1979-11-20A . Novemb~ 20,. 1979_(Aftern~on-A~jou~rned from N~vem'
~ovemoer 14 1 Re u±ar ~av ~
nda Item No. 25. At 4:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn to
20, 1979 at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building for another
sion on the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and
by the following recorded vote:
~=ssrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
one.
November 20, 1979 (Afternoon-Adjourned from
November 14, 1979)
adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
November 20, 1979 at 1:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
esville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from November 14, 1979.
sent: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta and
hy Lindstrom.
ent: Messrs._J. T. Henley, Jr. and W. S. Roudabush.
icers Present:
· Tucker, Jr.
ada Item No. 1.
~=r.
County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Planner, Mr.
The meeting was called to order at 1:50 P.M. by the Chairman,
~da Item No. 2. Work Session: Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan.
Fisher said this work session was scheduled to continue work on the urban neighborhc
the Comprehensive Plan. He has been informed that Mr. Henley will not be present'
~sure ii Mr. Roudabush will be. Therefore, he suggested skipping this agenda
.1 Mr. Roudabush is present.
Lda Item No. 3. Appointments: Advisory Committee (Request from City Council).
Fisher said the City is apparently attempting to establish a new committee to
ublic transportation in the City and the urban area of the County. He then
following letter dated November 20, 1979, from Mr. Robert Stripling, Assistant
ger, regarding this matter:
City of Charlottesville has recently received a $20,000 grant from the Virginia
rtment of Highways and Transportation to fund a review of the area's mass
sportation needs. This review will have two primary objectives:
To develop specific ways to improve the service and operation of
mass transit services in the City of Charlottesville, and
To evaluate and make recommendations regarding the long and short
~0~_~9_Zg~_~fter~ourned from November 14, 1979)
Mr. Fisher then presented the following letter dated November 14, 1979 to Mrs.
Graves, a County representative on the CATS Committee, from Mr. Richard Lockwood, T~
Planning Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
"I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of September 2?, 1979,
the CATS Study. However, I felt several issues had to be resolved before I co~
an adequate response.
The Department is extremely interested in resolving the total transportation p
Charlottesville/Albemarle County within a reasonable period of time. As you a~
aware, the portion of the study left to be resolved is basically the transit e
Recently we were advised by the Public Transportation Division, that Charlotte
desires an independent transit study to address both current and future transi
in the area. We were advised that the established CATS Transportation Committ
to be utilized in the independent transit study and i felt this would be a dup
of effort by utilizing two transportation committees operating at the same tim
possibly going in opposing directions. It was my position that we could not p'
transit element any further until this problem had been resolved.
The Department has written Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, City of Charlottesv
to advise him that prior to the execution of the agreement for a technical ass
that it was essential that a uniform set of goals, objectives, and policy, gui
transportation planning efforts within the Charlottesville area. The Departme~
close coordination must be achieved between the on-going transportation planni~
and thePproposed transit study. It was, therefore, requested that either the
committee or the technical committee, which was formed to guide the CATS study
designated as the advisory committee for the transit technical study with the
additions: voting membership for the Jefferson Area United Transportation, In
membership for the University Transit Service; and ex-officio membership for tl
Transportation Division of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportat
As of this date, we have not resolved the matter how the proposed Charlottesvi
fits with the CATS study. Until we do resolve what we feel to be a possible d
in effort, the CATS study will continue to remain inactive.
We greatly appreciate your continued interest in the Charlottesville Area Tran
Study, and I personally feel your December 31, 1979, termination date with the
Committee will be a loss to the Study."
