2002-01-16January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
16, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Attorney, Greg
Kamptner, Senior Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, Chief of Community Development, David W. Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters brought up at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve and/or adopt Items 5.1 through 5.6 on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds in
an Amount not to Exceed $35,000,000 for Virginia Lutheran Homes, Inc.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution Approving
the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds in an Amount not to Exceed $35,000,000 for
Virginia Lutheran Homes, Inc.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority")
has considered the application and plan of financing of Virginia Lutheran
Homes-Charlottesville, L.L.C. ("VLHC"), Shenandoah Valley Lutheran Housing, Inc.
("Shenandoah"), and Zion Place, Inc. ("Zion Place"), all 501(c)(3) organizations organized
or incorporated in Virginia which are affiliates of Virginia Lutheran Homes, Inc., a Virginia
non-stock, non-profit corporation (collectively, the "Borrowers"), requesting the issuance of
the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $35,000,000 ("Bonds") to be
issued at one time or from time to time to assist the Borrowers in financing or refinancing its
plan of financing ("Plan of Financing") for the following (collectively, "Project"): (1) the
acquisition, expansion, construction and equipping by VLHC of a residential care facility for
the aged currently containing 75 residential units known as Branchlands Village located at
1300 Branchlands Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901, in the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, the expansion of which facility will include the acquisition of an approximately one
acre parcel of land adjacent to the existing facility and the construction of an additional 86
residential units; (2) the refinancing of an outstanding balance of approximately $1,700,000
on a mortgage loan by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
("HUD") to Shenandoah, the proceeds of which Shenandoah used to finance its
construction of a low-income residential care facility for the aged containing 39 residential
units known as Luther Crest, located at 9138 Congress Street, New Market, Virginia,
22844, in the County of Shenandoah, Virginia; (3) the refinancing of an outstanding
balance of approximately $4,200,000 on a mortgage loan by HUD to Zion Place, the
proceeds of which Zion Place used to finance its construction of a low-income residential
care facility for the aged containing 123 residential units known as Luther Manor, located at
350 Malibu Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 23452, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; (4)
related and routine capital expenditures of the Borrowers; and (5) amounts required for
reserves, working capital, capitalized interest and costs of issuance in connection with the
foregoing.
The Authority held a public hearing on the Borrowers' application and Plan of
Financing on January 9, 2002, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended (the "Virginia Code"). Section 147(f) of the Code also provides that the
governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the
area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
must approve the issuance of the bonds.
The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
("County"); a portion of the Project is to be located in the County; and the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County.
The Authority has recommended that the Board approve the Plan of Financing
and the issuance of the Bonds.
A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, pursuant
to the Borrowers' Plan of Financing, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of
the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves (i) the Plan of Financing and (ii) the issuance of the Bonds
pursuant thereto by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrowers, as required by Section
147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code to assist the Borrowers in
their Plan of Financing.
2. The approval of the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds do not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness
of the Plan of Financing or the Borrowers.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 5.2. Authorize County Executive to sign Hillsdale Drive Bus Bench Agreement.
It was noted in the staffs report that Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) received a request from
=
residents of Branchlands Retirement Community to place a bus bench at the existing bus stop located at
the intersection of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive. CTS contacted County staff and VDOT because
this site is in the County. It was determined that the bench would not be in VDOTs right-of way, but would
=
be located on County property.
The County Attorney's Office has developed a license agreement between the City and County to
allow this bench location. The City has signed the agreement. The purpose of the bench is for the
convenience of CTS bus passengers in the Branchlands area. CTS will use their resources to install and
maintain the bench. There will be no cost to the County to install or maintain this bench. Staff
recommends that the Board give the County Executive authorization to sign the bus bench agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign, on behalf
of the County, the following License Agreement to allow CTS to install a bus bench on the County's
property at the intersection of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive.
LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of November, 2001, by and between
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as the "County," and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "City".
WHEREAS, the City, through the Charlottesville Transportation Service ("CTS"),
desires to locate a bus bench on County property at the intersection of Hillsdale Drive
and Incarnation Drive in the County for the convenience of CTS bus passengers in the
Branchlands area; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to allow the CTS to use part of its property for
such a purpose.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Purpose: The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the CTS to install a bus
bench on the County's property at the intersection of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation
Drive. The bench is for the benefit of bus riders.
2. Premises: For the uses described in section 4 of this Agreement, the County
hereby licenses to CTS that part of the County's premises marked "Bus Bench,"
hereinafter referred to as the "Premises" and shown on Attachment "A," which is
attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement.
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
3. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be one (1) year from the date hereof,
and shall automatically renew for an additional one (1) year term on the anniversary date.
Either party, however, may terminate this Agreement after three months by giving one
month's notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
4. Uses of the Premises: CTS may use the premises for providing a bus bench
for its passengers.
5. Access: CTS and its passengers may use the County's property to get to and
from the bus bench.
6. Prior Approval of Bus Bench Installation: CTS shall obtain the County's
written approval before placing the bus bench on the premises. The County's Director of
the Department of Planning and Community Development, or his designee, shall be
authorized to approve the bus bench. This approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
7. Maintenance: CTS shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the bus
bench and the Premises, and they shall be maintained in a safe condition at all times.
8. Liability: The City agrees to name the County to its general liability insurance
policy as an additional insured for the CTS's operation of the bus bench on
the County's property. The City shall provide the County a writing showing
that it has been so added to the City's general liability insurance policy within
five (5) days of the County's execution of this Agreement.
9. Title, Access and Authority: The County covenants and warrants to the City
that it presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Premises; that the
County is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that the
person executing this license on behalf of the County warrants himself to be
duly authorized to bind the County hereto.
10. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written
agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter.
11. Modifications: This Agreement may not be modified, except in a writing
signed by the parties.
__________
Item 5.3. Adopt policy for review of public requests for Zoning Text Amendments.
It was noted in the staffs report that a policy has been drafted for the submittal and review of public
=
requests for Zoning Text Amendments (ZTA's). Establishing this policy is part of the County's on-going
effort to improve the efficiency and understanding of the development review processes. Also, to enhance
customer service by providing clearly written policies and procedures for these processes. The proposed
policy is similar to the practice currently used to review ZTA's. The primary differences are:
The proposed policy establishes and clearly defines the steps in the review process. Step
1 is the Planning Commission's action to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance. Step 2 is the review of the actual text amendment language for action.
The review schedule is modified to establish a date for action on the Resolution of Intent
only (Step 1). Once a resolution of intent is adopted, staff will give it an appropriate priority
and schedule review of the applicant-requested amendment based on its importance
relative to other public and County-initiated text amendments. Under the prior schedule,
dates were set for public hearings before the Commission and Board of Supervisors, but
they were often not realistic considering the scale and scope of some of the ZTA's. The
new policy more clearly establishes the criteria used for reviewing ZTA's and the
information the applicant needs to provide to support the request.
