Loading...
1979-02-28 Youth Services Center. Mr. Agnor said the Director, Ms. Cathy Bodkin, was present to request withdrawal of their request. Ms. Bodkin said the reason for withdrawal is due to House Bill 1020. This House Bill is designed to supply seventy-five percent of the total program budget for Youth Services. She added that in the future, funding may be requested of the County but at a lesser amount, due to this bill. Mr. Jim Crosby was also present on behalf of the Center and emphasized ~heir returning-in the future for some funding. Ms. Bodkin then briefed the Board on the following purposes of the center and what is involved in it. The Youth Services Center offers an information and referral system specifically for youth. The staff provides intake and needs assessment and then assists the youth in utilizing services in the community. The staff provides follow-up to insure the youth is successfully meeting his/her needs. The Center also aids youth in their growth toward adult roles and responsibilities. Planning District Commission. Ms. Wayne Harbaugh was present. Elections. Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, Registrar, was present. Due to an error in calculations, line item 13-102 was changed to the requested amount of $13,467. Agenda Item No... 3. At 4:50 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to February 28, 1979, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher. February 28, 1979 (Adjourned from February 26, 1979) An adjourned meetingof the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,'Virginia, was held on February 28, 1979, at 1:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 26, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 1:50 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony tachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 1:42 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Work. Session - 1979-80 County Budget. The following categories were presented: Engineering and Landfills. County Engineer, J. Harvey Bailey, was present. Lindstrom left the meeting at 2:00 P.M.) Code Enforcement. Juvenile Court. Fire Department. Social Services. Director of Inspections, Bob Vaughn, was present. Julian Taliaferro was present. Present was Karen Morris, Director. Health Department. Present was Dr. Richard Prindle, Director. He asked that the requested amount of $238,918 be restored. With the reductio~ as recommended by the County Executive, the proposed clinic in Esmont would be affected and the state level of funding would be lowered. After some discussion, it was the consensus that with the proposed program in Esmont just starting, the full request was needed. Motion was then offemed by Dr. Iachetta to restore the requested amount of $238,918 to Code 18B.1. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mental Health. Present was Mr. Jim Peterson, Director. Extensio~ Service. P~$ent was Jim Butler. Fire Prevention and Extinction. February 28.? 1979 (Adjourned from February 26, 1979) that reception from this TV station is poor in the County, the Board desired not to fund the request. Commonwealth's Attorney. Present was John Dezio. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 3:53 P.M.) Library. Present was Chris DeVan, Director. Mr. DeVan distributed a memorandum summarizing work the budget committee had done on saving expenses for the coming fiscal year. Mr. DeVan said the Library Board would like to request that $2,263 be added to the recommendation of the County Executive in order to maintain the Children's Room at the McIn'tire Library. After some discussion, Mr. HenleY offered motion to add $2,263 to the request, making the total for Code 18.3, $298,325. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Piedmont College. Present was Mr. Paul Jenkins, Director. Mr. Agnor said the total amount of this category needs to be revised since compensation for County representatives on the Board of Directors was not included. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to change the total amount of 18B.4 to $4,900. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 4:20 P.M.) Circuit Court. Harry Young was present. Jail. Present ~as Sam Pruett, Jail Administrator. Volunteer Fire Companies. James Samsell was present. Mr. Samsell said the companies request that the requested amount of $20,000 each, be restored. He then discussed some of the financial difficulties the companies are experiencing and their debts. With a reduction in funding, the companies will have a very hard time surviving. Mr. Dorrier felt money given to the fire departments is very import-ant and supported the request. Mr. Roudabush and Dr. Iachetta concurred. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to restore the requested amount of $20,000 to each fire department under Code 7C. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor said a request will be forthcoming for funding of a radio system; The reason such has not been presented is due to the pending fire service contract with the City. At the time he presents the request, he will then recommend the source of funding for same. Roll was 6alled a~a..the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs.~ Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3. The~Board recessed for supper at 5:05 P.M. and reconvened at 7:30 P.M. with the following members present: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Mr. Roudabush was absent. Agenda Item No. 4. Highway Department: Discussion of Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher noted that since the last discussion of this subject, Mr. R. C. Lockwood has been promoted and is now the State Planning Engineer, therefore Mr. Jefferies, Assistant State Transportatio~ Planning Engineer, is present tonight aIong with Mr. Hugh Epperly and Mr. Jack Page. Mr. Fisher said at a meeting held on August 2, 1978, the Board ~a~uested the Highway Department, through Mr. William Wrench, Highway Commissioner, to extract the Route 29 North section of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study and do some immediate planning on this section. Mr. Page said for this study, Route 29 North was divided into three sections: 1) City Limits to Rio Road; 2) Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River; and 3) Sout~ Fork Rivanna River to the Greene County line. In the section from the City Limits to the South Fork Rivanna River, the Highway Department has reacted to the congested situation and is making suggestions to improve the flow of traffic. From the River northward, the Highway Department is making suggestions that hopefully will keep this section as an arterial highway. However, these suggestions are based on the following assumptions: 1) There will be a by-pass built to remove through traffic from the corridor; 2) As residential development occurs in the Hollymead area, there will be a collector facility constructed to remove traffic from Route 29 to channel that traffic toward the McIntire/Rio Road connection through the City; and 3) As much as possible, all improvements will be made within the existing right-of-way. Mr. Page said that along the first section of Route 29 (City Limits to Rio Road) there is only one tract of land which is not presently developed. Although this tract of land (Peyton tract) is located within the City Limits, development of same will further !79 February 28, 1979 (Adjourned ~'rom February 26, lanes in each direction, with curb and gutter. The third lane, for the most part, will be added on the outside of the existing roadway. Seven interconnected signals are recommended ~a~he~fOl~o~!ng~ocatiO~s:~l~'~Hy~rau~oad; 2) Sperry Rand entrance - this is a new signal which would also serve the Peyton tract; 3) Greenbrier Drive; 4) Branchlands entrance; 5) Shopper's World/Fashion Square; 6) northern end of Fashion Square; and 7) R~o Road. At places of high access (on the eastern side of Route 29 North), right-turn lanes should be installed at the following points: 1) Northern end of K-Mart, with the turn lane at the southern entrance being closed; 2) In front of the Post Office; 3) Beginning near the Post Office, a continuous right-turn lane be installed to serve the existing businesses on the east side of Route 29 and the first entrance into Branch!ands; and 4) Entrance to Fashion Square. On the west side of Route 29, the following right-turn lanes should be installed: 1) Berkmar Drive; 2) Shopper's World entrance; 3) Dominion Drive; 4) Westfield; 5) Greenbrier~Drive; 6) ~ntrance to Stromberg Carlson; and 7) Entrance to Sperry Rand. (Because of topography, this would not be a continuous turn lane on the west side.) Existing cross-overs would remain in place, with the following exceptions: 1) The one Just south of Dominion Drive near the Happy Clam Restaurant should be moved to a new location further north on Route 29 in order to obtain better sight distance; and 2) If at some future time, the traffic flow into and out of Dominion Drive beomes an operational or safety hazard, the Highway Department recommends that this cross-over be closed and the connection which is shown in the County's Comprehensive Plan between Commonwealth Drive and Berkmar Drive, be constructed to allow access to Berkeley and Four Sea.sons. No signal light is being recommended for Dominion Drive because of the spacing between this entrance and the light at Shopper's World entrance. Mr. Page said this comprises the list of recommendations for the first section of Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher asked if any timetable for implementation of these recommendations is known. Mr. Page said this cannot be determined until after a preliminary engineering study. The Highway Department recommends that installation of traffic signals and intersectio~ improvements be the first part of this project. Construction of a third lane would take place thereafter. Mr. Agnor asked if all of the proposed improvements can be made within the existing right-of-way. Mr. Page said because of the difference in elevation between the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29, the improvements cannot be made in the median strip. Also, the Highway Department is sensitive to the need for a green strip in the middle of the highway along this section. In places where new