Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-03October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) 24( (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held jointly with the School Board on October 3, 1990, at 3:00 P.M., Meeting Rooms #5/6, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from September 19, 1990. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, 3r., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Richard A. Bagby (arrived at 3:12 P.M.), William W. Finley (arrived at 3:11 P.M.), Clifford W. Haury, Charles S. Martin, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore, Mr. Roger R. Ward and~Mrs. Sharon Wood. Also present were Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools; Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Assistant Superintendent Director of Personnel/Human Resources; and Mr. David C. Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations. Agenda Item No. 2a. Discussion of Operational Reductions (Revenue shortfalls). Mr. Bowie said the County will need to make up for the loss of State revenues this fiscal year as well as the next fiscal year. He said he would like to begin an "attitude adjustment" with regard to spending practices in anticipation of the reductions in State revenues next year. The County Executive has made recommendations already being implemented to cut unneces- sary costs. He asked the School Board to join with the Board of Supervisors in this effort. He said the goal is to eliminate unnecessary expenses this year so that there will be a fund balance fox the following year. Mr. Martin said he speaks for the School Board in expressing willingness to join with the Board of Supervisors in such an effort. In fact, the School Board has implemented a five percent reduction in all cost centers as a cost savings measure. Mr. Bowie said he wants to avoid the curtailment of services such as fire, police, and planning in any efforts to cut costs. Mrs. Humphris said that the school principals pointed out last year that they are not involved with the energy use of their buildings. She suggested that guidelines for energy use in each individual building be established. Mr. Perkins added that there has probably been a 50 percent increase in fuel costs in recent months which will impact energy costs as well. Mr. Martin said this is a major concern for the School Board, and they are looking at these areas closely. Mrs. Moore said School Board members have requested that balance sheets be provided on a monthly basis to keep School Board members abreast of the financial situation in the Schools Division. Mr. Agnor said by next week the Board will receive an update of revenue shortfalls in local funds. Mr. Bowerman asked if energy-efficient equipment is routinely purchased, even though at the time it may appear to be more expensive. He feels that such a policy will be to the County's benefit in the long run. Mr. Agnor said that was looked at during the last energy crunch. At the moment, the comfort October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 2) levels in the buildings are being adjusted. as yet. 24] Lighting has not been considered Agenda Item No. 2b. Report on 1990 Opening of Schools. Mr. Overstreet reported that he feels the 1990-91 opening of school was smooth from an operational perspective. Some schools opened with new atten- dance zones as the first phase of rezoning. For example, about 150 students moved from the Red Hill zone to the new Cale Elementary School. Mr. Over- street said he was especially pleased with the transportation operation, although that does not mean there were no problems whatsoever. He feels there were fewer phone calls from parents this year regarding transportation than usual. He said new facilities were opened at Crozet Elementary and Cale, while Yancey Elementary and Stony Point Elementary underwent modifications and additions in time for school opening. He noted that four major construction projects were difficult to manage at one time. Mr. Overstreet thanked every- one involved with these projects, including those who were working the night before school opened. He said a lot of credit should be given to everyone involved. He said Cale Elementary was probably in the best condition for opening. He would like to have seen Crozet further along toward completion than it was. He said the Stony Point School was the least developed, and he was disappointed in what had not been done in time for school opening. Mr. Overstreet said this year the school bus routes were not advertised in the newspapers as in the past. Instead, a direct mailing was sent to the homes of all students in the County. He said the direct mailing cost was $2,000 less than the advertising and seemed to be even more effective than the advertising. Mr. Overstreet handed out figures showing the actual enrollment through September 30 compared to the prior year, compared to forecasted figures, enrollment forecasts by grade and the variance from the forecast by grade. He pointed out that the total actual enrollment through September 30 is 10,144 students. That is an increase of 447 students over last year's actual totals. He said the projections were off by only 31 students. Mr. Bowie said he noticed that the kindergarten and first grade forecast figures are significantly different from the actual. Since the plans for the middle and high schools depend on the growth in the lower grade levels, he is concerned about the future impact of these figures. Mr. Overstreet said the enrollment figures for kindergarten were a surprise. Mr. Haury pointed out that the group that is the most difficult to predict is the birth to kinder- garten age group. He said more attention will have to be paid to examining the birth data in order to better forecast this group. Mr. Overstreet said a trend analysis will be done and the School Divi- sion's Long Range Plan will be