Staff recommends adoption of the
Policy for Submittal of Proposed Amendments to the Zoning
.
Ordinance
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Policy for Submittal of Proposed
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, was adopted.
POLICY FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Application for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA), made by citizens, may be
submitted four (4) times annually. The Planning Commission or the Board of
Supervisors may initiate a ZTA at any time deemed appropriate by adoption of a
resolution of intent to amend the ordinance. Prior to the submittal of an application,
a preliminary conference shall be held with Planning and Zoning Department staff
to discuss the proposal.
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment applications shall be filed at the Department of
Building Code and Zoning Services. The application shall be accompanied by cash
or check made payable to the "County of Albemarle, Virginia," in the amount of six
hundred and sixty-five dollars ($665.00).
2. Procedures for amending the Zoning Ordinance are found in Chapter 18, Section
33, of the Ordinance. General procedures for processing ZTAs are provided in
=
Attachment A (on file). In general, ZTA applications made by the public follow a two
step process for review.
Step 1 -- Upon submittal of the amendment request, the Planning and Zoning
Staff (and other Departments/agencies, as necessary) will review the request for
its merits and consistency with the review criteria identified below. Upon
completion of this initial evaluation, staff will recommend to the Planning
Commission whether to proceed with development of an amendment to the
ordinance. The Commission may choose to move forward with a text
amendment or deny the request for an amendment. Should the Commission
approve moving forward with an amendment, it will do so by adopting a
resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. This resolution establishes
the scope of the amendment to be considered for adoption. The Commission's
action may vary from the applicant's amendment request, but will reflect what
the Commission deems to be the appropriate amendment to address the
general public interest (i.e., public necessity, health, safety, convenience,
general welfare, good zoning practices, and the aesthetic values and priorities of
the public). Upon adoption of the resolution of intent to amend the ordinance,
the method to address the issues identified by the resolution, and the priority for
completing such work, shall be established by the County based on the
proposal's relationship to other text amendments and other work priorities as
established by the County and managed by the Zoning Text Amendment Team.
This team includes the Director of Planning and Community Development,
Zoning Administrator and County Attorney. Please note that approval of a
resolution of intent to amend the Ordinance does not insure ultimate approval of
a text amendment - only that a text amendment will be studied and drafted for
further consideration.
Within ninety days after the application deadline for a citizen-requested
amendment, the Planning Commission shall take action on whether to proceed
forward with a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of
Supervisors shall receive notice of the Planning Commission's action on the
applicant's request for amendment and, at its discretion, choose to act on the
request.
Step 2 -- Once the Commission has adopted a resolution of intent, staff will
further evaluate the proposed request and develop text amendment language
for consideration by the Planning Commission. A public hearing will be held by
the Commission to receive public comment. The Commission will recommend
an action to the Board of Supervisors. The Board will hold a public hearing and
act on the amendment. For any given application, staff may use additional
public input opportunities and Commission work sessions in developing the text
amendment language.
3. This request will be reviewed based on its merits and consistency with the following
criteria and make a positive finding. It shall be the responsibility of the citizen
requesting a Zoning Text Amendment to submit a written response to the criteria,
including an explanation/justification as to how the proposed amendment meets the
criteria.
A. How is it consistent with the goals, principles, objectives and recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan?
B. How is it consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance as
noted in Section 1.4 of the ordinance (Attachment B)?
C. How is it consistent with the Purpose and Intent for the Ordinance section being
amended?
D. How does the request serve the general public interest as opposed to the
proprietary interest of the applicant or address an isolated/unique situation or
hardship?
E. Does the request address an inconsistency, error, or ambiguity in the
construction of the ordinance affecting its application?
If additional information is required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit this
information to the Planning Department in a timely fashion. The applicant will be
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
informed of any specific items that will be needed for review by the staff in a timely
manner.
__________
Item 5.4. Request to adopt Corville Farm Road Resolution (Rural Addition Request).
It was noted in the staffs report that Corville Farm Road is located off of Greenwood Road (Route
=
691) approximately 0.1 mile north of the Greenwood Community Center. Public road plans for Corville
Farm Road were approved and the road was constructed in the early 1970s. In 1977 the County Engineer
and VDOT determined the road was complete and the road bond was released. On August 10, 1977, the
Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting VDOT to accept Corville Farm Road into the State
System. At that point, all work and documentation had been completed. However, the acceptance process
could not be finalized until the owner/developer paid the VDOT maintenance fee and posted a performance
bond.
Despite reminders from the County Engineer, the owner/developer did not complete this final step.
In May, 1979 the road was reinspected by VDOT. The owner/developer was informed that due to his delay,
corrective work was now necessary before the road could be accepted into the State System. The work
was not completed and on January 9, 1983, the owner/developer died. Completion of the corrective work
and acceptance of the road were not pursued by the owner/ developer's successor. Twenty-two years of
weather, wear and no maintenance have taken their toll. As a result, the road surface, shoulders and
drainage system are in a severe state of disrepair.
Corville Farm Road is eligible for state acceptance and improvement as a Rural Addition project
per Code of Virginia 33.1-72.1(D) which provides that one hundred percent of the road improvement cost
'
may be funded from the available Secondary Road Improvement funds, provided the County guarantees
clear and unrestricted right-of-way and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. Use of Rural
Addition funds is limited to the engineering and construction costs of any road improvements necessary for
the road to comply with state standards. The funds may not be used for acquisition of right-of-way,
easements, or for the relocation of utilities, structures and other improvements from the public right-of-way.
The Engineering Department has estimated a construction budget of $150,000 for the road improvements.
To guarantee clear and unrestricted right-of-way and easements, the County must first obtain an as-built
survey of the road. The County must then remove/ relocate any structures, lot improvements and above
ground utilities from the right-of-way; obtain the necessary permits for underground utilities within the
right-of-way; and, assure and/or provide drainage easements over all structures and drainage channels
from the right-of-way to a natural watercourse. Although drainage easements were recorded with the
subdivision, staff observed drainage improvements which did not appear to be within the easements. The
County will need to plat and record any new drainage easements. The Engineering Department has
estimated a budget of $10,000 for these items not funded by the Rural Addition Program.
As a note of clarification, funds for Rural Addition projects do not come from a separate funding
source. However, the State Code specifically allows a portion of the Secondary Road Allocation to be used
for Rural Additions if the Board so chooses. These projects must compete for funding priority along with
the proposed improvements to existing secondary roads listed in the "Albemarle County Priority List For
Secondary Road Improvements" (alias the "Six-Year Plan") and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
This project would need to be added to that list and the funding prioritized.