interchanges are shown, there would have to be acquisition of right-of-way. If at sometime in the future an interchange is needed at Rio Road, a tight diamond interchange is recommended. Such an interchange would not increase the efficiency of the corridor nor would it effect the traffic flow, but it would help with turning movements. An interchange at Rio Road would also require the closing of two cross-overs and access to Hardee's Restaurant would have to be relocated further to the west on Rio Road. Mr. Page then proceeded to discuss the second section of this study; that portion of Route 29 North from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. He said the Highway Department recommends that this section also be six-lanes with curb and gutter, but recommends that a third lane across the entire frontage of a piece of property be required of developers as this section develops. Later, if traffic congestion warrants, the Highway Department would tie together these third lanes and at the same time install the right-turn lanes needed. The Highway Department recommends that the cross-over at Woodbrook Drive be reopened and that the southbound lane of 29 be reconstructed to give adequate sight distance. The next cross-over past Woodbrook is used primarily for U-turns and it is recommended that this cross-over be closed. The next cross-over (designated as #16 on the aerial map) shown) should also be closed because it is primarily used for U-turns. The cross-over at Carrsbrook Drive should be reopened with some construction of the southbound lane of 29 y~d~o~ construction of left and right-hand turn lanes. Mr. Page said the Highway Department~recommends that a western by-pass be constructed to remove traffic from Route 29 North. The best location for the beginning of this new highway is near the existing South Pork Rivanna River bridges going west between Route 29 and the Reservoir, west of Montvue Subdivision, east of Colthurst Subdivision, and rejoining Route 29 near the Route 250/29 By-Pass at Belfield School. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the western by-pass is an integral part of this concept. Mr. Page said yes. The recommendations being made tonight are for the maximum amount of improvements that can be made to Route 29 North without purchasing any additional right-of-way. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the CATS people have studied the impact such a by-pass would have. Mr. Page said this by-pass would be limited access only. Land use projections used by the CATS people are from the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if traffic from the western by- pass would have any effect during the planning period in the Plan. Mr. Page said if this by-pass becomes a reality, it will not be until near the forecast year of 2000. Construction of such a facility could not begin u~til about 1990. Mr. Lindstrom was worried that in 20 years the land for such a by-pass would have to be obtained through condemnation. Mr. Page felt that if this concept were made a part of the County's Plan, the County could evaluate future plans taking this into consideration. Mr. Fisher asked what the Board would do-if this concept is made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan and an owner wants to build a large commercial venture on the land needed for this interchange. Mr. Page said the Board must realize that if the property is developed, then a western by-pass ceases to be a reality. Mr. Fisher said there are other pieces of property along this section w~ihh would be similarily affected. He asked if Mr. Page was indicating that if. anything is built, the project would not be feasible. Mr. Page said no, but this is the key piece of property, 180 ....... F_ebruar 28 1979 (Adjourned f~om February 26, 1979__ _ ~ _ )_ _~ ~ ...... Mr. Page then proceeded with recommendation~ for the third section of 29 North (that section from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Greene County line). The Highway Department is recommending that an interchange be built which will fit underneath the existing bridge structures on the north side of the South Fork Rivanna River to provide access to the eastern section of Route 643. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer., also noted that the southbound lane of the South Fork Rivanna River bridge is to be reconstructed raising it to the level of the northbound lane. However, if the western by,pass is adopted as a concept, the plans for the bridge improvement will be changed to accommodate this by-pass Mr. Page said that the recommendations made so g~r have been to help alleviate existing conditions on the first two sections of Route 29. Beginning with the third section, recommendations will be made to help keep the arterial status of this undeveloped section. It is recommended that future development along this section be focused at cross-overs which should have a minimum spacing of 1250 feet between each. It is recommended that access to Route 29 be restricted 500 feet prior to any cross-over. 1250 feet is based on the 55 mile per hour speed limit to give adequate time to react to turning vehicles. 