monitored through a re-established committee on an annual basis. Mr. Bowerman added that the goal of the Long Range Plan originally called for a periodic or annual review because it is difficult to predict ahead for ten years. Mr. Bain asked how Red Hill enrollment compares to the forecast, given the change in attendance zones. Mr. Haury said the enrollment figures were mathematically changed to reflect the zone changes. He said the growth at Cale means that more development near Sherwood Farms will have to be examined to ensure that Red Hill gets its share of the growth. He said that Cale is growing much faster than projected and the growth will have to be monitored closely. Agenda Item No. 2c. Murray School Remodeling Project. Mr. Agnor reported that the low bidder for this project is Coleman-Adams of Forest, Virginia, with a total bid of $2,698,900. When associated costs and a five percent contingency are added, the project totals $3,267,845. He said the project is currently funded at $2,831,000, leaving an unfunded balance of $454,845. (Mr. Agnor said in the original figures distributed to the Board, the asbestos removal amount was inadvertently left off the list.) October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 3) He said an appropriation of $454,845 is needed to continue the project. The funds will be borrowed next Spring and paid back over the next 20 years. Mr. Bain asked the completion date of this project. Mr. Papenfuse said there are 30 days ending October 25 allowed for signing the bid. The comple- tion date for the project is August 25, 1991. He said that is a crucial date and any days gained now will be beneficial to meeting the target date. Mr. Bowie asked what are the chances of saving money during the construc- tion project, given that it has never happened in the history of Albemarle County that a project cost less than expected. Mr. Bowerman said he felt the Capital Projects Coordinator could best address that question. Mr. Agnor said the budget contains a five percent contingency, which is actually small for a remodeling project. He said it will be remarkable if money can be saved on this project with a five percent contingency because unexpected findings usually result in additional costs during remodeling. Mr. Bowerman said he thought that the Projects Coordinator was responsi- ble to the Board for questions regarding saving money. Mr. Agnor said the Projects Coordinator gets involved in supervision as the owner's representa- tive, along with the architect who answers to the School Board, after the project starts. However, in advance of the contract being signed, the Projects Coordinator is only peripherally involved. The primary function of this position is in mobilizing to start the job. That means that unexpected changes in a remodeling project, for example, are reviewed by the Projects Coordinator, along with the architect and the Clerk of the Works, for legiti- macy and costs. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are cost savings to be realized during the actual project, if the Capital Projects Coordinator would be directly involved through the County's Engineering Department. He asked if the work of the Projects Coordinator is handled through the School Board, the Board of Super- visors or the County Executive's Office. Mr. Agnor said the Capital Projects Coordinator works on both school and general government capital projects. When the project is one for the School's Division, the Projects Coordinator works through the County Engineering Department with Mr. Papenfuse. When the project is for local government, in the Parks Department for example, the Projects Coordinator works directly with the Director of Parks. Mr. Bowie said he wants to know who the Projects Coordinator is working for. Mr. Agnor said the Projects Coordinator works for the County Engineering Office. Mr. Bowie said his understanding of this position is that the Projects Coordinator is responsible ultimately to the Board of Supervisors because the projects are funded from the Capital Improvements Program. The site is obtained, the Schools Division designs the school, the contract is let and the Capital Projects Coordinator is then responsible to see the project to completion in the most cost effective way. Mr. Bowie asked if that under- standing is correct. 24~ Mr. Agnor said the responsibility is not that clearly defined. When the project is the remodeling of a building that belongs to the School Division, although it is funded by the Board of Supervisors, the architect and the project are under contract to the School Board. The Capital Projects Coordi- nator is to ensure from an engineering point of view that the owner's repre- sentation is well made. Mr. Bowie asked if the Capital Projects Coordinator finds a way to save money in a construction project, to whom is that reported. Mr. Agnor said that is reported to Mr. Papenfuse. Mr, Bowie said he would like that reported to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Martin said that Mr. Papenfuse informs the School Board of such matters, and the School Board can certainly have a meeting with the Board of Supervisors before any action is taken so that the Supervisors have an oppor- tunity to decide what happens to the money. Mr. Bowie asked if this means that a potential savings will first be reported to Mr. Papenfuse and then to the School Board before the Board of Supervisors knows about it. Mr, Martin said the Board of Supervisors can be informed earlier in the process. October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Agnor said there is a contractual relationship between the architect who is working for the School Board and a contractor who is working for the School Board. The Capital Projects Coordinator is making sure that nothing "falls through the cracks". The Projects Coordinator is not answering directly back to the Board of Supervisors who