Lastly, a recommendation for road acceptance as a Rural Addition requires that the Board find that
neither the original developer nor any successor developers retain a speculative interest in property abutting
the road. The Engineering Department has researched this matter and concluded that there is no
speculative interest along Corville Farm Road. Staff is in the process of assessing Corville Farm Road
according to the County's criteria for Rural Additions. Assuming the Board decides to proceed with this road
as a Rural Addition project, this criteria will provide a basis for the Board's consideration of where to place it
in the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List. The Department of Engineering and Public Works
estimates that it will take approximately a year to be able to guarantee an unrestricted right-of-way and any
necessary easement for cuts, fills and drainage.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1. Approve a resolution recommending that VDOT accept Corville Farm Road into the
State Secondary System of Highways and construct improvements under the Rural
Additions Program
2. Direct the Department of Engineering and Public Works to obtain the necessary as-
built survey and drainage easement plats.
3. Authorize the County Executive to execute the drainage easement plats.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board directed the Department of Engineering and
Public Works to obtain the necessary as-built survey and drainage easement plats; authorized the
County Executive to execute the drainage easement plats; and adopted the following Resolution
recommending that Corville Farm Road be taken into the Secondary System of State Highways as a
Rural Addition:
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT CORVILLE FARM ROAD BE TAKEN INTO
THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS AS A RURAL ADDITION
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
WHEREAS, Corville Farm Road, described in more detail below, was established in 1971
and currently serves at least three families per mile; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed that Albemarle
County's Subdivision Ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways pursuant
to Virginia Code 33.1-72.1; and
'
WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting Corville Farm Road, the
Board finds that neither the original developer or developers nor any successor developers retain a
speculative interest in property abutting Corville Farm Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
requests that Corville Farm Road be added to the secondary system of state highways pursuant to
Virginia Code 33.1-72.1(D), as such road is more particularly described as follows:
'
Name of Street: Corville Farm Road
Length: 0.25 miles
From: Greenwood Road - State Route 691
To: The terminus at the cul-de-sac
Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet
Plat Recorded: Date: July 1, 1970, Deed Book 474, Page 009;
December 23, 1971, Deed Book 499, Page 376
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described above, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to improve Corville Farm Road to the prescribed minimum standards and to fund
these improvements pursuant to Virginia Code 33.1-72.1(D).
'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
Item 5.5. Request to Transfer Funds from General Fund to Fire and Rescue Division for Child
Safety Seat Program.
It was stated in the staffs report that in 1998 an account was established for donations received by
=
the Fire and Rescue Division for services rendered to the residents/public. The County's career fire and
rescue staff began to inspect and install child safety seats at three volunteer fire stations; Earlysville, Stony
Point and Seminole Trail. It was a first for this area. In the beginning, each member of the staff attended
an eight-hour course in child safety seat installation. Through a more extensive training course certified by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) and the American Automobile Association (AAA),
eleven members of personnel are now trained to teach child safety seat installation to the public. Staff
currently inspects roughly 250 seats per month, of which about 98 percent are installed incorrectly.
In the past couple of months the Fire/Rescue Division has joined forces with other area agencies
including the University of Virginia Health Services, Albemarle County Police Department, University of
Virginia Police Department, Virginia State Police, State Farm Insurance, Kiwanis Club, Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, K-mart, and Albemarle County Vehicle Maintenance Services. With the growth of the
number of agencies having staff trained as Child Safety Seat Technicians, staff would like to take the
program to outlying areas in the County. In order to do this, an 18-foot enclosed trailer to house tables,
chairs, tents, child seats and other supplies needed to conduct a remote safety seat checkpoint must be
purchased.
The Fire/Rescue Department has received donations as a result of previous installations and from
several of the above named agencies and is requesting approval to obtain and equip the 18-foot trailer
using these donated funds (Trailer $7440, lettering and decals $2000, supplies $3560). The total estimated
cost of this project is $13,000. Based on the identified needs for Child Seat Safety supplies and materials,
staff recommends that $13,000 be transferred into Fire Rescue Division operational budget code
(1-1000-32015- 561415).
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the transfer of $13,000 to the Fire
Rescue Division operational budget (Code 1-1000-32015-561415) as set out on the following
Appropriation Form.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02
NUMBER: 2001-053
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CHILD SAFETY SEAT
PROGRAM
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 32015 561415 Child Seat Belt Program $ 13,000.00
TOTAL $ 13,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 512008 Transfer from Contribution Fund $ 13,000.00
TOTAL $ 13,000.00
__________
Item 5.6. ZTA-01-07. Alleys and shared driveways.
(See description of this zoning text amendment under Item 8 on the regular agenda.) This item
had been removed from the regular agenda, and the Clerk was ordered to readvertise the amendment
for a public hearing on February 6, 2002.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing to consider funding the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Transportation Enhancement Program (TEA-21). The County of Albemarle is requesting up to $1,322,000
for construction of new pedestrian facilities and streetscape improvements in the Crozet Downtown area.
The area encompasses Crozet Avenue (Route 240) from Tabor Street (Route 691) to the Three Notched
Road (Rt 240) intersection and along Three Notched Road from the intersection to the library. The project
may include new curbs, sidewalks, crosswalks, protective railings under the railroad bridge, public plazas,
specialty pavements, decorative lighting, street furniture, street trees, stormwater drainage and
undergrounding of overhead utilities. (Notice of public hearing had been advertised in the Daily Progress on
January 4 and January 8, 2002.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staffs report. He said that at its meeting on October 3, 2001, the
=
Board of Supervisors reviewed a list of possible grant projects and endorsed moving forward with the
Crozet streetscape project. In order to apply for grant funds, a public hearing must be held and the Board
endorse a resolution indicating support for this project and its willingness to pay 20 percent of the total
project cost. There is no other grant request from the County.
Mr. Benish said the improvements (set out above) are recommended in the County's Land Use
Plan and in the Crozet Community Study. The grant proposal is still being developed, but will incorporate
improvements consistent with the recommendations for the Crozet Community Plan and recently
completed Crozet Sidewalk Study.
Mr. Benish said the grant proposal calls for a multi-phased (multi-year) project with a total
estimated cost of $2.93 million (requiring a match of $586,000). The first phase of the project includes the
design and engineering of the overall project, installation of sidewalks and crosswalks from under the
railroad underpass to just past the library, and the relocation/undergrounding of overhead utility lines within
a large portion of the project area. This first phase of the project is estimated to cost $1.32 million and will
require a match of $265,000. The second phase of the project will include completing the undergrounding
of utilities, upgrading the road cross-section (curb/gutter), and installing sidewalks, crosswalks, landscaping,
plazas and street fixtures (streetlights, furniture, informational and historically interpretive signage) for the
remainder of the project area (Tabor Street to the railroad). Also included within the total project scope is
the planning and design for a central parking area to serve downtown. The County has programmed
$550,000 for FY 2002-03 in the Capital Improvement Program for Crozet sidewalk and streetscape
improvements. That amount will be adequate to cover the anticipated match amount for the first year of the
project and all but $30,000 of the total project match. The additional match amount can be budgeted in
future fiscal years of the CIP.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends that the Board endorse the resolution to apply for a TEA-21
Enhancement Grant for the Downtown Crozet streetscape improvement project.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Countys chances of receiving this grant are good. Mr. Benish said staff
=
will put together a compelling project. It is similar in someways to the Scottsville project that recently
received funding, so it is difficult to say. It is a competitive grant process.