Mr. Fisher felt Mr. Lockwood means there are too many committees studying the
thing. Mr. Agnor said the City is trying to take the three mass transit systems (C
Transit, Jaunt and University Transit) and consolidate recommendations for all thre
a single report. However, when the City's application was received in Richmond, th
State Highway Department insisted the study be regionalized since mass transit invo
both the City and the County. Mr. Fisher said the Director of JAUNT has been led t
believe that the City is expecting this committee to review and discuss how the Cou
will sign the Route 29 North transportation contract. Mr. Fisher was reluctant to
involved in this situation. Mr. Agnor said there was no requirement in the grant a
or in the grant procedures, for this. He has heard that the Committee will also be
requested to comment on Section 18 applications because the Highway Department has
that there will only be one application accepted for the Charlottesville-Albemarle
next year. Mr. Fisher was even more concerned about the composition of the Committ
comments are going to be made on grant requests, particularly if the City and Count
going to be competing for the same funds. Mr. Agnor said that is not a function of
Committee. Their function is to be advisory only on this one project. He did not
hat the City would not look for any alternative, other than the one they want.
ia could not see any reason to establish a whole new committee with people having
~e of the problems when the CATS staff has four years of knowledge. Mr.~ Agnor
~he City be informed that if the study has to be regionalized, that it remain with'
?oup. He also noted when the County's applications for the 29 North Transportation
?oject and the ride-sharing program were sent to Richmond, they were also sent
regionalized. Mr. Fisher recommended communicating with Mr. Lockwood that the
~ot going to participate because it desires to stay with CATS and also ask what
~ being made on the CATS study. Mr. Fisher suggested that the City be notified
~unty does not want to do anything to hinder the CATS Study because of its significa~
~ty. Once an answer is received then the appointments to this Committee to work
for a limited area can be discussed further. Dr. Iachetta felt the communication
~ include that this study is a logical part of the mass transit planning that CATS
~rtake and this study should be coordinated with that study. He was not opposed
~ating in this committee, but did not feel the efforts of CATS should be duplicated
~ded. Mr. Fisher concluded by requesting Mr. Agnor to communicate with Mr.
id the City on the above concerns.
Item No. 2. Work Session: Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan.
.sher was informed that Mr. Roudabush would not be present today. Therefore, he
mt to carry on the discussion without Mr. Henley or Mr. Roudabush being present.
~om agreed but felt the Board is in an awkward position since the Planning Commissioz
ting designation of another community in the Camelot area on Route 29 North. The
~ of establishing such a community in the area came about through a rezoning
~ Briarwood RPN. Mr. Tucker said when the Planning Commission reviewed the Piney
~mmunity proposal, they decided to set the boundaries and appoint an advisory
~o work out the details. Mr. Lindstrom's interpretation of the Planning Commission's
was that the area has the potential to be a community. The residents in the area
~osed to a community designation but are concerned about the type of community it
~d the type of housing proposed. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about this
~ Briarwood rezoning application has been deferred until December 5 and it is
~lated to this work. Mr. Tucker said this community could absorb some of the
lost as a result of deleting Nix, Esmont, and part of North Garden, and in the
the Board did not follow through by designating the Biscuit Run area as part of
.rea. Mr. Fisher did not feel this question will be resolved by December 5. Mr.
[ hopefully the Planning Commission can take some 'action next week to formulate
~ee and establish the boundaries. He also did not feel it was possible to have
~mpleted by December 5.
.ndstrom said the only conceptual problem he has with the urban area, excluding
,mmunity, is that the Planning Commission desires to have Biscuit Run as an alternatd
,rshed being a growth area. If there is another alternative, it could make some
for Biscuit Run. The other major issues discussed were how to deal with the
last Corridor. He did not think the issue is altered by whether or not there is a
sin Community or whether the watershed ought to be in the urban area. Mr. Lindstrom
I there can be a community designated with the urban area in the form it is.
ndstrom asked when there will be some input from the Highway Department on the
~endations for the urban area. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer,
, and thought the urban area recommendations are to come from the CATS Committee.
is not doing anything on the urban area. As for the villages, the planners from
~e to be in town Friday to analyze those road recommendations. Hopefully, something
n to the Board next week. Dr. Iachetta asked if the roads in Neighborhood #3,
y those in the Pantops area have been studied. Mr. Roosevelt said no. Mr.
a letter was received today from Mr. Harrison indicating that the information