are providing the funds, but is answering directly to the department responsible for the completion of the project. That could be any department of local government or the Schools ~ision. Mr. Perkins said he feels that the Capital Projects Coordinator's job is more important before the project begins than after, although the coordination of projects is necessary after they begin. He feels that the time to save money on a construction project is before the contracts are let. The Capital Projects Coordinator should review the architect's plan on the County's behalf. He said Crozet School is a good example where a Projects Coordinator have pointed out that the design should be basic and simple and provide the most room for the least amount of money. He feels that the Projects Coordinator must be involved with the project design as a representative of the Board of Supervisors to point these changes out. Mr. Bain said he never thought that was the function of the Projects Coordinator. He said the Capital Projects Coordinator is replacing the ~rchitect in that case. Mr. Agnor said the Capital Projects CQordinator is not qualified to be an architect. Mr. Papenfuse said the Capital Projects Coordinator attends every plan- ning meeting held by the Schools Division on design items and deals with the architects on a daily basis. He said the Capital Projects Coordinator is intimately involved in the design process with School projects, and possibly more than the County Executive envisioned when the position was filled and maybe more than is desired. He said the Capital Projects Coordinator is actually being "spread a little thin". Mr. Agnor said the Capital Projects Coordinator was hired as a construc- tion manager. Mr. Perkins said the former employee in this position was hired to work with the school planning committees, the School Board, the architects and the entire project. He thought this positiQn was a replacement of the former employee. Mr. Agnor said that is not the case. In fact, the Capital Projects Coordinator was specifically hired not to be involved in the school design committee but to be involved in construction management. He said he is sorry to disagree, but he made this job description clear when that position was created. Ms. Moore said she feels that certain problems could have been avoided in the past if someone with the expertise of the Capital Projects Coordinator had been involved in the planning stages of some earlier projects. Mr. Agnor said the Capital Projects Coordinator is attending planning meetings more than was intended, and the construction projects underway in the field are not getting the supervision they need. Mr. Papenfuse said the Capital Projects Coordinator is not involved in the meetings with parents and teachers. She is involved in working groups with the architect and his staff. Mr. Bain pointed out that even when the Board itself reviewed the plans for the Crozet School, there was little benefit gained. He said that was a case of one architect reviewing work of another architect and not much was accomplished. Mr. Perkins said all he has ever heard on construction projects is that if something is not approved today, the construction cycle will be missed. Even in Crozet the extra year was wasted, and the Board of Supervisors saw the plans after it was too late to change them. Crozet School was built with grandiose plans which were unnecessary. Mr. Bain said the Board saw the plans on the Murray project renovations some time ago. He feels that the Projects Coordinator is doing what is expected in the capacity of a coordinator. He does not feel that the job includes architectural work. October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Bowie said this discussion may need to extend to another meeting for the Board of Supervisors. However, he is not happy that the director of a County department decides whether a cost-saving's idea should be presented to the Board of Supervisors. He said the Board should have someone making sure that a good product at the lowest possible price is received for the County's funds. He said the decision as to whether a cost savings idea should be implemented should not be the responsibility of the department in charge of the project. Mr. Agnor explained that the department director answers directly to the County Executive in reviews of this nature. If the County Executive deems it important for the Board of Supervisors to be involved, then it is brought to the Board. The Board, as a policy-making group, is not involved in the construction management of the project. He said the Board is always made aware of the design plans in various stages. The decisions are made by the department responsible for the' project and carried back to the Board responsi- ble for the project. In this case, that is the School Board. The School Board can choose to bring it to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman asked what authority the Capital Projects Coordinator has over management of the contract. Mr. Agnor said that position carries no decision-making authority. The Capital Projects Coordinator has a review responsibility for design changes, change orders, construction schedules, and supplements the architectural representation on the job. Mr. Bowerman asked who signs a change order. Mr. Agnor said the archi- tect, the contractor and the owner sign the change orders. He said the Capital Projects Coordinator reviews the change orders and makes comments on them. Mr. Bowerman said he did not understand that the Capital Projects Coordi- nator was designed to be that ineffectual when the Board discussed this position. He thought the position was to get the best product at the best price for the County, and that is not what he is hearing today. Mr. Bain asked what the architect is supposed to be doing. Mr. Bowerman said he is talking about what happens after the project is started. He thought this position was established to represent the interests of the County, the tax payer, the Board of Supervisors and the County Executive. He said he is hearing now that that is not the case. Mr. Agnor said he is sorry Mr. Bowerman is hearing that, because the function of the Capital Projects Coordinator is to examine everything going on in the project every day from a construction management and cost savings perspective and to report back on whether or not that is occurring. He said the Projects Coordinator ultimately reports back to the County Executive or to the Superintendent of Schools through their respective staffs. Mr. Martin reiterated that when these types of reports come back to the School Board, the Board of Supervisors will be included on the decision-making portion. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Capital Projects Coordinator participated during the construction of Cale Elementary and Crozet Elementary Schools through reports to the School Board. Mr. Martin said he does not recall that the Capital Projects Coordinator was present for design meetings about Crozet School. He said reports now come to the School Board via the architect and Mr. Papenfuse, although the Capital Projects Coordinator has been present to answer questions. Mr. Perkins noted again that ways to save money on a construction project will not be found after the contract is signed. Those efforts must be made beforehand. He said there have been good architects in the past who were receptive to suggestions, but there have been some who were not receptive. Mr. Bowie said this item should go on a future agenda because apparently the Board members have different ideas about the position and duties of the Capital Projects Coordinator. The present subject is an additional appropri- ation for Murray Elementary School. October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) 24 (Page 6) Mr. Bain asked the architects to explain the square footage for the halls, walls and bathrooms. Mr. Tim 3amerson from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, said Murray has a pod design, and there is a premium for space to have two corridors instead of one. He said there is a double corridor with a common court needed to have a new wing similar to the design of Cale Elementa- ry, which seems to be working. Mr. Jamerson added that the Capital Projects Coordinator was involved from the beginning of the project on Murray. As an architect and engineer, he feels that the Capital Projects Coordinator actually value-engineered this project. The total bid was under the architect's estimate by $180,000, and he feels that the Boards should be encouraged by the representation on the project. Mr. Bowerman said his only point is that if the Capital Projects Coordi- nator were present today, he feels that valuable information could have been provided. He feels that giving expert advice is an important aspect of this position, and the Capital Projects Coordinator should be present at these types of meetings to make reports. Mr. Bowie agreed. Mrs. Humphris said she senses that the County Executive feels that the five percent construction contingency may not be adequate. Mr. Agnor said the contingency is achievable, and he sees the function of the Projects Coordina- tor as that of bringing the project to completion under the amount bid. He said he does not think it is impossible, but it is optimistic to think that the project will not go over the present amount. He said he would not recom- mend that the Board change the amount of the contingency. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution appropriating $454,845 for the Murray Elementary School project from the Capital Improvement Program Fund Balance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR 90/91 FUND CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR MURRAY SCHOOL RENOVATIONS. ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900060216312350 1900060216800750 1900060216800200 1900060216800901 1900060216800670 1900060216800903 1900060216999999 PLANNIG & DESIGN LAND EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS CONSTRUCTION UTILITIES ASBESTOS REMOVAL CONTINGENCY TOTAL $45,985.42 20,000.00 120,000.00 100,914.58 15,000.00 18,000.00 134~945.00 $454,845.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900051000510100 FUND BALANCE $454,845.00 TOTAL $454,845.00 Agenda Item No. 2g(2). Penalty clauses in construction contracts. Mr. Perkins asked if the penalty clause is contained in the Murray School contract, or what would it cost to be included in the contract. Mr. Agnor said the Board raised the question that one school is being completed on schedule and has a penalty clause in the contract, while another school is not on schedule and has no penalty clause. He said if a penalty clause is includ- ed in the specifications, the contractors will bid an additional amount. The penalty clause is paid for in advance and will be paid back by the contractor if he misses the target date for completion. Mr. Agnor said having a penalty clause requires documentation of the associated costs for liquidated damages. October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) 24 (Page 7) He said this often results in a counterclaim by the contractor due to weather problems and various other reasons. He feels that penalty clauses are gener- ally ineffective. He said he reported all this to the Board of Supervisors earlier, and the Board requested additional discussion with the School Board and architects today. He said the Board is interested in improving the timing of projects so that there is not a last-minute panic to open schools. Mr. Ward said he recalled that the School Board had agreed not to support future projects without a penalty clause because the Cale project was so successful. Mr. Martin said he got the impression that the School Board would be looking carefully at including those clauses in future projects. Mr. Pap~nfuse said the Cale project finished on schedule having a penalty clause, while another school did not. He does not feel that is a singular issue, although it is an important one. He said the penalty clause made everyone aware of the final date. He said from what he remembers of the Murray specifications, the penalty clause is included. Mr. Jamerson said some contractors build the penalty clause into their bid price and others do not. He said the ideal way, of course, is to schedule completion in May or June prior to the September opening, and a penalty clause is not needed. Mr. Ward asked the cost of a penalty clause. Mr. Jamerson said there is no way to determine the exact amount. He feels that one percent of the bid price is within the range. Agenda Item No. 2d. Status Report: Urban Area Elementary School. Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, said the necessary work has been done for the County to take title to the property for the urban area elementa- ry school. He said the plat has been approved by the Planning Department. There are a few title problems which he has been working on. He said there are a few old public roads run through the middle of the property. However, Mr. St. John said he is planning to take title to the property without delay and then have the Board go through the procedure necessary to vacate the roads. That can be done at a future time. He said the transaction should not be held up on that account, and the roads are the only remaining problem to be solved. Mr. St. John said the deed will be from the present owners to the County of Albemarle for the entire tract of over 24 acres. Then, a deed will be made from the County of Albemarle to the School Board for the tract of over 19 acres, with the County retaining the remaining five plus acres. At the same time, a deed to the Whitewood Road property will be made transferring that property to the County from the School Board. Mr. Jamerson said he has site plans which are two weeks into design if the Board would like to see them. He said the site plan supplements the plat on the wall referred to by Mr. St. John. Mr. Jamerson said his drawing does not show the landscaping plan, but it is practically a site adaptation of the Cale School plans. The main difference is a place for parents to drop their children off at the school, which Cale did not have. The same concept, footprint, outline, pod arrangement and administration offices as were used at Cale are being used for the new urban area elementary school. Mr. Jamerson said as much of the existing vegetation as possible will be maintained around the site, and two small detention basins will be built. He said there have been three committee meetings with the Capital Projects Coordinator and other staff members, and his firm is ready to make the final drawing to the State. Ms. Moore said there are problems at Cale with the bus pattern at the school. Mr. Jamerson said there is a dedicated lane with two access lanes for cars so there will not be the conflict that is currently at Cale. He said there will be about 25 parking spaces available and a gravel road access for recreation uses off the SPCA (Route 659) road. Mr. Bain asked if the playing field is sufficient for the population of this school. Mr. Jamerson said the size meets the program requirements of the school. October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 8) Mrs. Moore asked if the School Board or Board of Supervisors would be reviewing the plans again when the interior design is completed. Mr. Jamerson said he would bring the plans in as often as the Boards want to see them. Mr. Papenfuse said the School Board will review these plans on Monday. Mr. Jamerson said he has received written comments from the teachers at Cale, and has toured the new school several times. He said there are some suggestions which will be incorporated into the new urban elementary school. Mr. Martin said the benefits of using the same school plans are obvious to the School Board. Some problems have been identified at Cale and changes were incorporated into this new school plan. Mr. St. John pointed out that when the school is opened, the new road will be taken into the State Secondary System of Highways. Mr. Agnor said the plans are being reviewed now by the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways for the connection of Berkmar Extended to Rio Road. Mr. Agnor said that road is planned to coincide with the 1992 opening of the new urban area elementary school. Mr. Way said he was involved as the Board's representative from the Scottsville District in planning meetings with teachers and every other group who met to make decisions relative to the construction of Cale Elementary School. Mr. Way said he felt that his participation was helpful because it kept the Board of Supervisors informed of the developments of the project. His suggestion is that the Charlottesville District representative, Mr. Bowerman, be requested to participate in meetings involving the new urban elementary school. He said it is helpful for input to be available from the Board of Supervisors early in the planning process. Mr. Bowie said he feels that Cale was the smoothest school project the County has completed and the one on which the Board of Supervisors was most informed. Mr. Way said he and the School Board representative from Scottsville were both on the planning committee. Mrs. Humphris said that this school will be physically located in Mr. Bowerman's district, but children from her district will be attending this school. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to serve on such a committee. Mr. Way said since the school is practically on the district line, it may be helpful for both Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman to attend the meetings. Mr. Bagby suggested there be two representatives from each board. There was no objection from Board members to having two members attend planning meetings for the new urban area elementary school. Mr. Ward said he is concerned that there may be too many "a~thority" figures and parents might feel intimidated. Mr. Way said he found the situation to be just the opposite when he attended meetings. The teachers and parents were delighted to have a Board member know their concerns. They saw this as an opportunity to have an advocate on the Board of Supervisors and an opportunity to express their ideas. Mr. Ward said he does not disagree with the concept. He just wonders if four representatives will be beneficial. He feels that it is important to have the parents in charge. Mrs. Moore said she looks at four representatives as a positive influ- ence, especially given the fact that there is no specific neighborhood identi- fied due to the redistricting involved. She feels that added support from the School Board and the Board of Supervisors will have a positive effect. Mr. Haury said it is already known which students will be moved to this school. The people in Four Seasons and Berkeley already know this will be their school. Mrs. Humphris said she has heard numerous comments to the effect that people are glad when School Board and Board of Supervisors members are present. She said she has never had the feeling tha~ she is not welcome at these types of meetings. Mr. Bowerman added that his reception on the Albemarle High School Improvement Team has been warm and appreciated. He also 24 October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 9) feels that more involvement on the part of the School Board and Board of Supervisors means the the public is better served. Mr. Bagby said that four members on the committee will only be intimidat- ing if they act in an intimidating manner. Two can be intimidating, depending on the individuals involved. There was a consensus of the School Board members to have the Charlottes- ville and Jack Jouett representatives also attend planning meetings for the new urban elementary school. Agenda Item No. 2g(1). Construction Projects: Discussion of timing of site work and landscaping. Mr. Agnor said that schools are sometimes completed at the last minute, leaving the playgrounds and playing fields another year for completion. The Board suggested that the specifications require that landscaping be accom- plished earlier in the project instead of waiting until the building is finished to complete seeding and landscaping. He said this will actually save the contractor money. The architect, Mr. Jamerson, said one thing to remember is that materials such as trees and shrubs cannot be planted in the summer and be guaranteed to grow. He said it is fairly simple to get the fields graded in advance and planted in the spring prior to a fall occupation. That allows one six-month cycle of growing season before use. He said the finished grading around the building cannot be completed until the contractors are finished. He said the County "will be lucky" to get the Murray Project completed by next August. He said a good contractor has been hired, and along with the penalty clause, the date may be met. Mr. Perkins said he has observed on construction projects that the foundation is poured, construction starts and a lot of tearing up takes place. However, landscaping and seeding seems to be the last item in the project. He feels that grading of the ball fields can all be done at one time, recognizing that grading around the building will have to wait until near the end of the project. He pointed out that both the Meriwether Lewis and Crozet School playing fields were the last items in the project. Sometimes the contractor's equipment sits on the site for months, and there is a push to get everything done at the last minute. He said it is important from the County's standpoint of erosion control, that the bare fields be seeded and made green as quickly as possible. Mrs. Wood agreed with Mr. Perkins and said that the playing fields are as mucha part of the education process as the school building itself. Having to wait an entire year to use the playing field is ridiculous. Mr. Jamerson agreed and noted that it is planned for the Murray Project to accomplish some of these items early in the project. Some of the school projects have had time frames that did not permit the luxury of flexibility. Mr. Perkins said he is not specifically addressing these remarks to the Murray Project, but feels that both Boards should consider this on all County projects. Mr. Bowerman added that he feels the Capital Projects Coordinator can help with this type of planning. There was no further discussion of this matter. Agenda Item No. 2e. Military Leave Hardship. Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources, said that both Boards recently approved a clarification of the Military Leave policy which puts National Guard reserves on leave without pay after 15 consecutive days in military service. She said Mr. Agnor asked for figures as to how many employees in the County might be called into the military service. Dr. Hastings reported that there are 14 people in the reserves out of 1800 employ- ees. Another question is whether or not there is any kind of break for October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) 24 (Page 10) military personnel in terms of mortgage payments, etc. Dr. Hastings said the interest rate for an active military person is dropped to six percent. The Board indicated their desire to discuss the possibility of extending an option to an employee who might suffer a hardship after the 15 day policy by being called into active duty. It is possible to extend the opportunity to stay on the County payroll and reimburse the County the military pay received each month. She said it would not present a hardship on the Personnel Depart- ment to manage this discrepancy in pay