Mr. Rooker asked what will happen if the cost increases significantly in the second year of the
project. Mr. Benish said staff will probably present this as a full project, $2.9 million over multi-years
indicating the cost for each of the phases. They hope to get a commitment for the full amount. Most likely,
the project would be funded for Phase I with anticipation of reapplication for the additional amount. That is
not uncommon in this type of funding. That is what happened in Scottsville. They got enough money to get
into the planning and design of the project and found that additional work and additional moneys were
needed. They then got a second phase of that project approved. Mr. Dorrier said Scottsville is filing for a
third phase now for parking.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Marshall said he is President of the Crozet Citizens Association. He said they love the
idea of getting this grant, and fully encourage the County to go ahead and apply. He said the 1995 Crozet
Community Study identified infrastructure improvements to the central, historic business district as the
number one thing that is essential to preserving the vitality and longevity of downtown Crozet. They have
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
had a hard time organizing businesses because the growth presents so much new money to them that they
dont have to worry whether they are spiffy and improved. So, they have waited to see who will take the
=A@
first step in actually investing in improving the appearances of, or building new buildings. One thing they
hope the grant will do is show that the public itself is interested. Maybe it will break the ice and get a toe in,
and businesses will follow suit. They think the center of town has to remain the center of town, so these
projects are urgently needed. Also, there is a safety issue. There was a pedestrian killed in Crozet last
year. The railroad cuts through town and divides the shopping district into a north and south part and it is
very uncomfortable to walk under the railroad tracks to get from one side to the other. Because of the
Countys parking ordinances, it discourages beginning businesses because they cant meet those
==
requirements. Sidewalks and guardrails are needed in that area so people can get safely from one half of
the town to the other. This project addresses that concern in a very rational, systematic way. He wishes the
County the best of luck with this request.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins that the Board adopt the following Project Endorsement
Resolution requesting TEA-21 Enhancement Grant funds to fund the Crozet Downtown Streetscape
Project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedure for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant application, it is
necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state
agency in order for the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve an
enhancement project in the County of Albemarle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation
Board to fund the Crozet Downtown Streetscape Project.
BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to
pay twenty percent of the total cost of this project, and that if the County of Albemarle
subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia
Department of Transportation for the total amount of the cost expended by the
Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing to consider the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List
and the Virginia Department of Transportation Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Program for the
years 2002-03 through 2007-08. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 31, 2001, and January 8, 2002.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staffs report. He said the Planning Commission reviewed the County
=
Priority List and VDOT Six-Year Secondary Road Plan at its meeting on October 16, 2001, and unanimously
recommended approval of both. The Board reviewed these documents at a work session on November 7,
2001, and did not recommend any changes to that document.
Mr. Benish said the Corville Farm Road project was still outstanding at the time the staff report was
written. But, with the Boards adoption of the resolution on the Consent Agenda earlier tonight, this project
=
needs to be included both on the Countys Priority list and VDOTs Six-Year Plan. Staff sets priorities on
==
projects based on a rating system for major categories of projects: bridge projects, major reconstructions,
road paving. These are meshed into a priority list based on a few standards, primarily whether projects are
located in the Development Areas, and traffic volumes. Rural Additions do not have a ranking process.
Normally, subdivision streets have a low traffic volume so are put at the bottom of the list. This project is
located in the Rural Areas, so staff feels this project should be ranked according to the Boards desire for
=
the timing of the improvement. If the Board wants the project in this Six-Year Plan so that it can be
constructed as soon as possible, it would need to be ranked high on the list. Staff suggests that it be placed
behind the West Leigh Drive project. This would make Corville Farm Road priority No. 4. In terms of its
impact on the Six-Year Plan, the Engineering Department has estimated it to cost $150,000. Over the
course of the projects programmed in the Six-Year Plan now, that cost is not so significant that it would
have an effect on the other projects. That cost can be absorbed in a number of ways.
Mr. Rooker asked the traffic count on Corville Farm Road. Mr. Benish said it is about 220 vehicle
trips per day for 22 houses.
Mr. Martin said there are a number of people present tonight from the Proffit Road area who are
concerned about Project #9. He asked that Mr. Benish explain the project to those present. Mr. Benish
said the scope of the Proffit Road project is to construct a two-lane urban road section (which includes curb
and gutter) with bike lanes and sidewalks on two sides to Pritchett Lane and then on one side from Pritchett
Lane to the end of the project which is at the Baker-Butler School. He said the road cross-section from
Pritchett Lane to Worth Crossing, at this time, is estimated based on it being a three-lane road section due
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
to the number of driveways and intersections in that area. From Worth Crossing to Route 29, that section
would be a four-lane divided road to account for the turning lanes at Route 29. That section has three
lanes at this time. The costs of right-of-way and damages, because of the amount of property developed in
the area, and because residential lots back up to the road, are expected to be fairly high. There has been
one scoping meeting where County staff looked at issues of design. Staff proposes that the design speed
be as low as VDOT will permit, posted at 35 mph to maintain it as a residential street.
Ms. Thomas said the school will be open for four years before the road work begins. Mr. Martin
asked if staff is still trying to get that project higher on the priority list. Mr. Benish said staff is trying to do
that, but all of the projects ahead of it on the list also have significant issues attached to them (Jarmans
Gap Road, Meadow Creek Parkway, Airport Road).
Ms. Thomas asked if it important to keep Free State Road where it is on the priority list. Mr. Benish
said it is. That is one of the projects where there are options to try and reduce public cost. If that happens,
there is the potential to free up some money to address the project. The purpose of the project is to
replace or upgrade a railroad crossing. That could be done through an alternative road so the railroad
bridge is not necessary, or upgrading the bridge.
Mr. Bowerman said the developer is now talking to VDOT and staff. He understands that along
Alignment A (the alignment chosen after the public hearing) the developer would dedicate 100 feet of
A@
right-of-way and build a few hundred feet. Then, instead of the road going to the railroad tracks, it would go
straight to Free State Road which would be a construction road, but it would provide access to Free State
Road for emergency vehicles and everything else, and would allow for the orderly development of that tract
of land utilizing Meadow Creek Phase II. Of course, that assumes there is a Meadow Creek Phase I. He
said VDOT and the developer are talking about off-site improvements, lights, turn lanes, etc. Mr. Benish
said they do anticipate submitting a rezoning proposal in next few months. That design proposal may deal
with the situation as part of the rezoning request.
