term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the
applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant to section
32.3.2, the commission, any member thereof, the zoning administrator,
county executive, board of' supervisors, or any member thereof.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Large street trees shall be one and one-half (1 1/2) inches to
one and three-quarters (1 3/4) inches minimum caliper (measure
six [6] inches above ground level) when planted. Medium street
trees shall be one (1) inch to one and one-quarter (1 1/4) inches
minimum caliper when planted. Evergreen trees for screening
shall be a minimum four (4) feet to five (5) feet in height when
planted. ShrubS for screening shall be a minimum eighteen (18)
inches to thirty (30) inches in height when planted. Shrubs for
street planting shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches to eighteen
(18) inches in height when planted.
Ail landscaping shall be planted according to established planting
procedures using good quality plant materials. Planting islands
shall contain minimum fifty (50) square feet per tree, with a
minimum dimension of five (5) feet in order to protect the
landscaping and allow for proper growth. Wheel stops, curbs, or
other barriers must be provided to prevent damage to landscaping
by vehicles. Where necessary, trees shall be welled or otherwise
protected against change of grade. All impervious areas of the
site shall be permanently protected from soil erosionrwith either
grass, a ground cover or milch material.
STREET TREES
Street trees shall be required along existing or proposed public
streets in any development which is subject to site development
plan approval in all commercial and industrial districts and
residential districts if developed at a density of four (4)
dwelling units per acre or greater. The commission may waive
this requirement in certain cases where site conditions warrant
an alternate solution.
Street trees shall be selected from a current list of recommended
large shade trees, approved by the director of planning. Medium
shade trees may be used, subject to the approval of the director
of planning, when site conditions warrant smaller trees. The
director of planning may approve substitutions of species limited
to large or medium shade trees.
Street trees shall be planted in an evenly-spaced row adjacent to
the public street right-of-way. One large street tree shall be
required for every fifty (50) feet of road frontage, or portion
thereof, if twenty-five (25) feet or more. Where permitted, one
(1) medium shade tree shall be required for every forty (40) feet
of road frontage, or portion thereof, if twenty (20) feet or
more. The director of planning may approve minor variations in
spacing.
In the case of development with units for sale, the trees shall
be protected through an open space or easement arrangement and
shall be maintained by a homeowners' association.
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING
Ail developments subject to site development plan review shall
include the following required landscaping in the parking lot area:
Street trees: Street trees shall be planted in accordance
with section 32.8.4 along the public street frontage which
abuts a parking lot. The trees shall normally be planted
between the street right-of-way and the parking area, within
the parking setback. If required street trees cannot be
planted within the parking setback or within ten (10) feet
July 10, 1985 (RegularDay Meeting)
429
32.8.6
32.8.6.1
32.8.6.2
32.8.6.3
of the street right-of-way due to sight distance or utility
easements or other conflicting requirements, then the
planting strip must be enlarged to accommodate the trees.
If this requirement creates a hardship by causing the
relocation of required parking spaces, then the additional
planting area may be counted toward the interior landscaping
requirement.
Interior landscaping: In addition, an area equal to five
(5) percent of the paved site area shall be landscaped with
trees or shrubs. This shall include one large or medium
shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof,
if five (5) spaces or more. Interior landscaping shall be
located in reasonably dispersed planting islands or perimeter
areas. Shrub plantings adjacent to a building shall not be
counted as interior landscaping.
Ce
Additional plantings along public streets: When a parking
lot is located such that the parked cars will be visible
from a public street, then additional landscaping of low
street shrubs shall be required between the street and the
parking lot. Shrubs shall be planted in a single row on
five (5) feet centers. Alternate methods of landscaping
designed to minimize the visual impact of the parking lot
may be approved by the director of planning.
SCREENING
When required, screening shall consist of a planting strip,
existing vegetation, a slightly opaque wall or fence, or combina-
tion thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the director of
planning. Where only vegetative screening is provided, such
screening strip shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth.