500 feet is recommended so that a car coming out of an entrance would have adequate space to cross over t~o~anes of traffic to make a left-hand turn. In determining recommendations regarding cross-overs, the Highway Department used the following criteria: 1) Does the cross-over serve residential or commercial development or is it used primarily for U-turns; and 2) Sight distance. With this criteria in mind, certain cross-overs are recommended for reconstruction, some are recommended to be closed and others are recommended to remain open. The Highway Department recommends that a criteria based on minimum spacing and sight distance be the primary consideration for any future cross-overs on the Route 29 North corridor. Mr. Page then listed the recommendations for cross-overs on this portion of Route 29 as follows: (The following cross-overs are numbered according to aerial map presented at this meeting). Recommend that it be No. 19 - Just north of Route 643 is used primarily for U-turns. closed. Recommend that this No. 20 - Opposite a road that was access to a gravel pit. cross-over be closed to comply with spacing recommendations. No. 21 - Next cross-over to the north that primarily serves U-turns and has poor sight distance is recommended to be closed. No. 22 - Cross-over to the south of Ridgewood Trailer park remain open. No. 23 - Cross-over to the north of Ridgewood Trailer Park remain open. The Highway Department diverged from the recommended standards on these two cross-overs because the difference in elevation of the northbound and southbound lanes in this area would not allow the reconstruction of the cross-overs at another location. No. 24 - The cross-over at Route 1520 (southern entrance at Hollymead) should be closed because of bad sight distance and to allow for adequate spacing. No. 25 - Cross-over at the northern entrance to Hollymead should remain open and improvements made to give better sight distance and necessary storage and turn lanes. No. 26 - The next cross-over should be closed because of bad sight distance and because it is used primarily for U-turns. No. 27 - CrosS-over nNa~Maupin's Store should be closed and relocated further north (No. 28) to give a better location because of the difference in elevations. No. 29 - The cross-over opposite Mercer Rugs should be closed because of spacing. No. 30 -Proffit Road/Airport Road intersection is signalized and this should remain in place. If traffic increases at this point at some time in the future, it is recommended that an interchange be built. The proposed residential collector road to the Hollymead area and other residential areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan may necessitate construction of this interchange. Mr. Fisher asked what impact this interchange would have on property in the area. Mr. Page said it goes through two existing structures, but the ramp does not impact on the Ford dealership which is presently under construction. On the west side of 29 it will impact on a garage and what was a motel. Mr. Fisher asked if these plans are adopted, if the Highway Department will draw more detailed preliminary plans on this proposed facility. Mr. Page said they will draw detailed functionals and show the exact location of the interchange and other improvements. If the interchange becomes a reality, the Highway Department recommends that No. 31 at Airport Acres be closed, but that No. 32 further to the north which also serves Airport Acres remain open. No. 33 - Presently serves only one house and it is recommended that it be closed. No. 34 - Serving Cedar Hill Trailer Court and the industrial area at this location remain open and be improved. No. 35 - Should be closed to satisfy spacing requirements. Mr. Page said the Highway Department plans a bridge replacement project of the southbound lane of the North Fork Rivanna River bridge. They recommend that cross-over No. 36 just south of the River remain open and that No. 37 Just north of the River which serves Camelot and Badger-Powhatan remain open. February 28, 197'9 (Adjourned from February 26, 1979)- No. 38 - Should be closed because of spacing. No. 39 - Cross-over opposite the~new General Electric Plant should remain open. No. 40 - 0ross-over at Route 763 remain open. No. 41 - Cross-over north of Piney Mountain be closed. No. 42 - Just a little to the north, be closed because it serves mainly U-turns and in order to get minimum spacing. No. 43 - Be closed because it does not serve any development, has bad sight distance and is needed to obtain minimum spacing. No. 44 - Cross-over at Route 641 which also serves Route 600 remain open. Because of bad sight distance about 1/4 mile of the existing southbound lane will have to be reconstructe . No. 45 - Be closed to obtain minimum spacing. No. 46 - Last cross-over before the Greene County line. should remain open. Mr. Page said these recommendations are just the first step. The Highway Department recommends that if additional cross-overs are requested, that they adhere to spacing requirements and that adequate site distance be required. If it is necesaary to reconstruct the southbound lane to obtain sight distance, the expense would have to be borne by the devel~Oper. Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department proposes any other restriction on entrances to Route 29 other than the 500 feet restriction. Mr. Page said no. The law states that a property owner is entitled to have one access point from his property to the adjacent lane; not necessarily to both the northbound and southbound lanes of 29. Dr. Iachetta asked if there were any way to encourage reverse frontage development. Mr. Page said these spacing requirements will encourage that. Mr. Lindstrom asked to what extent the County can require common access and preclude individual properties which might have small acreages. Mr. St. John said this cannot be done. The only way to require common access is while the land is still under one ~ommon ownership. Mr. Fisher asked for comments from others present. Mr. Roosevelt said the Residency supports this plan. Mr. Byron Coburn said some of these suggestions are already being followed and he felt they could continue once the functionals are developed. Mr. Tucker said a work session on these proposals is scheduled for the Planning Commission on March 13th. He said the Commission will have to soon make a decision as to whether to require sidewalks on the first section discussed tonight (Rio Road back to the City limits) because this section is rapidly becoming an urban street. Mr. Fisher asked about an eastern by-pass. Mr. Page said a residential collector is part of Alternative No. 4 of the CATS study and is a low priority item. It is primarily to be required as development occurs. Mr. Fisher said he can understand the assumptions made by the Highway Department, but feels that when it comes to closing cross-overs, there will be public resentment. The arbitrary 1250 foot spacing might be hard to justify with the citizens. Mr. Dorrier said the plan shown tonight looks reasonable and he hopes the Board will support the plan. Dr. Iachetta hoped that while the Board is grappling with what to do with the more major items of these proposals, that the detailed planning for other items can be accelerated. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not ready to vote for a western by-pass since he feels the cost will be phenomenal. Mr. Fisher thanked the Highway Department representatives present for reacting to the Board's concerns about Route 29 North. He hopes that a solution can be found that will be~f benefit to all. The Board recesse~ at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened at 9:13 P.M. Agenda Item No. 5. Lottery Permits. Application was received from the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company for bingo games on Tuesday nights from 7:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. Funds will be used to help defray the cost of operating the Company. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to grant a lottery permit for the calendar year~ 1979 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits.~ The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Roudabush. Application was received from the Board of Directors of the Dogwood Festival for both a bingo game and a raffle on March 20, 1979, between the hours of 7:30 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. The funds will be used to defray the cost of the Dogwood Festival for the year 1979. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to grant a lottery permit for March 20, 1979, in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Roudabush. February 28, 1979. (Adjourned from February 26, 1979 Agenda Item No. 6. Other matters not on the agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from the Director of Finance dated February 27, 1979: "The County has applied for a grant on behalf of the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad ~or the purchase of a rescue vehicle and radio equipment. Some conditions of the grant are: 1-The County take bids. 2-The County retain title to the vehicle. 3-The grant proceeds be allocated $10,000 on the vehicle and $4,000 on the radio equipment. ~j 4-The State review and approve the bids prior to ordering. The radio equipment cost $7,825 of which $4,000 is to be paid from the grant. This is a reimbursable grant. In other words, the Cmnnty must pay the invoices and apply for reimbursement. In order for the County to do this, an appropriation from the General Fund is needed. The grant reimbursement should be finalized in 60 to 90 days after completion of the purchase of both pieces of equipment. The balance of the cost, $20,615 ($16,700 on the vehicle and $3,825 on the radio) will be paid directly by the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad." Motion~was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve a loan in the amount of $14,000 for the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad; said loan to be taken from the General Fund and coded to 18C.10a. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. At 9:17 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting to March 7, 1979) at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. ~j~a-i rman --