Mr. Dorrier asked about traffic calming measures in the Hollymead area. He asked if they are
similar to those used in the City. Mr. Benish said they could be, but at this time they are looking at all-way
stops, crosswalks, sidewalks, and there is one traffic circle the County may participate in building along with
contributions from the developer related to the Spring Ridge rezoning. At this time, staff is not looking at
rechanneling traffic as is being seen on Airport Road.
Mr. Dorrier said there is $120,000 listed for the Hatton Ferry. He asked if that is for the total
operation of the Ferry. Mr. Benish said it is the total amount over the six-year period. Mr. Tucker said it is
the full operational costs through FY 2008 that VDOT continues in the program.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Southern Parkway, Project #24. He said there it is no date shown by
the project number. Mr. Benish said at this time, the project it is not eligible for VDOT Secondary Funds for
construction. The MPO is working toward encouraging VDOT to accept it as a possible project eligible
for six-year funding. Ms. Thomas said the City members of the MPO, as individuals, not officials, have
discussed whether it is possible to use some of the Citys Urban Funds for that road.
=
Mr. Rooker asked about Project #39, Hillsdale Drive. He asked what component of that is in the
County and has there been an estimate of the Countys potential costs. He thinks it is an important project
=
to take traffic off of Route 29. Mr. Benish said it is an important project and one that the County, both at the
MPO level and here, has been pushing for a number of years. It it is now in the City's Urban Plan for
planning and development. He understands the City will be looking at various options as to how to build the
project. There are other potential ways to connect to Greenbrier Drive, which would be the other public
road connection. This is a project programmed in the CIP.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the City has any funding for the project. Mr. Benish said this year it was in
their urban plan, so at some point in that six-year period, it will receive funding. He understands the City will
be scoping the project in the not too distance future.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would make any difference if the County moved the project up on the list to
a higher priority since there is only a very small part of the project in the County, and the County has all
ready programmed CIP money for the project. Mr. Benish said he believes it may be programmed in the
out-year waiting for it to get in the urban plan. It will take a number of years for the urban money to catch
up with the project. In response to the TIP the Board saw in November, staff sent comments back to VDOT
asking that the County be a part of the scoping process. He said the major hurdle has been getting it into
the urban system.
Mr. Martin said this Board has continually made it known to the City that this it is an important
project in the County. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the City recognizes the benefit that could accrue by
getting better access to Seminole Shopping Center. Mr. Tucker said it might be good to show it as a 2008
project to give the City notice that the County has programmed it in the County Six-Year Plan. Mr. Benish
suggested moving it to the last project which receives funding, or Project #19 on the Countys list. Mr.
=
Bowerman asked if that means the current #19 would be dropped. Mr. Benish said no, the current #19
A@
would become #20. If the County wants it in the VDOT Six-Year Plan so that it is eligible for VDOT funding,
then it would be moved to Project #18. That is where the money for the last VDOT project runs out. Mr.
Rooker said that ultimately the County would have to align this project with the Citys project. Mr. Tucker
=
said that is correct.
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
With no further questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Anne Dunn said she is glad that Corville Farm Road is on the list as Project #4. Basically, she
gives the Board a big thank you. Mr. Tucker said he would like to mention that the County will have to do
A@
some design work for the project, and obtain some rights-of-way. It will take at least two years before that
work can be finalized and VDOTs approval obtained. Ms. Dunn said there may be more water problems.
=
Mr. Tucker said he would like to point out to the Board members that the other issue with Corville Farms
has to do with its water system. That issue will come to the Board for further review in February or March.
Ms. Thomas said there may be other ways in which the community can help. A lot of right-of-way is
needed. Ms. Dunn said people are willing to do what they can, physically, financially, etc.
Mr. James Dean said he lives on Proffit Road. He is a member of the Coalition for A Safe Proffit
Road (COASPR) which was organized to express concerns about the road by the residents of Proffit Road
and adjoining streets and subdivisions; Jefferson Village, Landford Hills, Meadowfields and Pritchett Lane
homeowners associations, plus the Proffit Community Association, along with COASPR and support from
=
residents of Chesterfield, Forest Ridge and Carybrook Subdivisions. Their original goal was and remains a
ban on through-trucks on Proffit Road. They will soon submit petitions to the County on this subject.
Tonight, he wants to speak about the proposed improvements to Proffit Road. They have discussed this
matter among themselves and agreed upon the following statements: 1) maintain Proffit Roads status as
=
a two-lane residential connector; 2) improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to the community,
especially to the new elementary school, more interconnectivety and alternatives to driving on Proffit Road;
3) review speed limits in unsafe, congested areas especially near the schools; 4) use Proffit Road to unite
and not divide the community and make it people friendly. The real challenge is to make changes which
are genuine improvements for the community, commuters, students and parents at the new school, VDOT
and other interested parties. They recognize the need for and support of improvements to Proffit Road,
especially with the opening of the new Baker-Butler Elementary School in August. He said they came
tonight to learn the scope and scale of these improvements. Recently rumors of multi-laning Proffit Road
have surfaced and VDOT survey crews have been very busy in the area. This, plus the $9.5 million price
tag, has made them paranoid as to the true intent and scope of these spot improvements. He asked that
the Board recognize his neighbor for Page 2 of the statement.
Mr. Fred Gerke said the project started a few years back at several hundred thousand dollars for
spot improvements. Now, it is $9.5 million worth of improvements. Comparing that to the $11.0 million for
the new four-lane Airport Road, and $16.0 million for the first phase of the mythical Meadow Creek
Parkway, gives one a sense of the proportion of what someone has in mind. The $3.0 million allocated for
right-of-way buys a lot of right-of-way through peoples yards and homes. They do not want to see the new
=
Baker-Butler Elementary School used as a Trojan Horse to justify making Proffit Road the eastern
connector around Charlottesville. There is no need for a three-lane or four-lane road for an elementary
school. He said the Board may feel their concerns are premature, but it is better to state them now rather
than later when lines have been drawn, and plans made. He said a sharing of ideas and information and
plans at this stage could prevent later mistrust and fear. The recent history of some transportation issues
gives them reason to be fearful. Their concerns as residents and homeowners are genuine and
predictable. VDOTs priorities and directions are also fairly predictable. It is the Boards job to balance
==
competing interests. They count on the Board members as their elected representatives to represent and
protect their interests. They realize the inequities of the transportation infrastructure and the place of Proffit
Road in the system. At the same time, they do not feel they should pay the price for decades of inadequate
funding, indecision, changing priorities, and competing interests. They ask that Proffit Road be improved
and made safer, but also their community, neighborhoods and homes.