Vegetative screening shall consist of a double staggered row of
evergreen trees on fifteen (15) feet centers, minimum four (4)
feet to five (5) feet in height when planted, or a double staggered
row of evergreen shrubs on ten (10) feet centers, minimum eighteen
(18) inches to thirty (30) inches in height when planted.
Alternate methods of vegetative screening may be approved by the
director of planning. Where a fence or wall is provided, it
shall be minimum six (6) feet in height. Plantings may be
required at intervals along the structure.
Screening of parking lots shall not be counted toward the interior
landscaping requirement. When screening is required along the
frontage of public streets, the director of planning shall determine
if the street tree requirement has been met.
Screening shall be required in the following instances:
Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from
adjacent residential and rural areas districts.
Parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential and
rural areas districts.
Ct
Objectionable features including, but not limited to the
following uses shall be screened from adjacent residential
and rural areas districts and public streets:
1. loading areas
2. refuse areas
3. storage yards
4. detention ponds
Be
recreational facilities other than children's play areas
where visibility is necessary or passive recreation
areas where visibility is desirable.
Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between
the rear of the residences and the public right-of-way.
et
Natural resource extraction uses shall be screened from
public streets as required in section 30.4.9.
The commission may require screening of any use or portion
thereof, if the commission determines that the use would
otherwise have a negative visual impact on a property listed
on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has a work session on July 17, 1985, at 3:30 P.M. on other
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relative to bonus densities. He hopes some action can be
taken at that meeting.
43O
July 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. lla. Ratify action of County Attorney re: Greenwood Chemical Company.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not know what preliminary report needs to be made on this
subject. He asked if there is any public information other than what is in the court record
of actions which have been taken by Mr. St. John on behalf of the County. Mr. St. John said
no. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John to summarize briefly the action that was taken and
the response of the court, so the Board might act to ratify those actions. Mr. St. John said
it was done in executive session, but if the Board wants it discussed in public session he can
do that now, or he can bring Mr. Lindstrom up-to-date in executive session.
Mr. Lindstrom said it really begs the question to just ratify the action of the County
Attorney re: Greenwood Chemical Company. He thinks there should be some brief statement as to
what is being ratified. Mr. St. John responded that the filing of the suit and the appearance
in support of the suit for injunction are the only actions the Board would ratify. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John would describe briefly what the suit is for so that is part of
the record. Mr. St. John said he would rather make the suit itself a part of the record. He
believes that would be more accurate rather than trying to do it verbal. Mr. Lindstrom stated
that he did not think it would prejudice the case if Mr. St. John would just summarize actions.
Mr. St. John said two items were filed. A bill for injunction for the purpose of abating a
nuisance. This bill asked that the court declare the situation at Greenwood Chemical Company
to be a public nuisance and to abate it through imposition of six, separate items of relief.
There was a motion, and a notice of motion for a temporary injunction separate from the bill
for injunction, which asked that pending an evidentiary hearing the merits to determine
whether the situation is in fact a public nuisance, the company ~ enjoined from disposing or
liquidating its' assets or transferring its' assets out of the reach of the courts so the
court will have control if necessary if it elects to take control over these assets, to apply
them to the remedying or the abatement of the nuisance; that the State Health Department and
all other appropriate state and federal agencies and employees of the County be given access
during business hours to the plant for this purpose; and that the orders and directives of
those agencies be complied with. He does not remember what the other numbered paragraphs
were, but they were ancillary and therein in support of those three main requests.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the action taken by the County Attorney in filing the
suit for injunction, and the motions that have also been filed be ratified. Mr. Bowie seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. llb. Appointments. Mrs. Cooke offered motion that Mrs. E. A. Shifty Side
be appointed to the Jordan Development Corporation for a term to expire on August 13, 1986.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor reported that Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning, has resigned. His last
day of work will be this Friday. The Director of Planning acts as the agent of the BOard for
the many papers that need to be signed. There is no one person specified as a deputy director
of that department. Therefore, he has asked Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. to oversee the operation
of the department until Mr. Donnelly is replaced. He suggested that Mr. Tucker be appointed
as interim director. Mr. Way offered motion that Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., be appointed as
Interim Director of Planning and Community Development until such time as a replacement is
appointed to fill Mr. Donnelly's position. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie stated that at the May day meeting, in conjunction with Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation funds, he wrote and received a response from Senator's Warner office. Senator
Warner's staff interceded for the County three times. The last letter just states that the
funds have been granted. Mr. Fisher said he is extremely happy to see that the grant was
awarded to the County. It may be only one of three or four such grants in the country.