Mr. Ronnie Hahn said he would like to speak about Route 736, White Mountain Road. He has
talked to Mr. Perkins several times about the road which needs repair, especially widening due to school
bus traffic. The road is not wide enough for a vehicle to pass a bus. It is in bad shape almost all of the
time. Every hill on this road is on a curve. He said several residents along the road have offered land so
the road could be straightened, etc. He said the road on its eastern end has been paved; a very short
stretch. It is the western end of the road which washes out when there it is a heavy rain. Mainly, the road
just needs to be widened.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many homes are located on the road. Mr. Hahn said there are 18
homes. The road is three miles long. Mr. Perkins said there it is a section of White Mountain Road in the
Plan. He thinks that is the part on the west side of Route 635. Ms. Thomas asked if that is the part to which
Mr. Hahn is referring. Mr. Hahn said no. Their section is between Craigs Store Road and Batesville
A@
Road. It is not a dead-end road. He has lived on the road for 27 years, and feels there had been enough
spent on it during this time that it could have been repaired.
Ms. Thomas said she believes there is something wrong with the description in the staff report, and
she believes it actually is Project #71 which makes it a new item in this years Plan. Mr. Dunn said that is
=
another part, Route 736 which is a dead-end road on the west side. Mr. Tucker said the description for #71
states Route 736 from Route 635 to a dead-end. Mr. Benish said at this time, the items on the list are
A@
based on public requests. Staff will look at the request again. The list can be adjusted to include the
segment Mr. Hahn is proposing.
Ms Joyce Fortune said she lives on White Mountain Road. The road is always in terrible shape. A
vehicle cannot pass another vehicle without going into the ditch, and since the edges on the road are not
mowed regularly, the brush scratches a car. It is impossible to pass a school bus. When VDOT actually
scrapes the road, the drain (ditch) at her home gets filled in all the time. If there is any rain, the banks
across the road from her house cave in and slides into the middle of the road making the road impassable.
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
There have been several accidents on the road, her husband was involved in one on a curve. She
requests that something be done about the road.
Ms. Yani McIssac representing a contingency of homeowners in Mill Creek spoke next. She said
these homeowners care deeply about their community, and wish to look into viable alternatives to the
proposed Southern Connector and its impacts on the community. The Homeowners Associations were
advised that the plans for the connector road were not progressing and no funds were available. They were
not worried because of the current Virginia fiscal crisis. But, suddenly there seems to be a push to
complete the Southern Connector. She said they need time to explore alternatives that may cost less than
$4.0 million, that are more effective, that do not harm communities, and do not accelerate traffic growth and
more safety problems. They request that the Board not move forward with the Southern Connector until
these issues are addressed, and until the new executive director of the MPO and TJPDC arrives and has an
opportunity to suggest alternatives that may not have been considered. There is all ready a viable
connector road, I-64. There simply is not access to it. The seven-year old southern City study which
downplayed the construction of an Avon Street Extension ramp at I-64 may be obsolete, it may be biased, it
may be incorrect, it may be incomplete, but this option should be reconsidered. She said there are other
important matters the connector may not address. For example, mobility and access for the bicycling
community. She said there is a longstanding and persuasive myth that road building relieves traffic
congestion. She then quoted from some articles in The New York Times. (time expired) She asked the
Board of Supervisors to walk Biscuit Run behind Mill Creek and experience firsthand the advantages of
maintaining the integrity of the area, and the quality of life that is necessary for the health and sound mind of
community members, and the greater community.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. McIssac what she would suggest as an alternative to the Southern
Connector. Ms McIssac said there is a need to explore other possibilities, but the main one would be to look
again at an interchange at Avon Street Extended and I-64. She said I-64 creates a lot of noise and a lot of
pollution, so why build another road? Mr. Rooker said VDOT has said in the past that there cannot be an
interchange at Avon because of the distance between Route 20 and Fifth Street Extended. Mr. Bowerman
said interstate highways were not built to serve local traffic. Mr. Martin said the County could try again to get
an interchange at Avon. It has been 12 or more years since a request for that interchange was turned
down.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Tucker asked that Mr. Benish explain the Unpaved Road process.
Mr. Benish said the Countys policy has been to expend the minimum amount of funds required by
=
the State given the allocations provided by the State for unpaved roads. Based on that amount, which is
approximately $800,000 per year, that money is allocated to projects where right-of-way has been
volunteered for dedication to public use, and priorities are based on the need for the project based on the
condition of the roadway and traffic volumes, and its location in relation to the Countys policy for growth.
=
From a practical standpoint, almost all of the unpaved roads are in a rural area. Projects move forward to
construction with VDOT based on the dedication of sufficient right-of-way for that project. The County does
not expend funds for acquisition of right-of-way. Once the right-of-way is provided, the Secondary
Constructions Funds from VDOT can be used for the construction of the project.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes someone indicates what the right-of-way requirements will be. Mr.
Tucker said yes. Mr. Martin said when someone makes a request, VDOT will lead them through the
A@
process and stake out the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Benish said many requests were submitted years
ago. The priority list was established in 1988 and requests were prioritized. The roads may be on the list
but stay out of the funding cycle because the full donation of right-of-way for that project has not taken
place.
Ms. Thomas noted that Jarmans Gap Road has been moved up on the priority list. She almost
mentioned the amount of money the County has put into the road system. Every place there is a notation
that a project is being funded with revenue sharing funds that means that County CIP money has been put
A@
into that project. She was impressed by the amount of money the County has been put into, or plans to put
into the road system in the future.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to make an observation about Item No. 4, Meadow Creek
Parkway. There is currently planned a 600 to 800 acre subdivision next to the railroad tracks. There are 40
acres along Rio Road shown in the Comprehensive Plan for high density residential. There is River Run
which is off of Penn Park Road which is still developing. In addition, there is the new Catholic School and
continually increasing traffic on Rio Road from traffic coming off of Route 29. The City plans to connect to
Rio Road for a 24-unit development. Mr. Bowerman said he does know the traffic count on Rio Road now,
but from first hand experience, he can say that it takes from five to ten minutes to get onto Rio Road where
it is not signalized. He said there is an alignment for the Meadow Creek Parkway to Melbourne Road which
terminates at that point. He thinks Rio Road is about at capacity. The County can't wait five or more years
to build the section of Meadow Creek which is in the County. He thinks the County has to find out if it can
move forward with construction of the section in the County.
Ms. Thomas said she received a letter dated January 8, 2002, from the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) saying they had approved the route designed by the County. Mr. Rooker
asked if the CTB had moved the advertising date for this project back two years. Ms. Thomas said they did.
It was to be advertised in 2002, and now it will be in 2004.
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Rooker asked why the project was moved back two years. Mr. Benish said he it is not sure, but
believes it is to match up total development of the project. There are some issues outstanding with the
Citys portion of the project and intersection improvements, also to catch up with the time lost through the
=
Jones & Jones study.
Ms. Thomas said a lot of projects in the Six-Year Plan were moved further into the future, and she
assumes this was done due to funding. VDOT is being required to give a better estimate of their project
costs than they did in the past, so they cannot do as many projects. Mr. Benish said that is a part of it, but
that adjustment was made in the prior year. One thing that was not discussed in detail tonight, but which is
part of the staffs report, is that VDOT is anticipating another decrease of about five percent in Secondary
=
Funds. A lot of it is loss of funding, and matching the timing of projects to what it takes to get a bid, etc.
Mr. Bowerman said the County all ready has money set aside for the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr.
Benish said yes. Mr. Bowerman said real money has been accumulated each year for the Meadow Creek
A@
Parkway. Mr. Tucker said staff does not know why the advertising date was moved back two years. Staff
will ask Mr. Jim Bryan to get that information and staff will make a report at the February 6 meeting. Also, if
the Board is serious about moving forward, staff will ask what needs to be done to do that.
Mr. Dorrier asked for the traffic counts for Rio Road. Mr. Bowerman said he is going to request that
a traffic signal be placed at the entrance to Dunlora because he thinks it meets VDOTs warrants.
=
Ms. Thomas said the Board should talk to Mr. Bryan about what to do with Proffit Road in the four
years until that project can begin.
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to ask that the need for the Southern Connector be studied again.
Mr. Tucker said he will add this to the list for Mr. Bryan to get information on.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to mention for the people on Proffit Road who are nervous about the
plans for that road, that there were a lot of people along Hydraulic Road who were nervous when it became
a four-lane road. He lives off of Hydraulic Road and can say it has been a much safer situation for
everyone since it became a four-lane road. The speed limit was actually lowered from 45 mph as a two-
lane road, to 35 mph as a four-lane road. It is the road that carries the most school children each day of
any road in the community.
Mr. Martin said Proffit Road is not to be four-laned all the way through. That it is not in the plans,
and will not be in the plans. He has not heard anyone complain about what is planned, but they were
surprised by the $9.0 million figure. There are many homes very close to the road and that is why it is going
to cost a tremendous amount to obtain the right-of-way necessary for the project. To three-lane the road
beyond Pritchett would take homes because they are so close to the road.
Mr. Perkins said Jarmans Gap Road was supposed to be built this year but has been moved up in
time. He said that when the Grey Rock development was approved, the developer proffered to pay $500
per house for sidewalks. Maybe that is something to be looked at for the future. Mr. Rooker said that can
only be done during a rezoning. There is no movement toward impact fees at the state level. Mr. Tucker
said the County has made a request for impact fees for years. Mr. Rooker said several developers have
told him they would prefer impact fees over the current system in the County where basically only those
seeking a rezoning have to make a contribution. Mr. Tucker said every time this comes up in the
Legislature, it is the lobbyists on the developer side who get the bill killed. Mr. Martin said it is not just
developers, but people who are concerned about the cost of housing.
Mr. Martin asked if a motion is needed to approve these plans. Mr. Benish said the Board should
approve only the Countys Priority List. Ms. Thomas said the main change has been to move Corville Farm
=
Road into the slot between Item #3 and Item #4, and to move Hillsdale Drive up from Item #39 to Item #19.
Mr. Benish said to clarify Project #71, it should be Craigs Store Road to Batesville (Route 635 to Route
636).
Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve the Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road
Improvements for 2002-01 through 2007-08 with the following changes: move Corville Farm Road to #4;
move Hillsdale Drive to #19; add White Mountain Road (Route 635 to Route 636); spell Owensville Road
correctly. Ms. Thomas said she will abstain from voting on Project #3 (West Leigh Drive), as she has done
in the past. Although she joins a large number of other residents in West Leigh and has been told that she
has no conflict of interest, she prefers to do this.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-01-07. Alleys and shared driveways. Public hearing on An Ordinance to
Amend 3.1, Definitions, 4.4, Visibility clearance at intersections, 4.6.1, Frontage and lot width
''
measurements, 4.6.3, Lots, yards adjacent to streets, 4.11.2.1, Accessory structures, 5.1.39, Off-site
employee parking for industrial use, and 32.5, Preliminary site plan content, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code to define alley, driveway, private road and shared driveway. (Notice of this
A@A@A@A@
public hearing had been advertised in the Daily Progress on December 31, 2001, and January 8, 2002.)
(This item had been removed from this agenda. Note: See Consent Agenda Item 5.6 for deferral
date.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-2000-10. Appeal of Modifications and Waivers. Public hearing on An
Ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, 4.2.5 Modification of
'
regulations; 4.10.3.1 Exceptions excluded from application; 4.12.7 Required off-street loading space;
'''
4.17.5 Modification, waiver of variance; 4.18.07 Modification, waiver or variation; 5.1 Supplementary
''
regulations; 32.3.10 Waiver, variation, or substitution; to establish procedures for appealing to the Board
'
of Supervisors certain modifications and waivers considered by the Planning Commission, and to update
Code references and terminology in those sections. (Notice of this public hearing had been advertised in
the Daily Progress on December 31, 2001, and January 8, 2002.) (This item had been removed from
this agenda.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board would like to discuss the idea of changing its meeting dates. It has
been mentioned that non-controversial zoning items might be moved to the afternoon of the day meeting,
and then one of the two evening meetings could be held aside for work sessions, etc. He said if that is
done, the Board might also meet earlier than 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney had sent the Board members an E-mail about the Small
A
Board Robert's Rules of Order. Mr. Martin asked if the Board could adopt only a portion of the small
@
meeting rules. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Board can pick and choose the items it wanted to use,
essentially make up its own rules of procedure.
Mr. Dorrier said he it is not sure it is workable. Mr. Tucker said what staff was thinking about was
the time it takes to call the roll, rather than having a voice vote.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there should be a roll call vote on everything.
Mr. Tucker said there are other rules the Board can use. Rather than have a second, the Board
can move right into a vote on the motion.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks everybody understands how this works, and if some other system is put
in, it would be confusing to him.
Mr. Rooker said the one thing that made sense to him would be to allow the chairman to make or
second a motion.
Mr. Perkins said that does not make any sense because there are boards throughout the state of
Virginia, and in many cases, the chairman becomes the county dictator. He thinks the chairman has
A@
enough to worry about conducting a meeting, and he thinks that rule should stay in place.
Ms. Thomas said she and Ms. Humphris had an interesting experience while sitting as members of
the MPO. There was a motion made, and the chairman, Meredith Richards, seconded the motion. She
and Ms. Humphris said you cant do that. It seems that City Council does that. She and Ms. Humphris
A=@
convinced them that they were improper. They thought that was the way a formal body in Virginia worked.