Mr. Bowie said he wanted to point out that both Senator Warner and Congressman Slaughter have
written directly to the secretary on behalf of Albemarle County and have forwarded sent us
copies of that correspondence.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the Metropolitan Planning Organization, Technical Committee,
will meet on July 11, 1985. The Highway Department was asked to study alternatives to the
construction of a western bypass when proposals from the CATS Committee were made a part of
the County's Comprehensive Plan. That was the first proposal for a by-pass to Route 29 North.
The Board did not adopt that part of the CATS report, nor make that a part of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Board adopted at that time, a resolution stating that it would not
support any solutions that would require construction of highways through the watershed or any
public drinking water impoundment, or established neighborhoods.
At the time, in order to find an alternative, the Board agreed to use $35,000 in planning
monies from the Highway Department. The Highway Department was concerned that consultants not
be hired that were not affiliated with their department. They wanted to use their staff and
model to determine the consequences of alternatives. The TJ Planning District Commission
staff urged the Board to do this, so the MPC Committee formally requested that the study be
conducted. The Highway Department agreed and that was the last of it. There is still the
need for a solution solution to the Route 29 North corridor problem. The Highway Department
Jul-. _10 1985 (Re ~ular Da~
43;.
is u'rging the MPO to come u~p with a recommendation that has been agreed by all parties. Eight
or nine alternatives have been presented at a joint meeting of the MPO Technical Committee and
the MPO Policy Committee and a number of months have now passed. The Highway Department has
indicated they do not feel any of the proposals will do, and there have been some rumblings
that the only alternative that will work is the first by-pass that was proposed. At the last
meeting of the MPO Technical Committee, when it was being urged by the Highway Department to
"fish or cut bait", the County Engineer said he did not feel that all of the alternatives had
been thoroughly explored. The County Engineer has done that and came up with a series of
modifications in the corridor that he perceive may eliminate the problem along with other
improvements. The County Engineer's package of suggestions has been reviewed by the Highway
Planners and they will report to the Technical Committee tomorrow morning.
Mr. Lindstrom said the problem is: a letter has gone out from the Resident Engineer's
office to members of the Technical Committee saying there does not appear to be a solution and
that the Technical Committee needs to take action to recommend that the scope of the study be
increased to include County watersheds. Mr. Lindstrom said there is uneasiness on the part of
the County staff's as to how the Highway Department came up with its traffic projections. The
Highway Engineer has implied that if action is not taken quickly, the funding that has already
been made available for improvements on Route 29 North up to the South Fork Rivanna River may
be lost. Mr. Lindstrom said the staff should be requested to do a couple of things: 1) Make
sure the proposals that Mr. Elrod has made are consistent with the six-laning of those portion~
of Route 29 North which are to be six-laned with current funding; 2) Direct staff to resist
any attempts to expand the scope of the study contrary to the initial Board resolution against
any highways in watersheds or established neighborhoods. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not conv.
that the numbers which have gone into that study are numbers that are all that reliable;
3) Staff should determine whether the $35,000 in highway monies or some amount like that could
be used to hire an independent consultant to verify the traffic generation figures the Highway
Department has been using and to look further at the alternatives that have been proposed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion re: 1), 2) and 3) as set out above. He also requested that
the County Engineer make sure his proposal is consistent with the planned six-laning on Route
29 North for which funds have already been set aside. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjournment. At 4:50 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn to
July 17, 1985 at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.