When this Board was in a formal meeting with the County School Board, their chairman seconded a
motion. That was when they discovered that although this Boards policy is that the chairman does not
=
second a motion, it is not a universal policy. She is happy with it because if there are not going to be
enough votes for an item to carry, it does not seem to make a lot of difference as to whether the chairman
can second a motion.
Mr. Bowerman said going back to last weeks meeting when Mr. Rooker made a motion that was
=
not seconded, the Planning Commission and this Board always second a motion to get it on the table so the
motion can be discussed. He thinks a motion should be seconded when it is made, whether it is defeated
or not is immaterial.
Mr. Martin said those are Mr. Bowermans personal thoughts. He thinks there is good, strong merit
=
in a motion dieing for lack of a second. There are all kinds of reasons for that to happen, although he has
heard Mr. Bowerman say he will second a motion just to get it on the table. He said Robert's Rules help
move a meeting along. He is involved in meetings where there are no rules, and the meetings just go on
and on because people are not dealing with the issues they came to discuss. He likes order. One thing
that is nice about Roberts Rules is that they are universally accepted, although different bodies are free to
=
make changes. The more the Board stays true to those Rules, the more it knows it is on firm ground when
someone states they are using Roberts Rules without alternatives, or at least state that they have changed
=
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
a rule. He believes that if it is not broken, dont fix it.
A=@
Mr. Dorrier said that last week after motions were made which were not seconded, there was a
motion which did receive a second and it passed. It seems that it worked itself out and did not take a great
deal of time.
Mr. Bowerman said that sometimes a second just moves the discussion along.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the chairman is disenfranchised if he/she cannot second a motion. That
it is a personal thought.
Mr. Martin said the chairman cannot make a motion either, that is just part of the job. As chairman,
he was sometimes frustrated by not being able to make a motion, but the chairman can always prompt
someone to do so, by saying It is there a motion from the floor?
A@
Mr. Rooker said the rules Mr. Tucker is suggesting be used, are just rules.
Mr. Martin said he heard this Board say they did not want to go to the second version, and then the
conversation moved forward to talking about picking and choosing those things from Roberts Rules that it
=
might want to adopt. The statement he made was from that perspective, not from the fact that he did not
understand there is another whole set of rules.
Mr. Bowerman said he recalls that the chair has always had a motion made for them when it was
suggested by the chair. It just happened that last week, the person who would have seconded the motion
was Ms. Thomas, and she could not second the motion. He thinks the chair has always been able to get a
motion on the floor.
Mr. Rooker said the Board can have a meeting with only four members present, but if the chairman
and someone else wants to make a motion, they cannot get it on the floor.
Mr. Martin said he has been a member of the Board for ten years and he has never seen that
happen. Last week is the first time he can remember a motion dieing for lack of a second. He does not
think it is a problem the Board needs to spend a great deal of time fixing.
Mr. Tucker said the Board members talked about this a long time ago. This item did not come up
from last weeks meeting.
=
Ms. Thomas said she did not read the E-mail Mr. Tucker sent because she thought it was about
something else. She has been sending messages back and forth as to whether boards and commissions
have to keep minutes.
Mr. Martin said the other part of Mr. Tuckers E-mail is the important part.
=
Ms. Thomas said there were two separate issues mentioned. She is getting a consensus that the
Board does not want to go to the small board rules. The other issue had to do with meeting dates. The
proposal is that the third meeting of the month be held aside for work sessions, etc.
Mr. Tucker said focusing Board meetings on the first two meetings in the month would give Board
members more free time, and probably help with vacation schedules. Mr. Martin said he likes the idea of
starting meetings earlier. Mr. Tucker said he is suggesting that housekeeping items (things where there
would not be public involved) be moved to the day meeting to use time more efficiently.
Mr. Bowerman said if there is an empty agenda for the day meetings, the Board still uses all of
A@
the allotted time anyway. Mr. Tucker said he wondered about that when the Planning Commission started
meeting at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Martin said adding more items to the day meeting would probably help move the
meetings along. Mr. Dorrier asked about beginning at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Martin said he cannot get to a meeting
at that time.
Mr. Rooker said when the Planning Commission shifted from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., it worked out
well. It gave people time to have dinner first. He is afraid that if the meetings began any earlier than 6:00
p.m., people at work who wanted to attend those meetings would not have time to eat a meal, and then
might have to wait hours for an item to be discussed. He is not in favor of any hour earlier than 6:00
oclock.
=
Mr. Bowerman said this Board seldom meets past 11:00 oclock. Mr. Martin said, except for this
=
discussion tonight, the Board would have come at 7:00 oclock and left at 8:15 p.m. He would rather have
=
stayed later tonight and not have the next meeting. He is in favor of eliminating the third meeting in the
month except for special occasions.
Mr. Bowerman asked about delays to developers if there are only two meetings. He said there is
an equity issue for the applicants. He likes the suggestion about the day meeting and keeping public
hearings on the night meeting, and scheduling the non-controversial items first so that people can come
and leave early.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest that the Board try meeting at 6:00 oclock and see if it works.
=
January 16, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Tucker said this change cannot start right away because of the budget meetings which are all ready
scheduled in March and April. This change cannot really begin until July 1, 2002.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said he knows that Donnie Foster and Jim Morris are going to apply for a zoning text
amendment dealing with parking regulations, specifically dealing with the Earlysville Commercial area. He
asked if that request has been submitted. Mr. Benish said he is not aware that anything has been
submitted. He said the next submittal date for zoning text amendments by citizens is at the end of
February.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Boards next meeting is February 6 and Mr. Southard is coming from VDOT to
=
discuss the Western Route 29 Bypass. She said staff is working on questions to ask VDOT about the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). She said there is some concern that VDOT will try
to do a cut and paste job, and not really study things, such as the traffic count because conditions on I-81
A@
have changed and the truck load on Route 29 will change. It was assumed that any new SEIS would make
a new traffic count projection, and take that into consideration. Apparently, VDOT is not planning on doing
that. She encouraged the Board members to think of questions and give those to staff. Mr. Tucker said Mr.
Southard had requested that those questions be submitted two weeks before the meeting, so they have to
go out in the next couple of days.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Countys citizen survey. He asked if the County has received all of the
=
questions for that survey. Mr. Tucker said yes. In fact, several Board members have looked at those.
A@
One round of testing has been done, and they plan to do one more round before the survey is actually
started.
Ms. Thomas said some very interesting results were obtained from the 40 people questioned, but
the survey took too long. Staff is having to cut it down drastically. One way to do that is to have more
samples taken, but divide up the questions so that not everybody is asked the same questions. That has a
budget implication. Mr. Tucker said of the 40 people who were called, they really wanted to talk. One call
took an hour and a half, and it is supposed to be a 15 minute survey.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 06/19/2002
Initials: LAB