for only 14 people. Mr. Bowie said he asked that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion because there is a provision in the law for a 90-day Presidential call-up. He is concerned that there could be a hardship suffered by employees during a 30 or 90-day temporary call-up for which the County may want to consider an alternative to its present policy. His opinion is that for a 90-day or less temporary call-up, the County should maintain the employee's pay or, at least, provide a benefit for employees whose military pay is significantly less. Mr. Way said he prefers a 90-day time limit initially. If the situation arises and a longer time is required, the Board can then deal with that. Mrs. Hastings said that the reservist would collect both the County pay and the military pay for the first 15 days by law. From the sixteenth day through the ninetieth day, the employee could have the option of staying on the County payroll and reimbursing the County the military pay received. Mr. Agnor said this policy does not entail having to prove hardship. It would simply be an option available to reservists. Mr. Bowerman said this policy sends the type of message that he would like to send and he immediately offered a motion amending the Military Leave Policy, P-83 as described, and set out below. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. MILITARY LEAVE All employees of the Board who are members of the organized reserve force of any of the armed services of the United States or of the National Guard shall be entitled to leaves of absence for their respective duties without loss of seniority, accrued leave or effi- ciency rating on all days when they are engaged in annual active duty or training or when called forth by the Governor of Virginia pursuant to the provisions of Section 44-75 of the Code of Virginia or by the President of the United States. There shall be no loss of pay during these leaves of absence, not to exceed 15 days per federal fiscal year (October 1 September 30). After 15 days, the employee will be placed on an unpaid leave of absence. When relieved of this duty, the employees shall be restored to positions they held when ordered to duty or to a similar position. Payments received for National Guard or Reserves duty beyond the 15 days must be reimbursed to the County when such payments are received while being paid for County employment unless the person is on bona fide annual leave or leave without pay. Ail fringe benefits to which these employees were entitled prior to military leave shall be restored to include the rate of annual leave accumulation and seniority. In cases of a presidential call up (not to exceed 90 days) for mili- tary reservists, employees who are in the reserves will have the option of remaining on the county payroll and reimbursing the county all military pay received or, after 15 days, going into an unpaid leave of absence from the county. It is the responsibility of the employee to make this decision and inform the office of Personnel/ Human Resources in writing of the option chosen. October 3,~19g0 (Joint Meeting) 25( (Page 11) Agenda Item No. 2f. Affirmative Action Report, Presentation of Annual Report. Dr. Hastings said the Albemarle County Affirmative Action Plan requires that an annual report be made to the County Executive, the Superintendent of Schools, the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Hastings presented the following report: "I. EMPLOYEE DEMOGRAPHICS BY RACE The most recent demographics of the Charlottesville area indicate that the population of employed civilians aged 16 years and over is as follows: White 84.8% Black 13.5% Other Minorities 1.7% For 1989-90, the County work force statistics were: White 85.3% Black 13.8% Other 0.7% The 1989-90 statistics indicate that minority representation in the County work force improved by .8% or 13 employees. Exhibit 2 (on file) indicates the composition of the County work force by division as follows: Division White Minority Local Government 84.6% 15.3% Schools 86.1% 13.9% Joint Security 73.0% 27.0% The County work force as a whole is nearly identical to that of the employed population in the Charlottesville area. Of the 20 local government departments analyzed, however, six (30 percent) had no minority employees. Thirty schools/departments were analyzed and the data indicates that two (6.6 percent) had no minority employees. Principals/department heads were asked to review their school/depart- mental statistics at the beginning of the fiscal year and to take measures, when possible to correct imbalances on their staffs. Six local government departments (30 percent) improved their minority representation in FY89-90, however the six with no minorities were the same as those in 1988-89. In the school division seven schools/ departments (23 percent) improved minority representation in 1989-90, while 10 schools/departments (33 percent) lost minority employees. The overall school division number of minority employees remained the same from 1988-89 to 1989-90. Ninety-nine (27 percent) of the local government employees earn at least $25,000 annually. Of this number, there are five minority employees (five percent). Six hundred fifty-five school division employees (44 percent) are in this earning category, with 62 of these individuals being minority (9.5 percent). The general population consists of 13.2 percent minority employees in executive, managerial or professional specialty occupations. Thus, although the County statistics reflect the general population overall, the data indicate that the County's minority employees represent lower paid occupational classes. Exhibit 4 (on file) also indicates that minority employees earn slightly less on their merit evaluations than do white employees. Sixty-one (23 percent) of the minority employees terminated employment during 1989-90 versus 255 white employees (16 percent). This indi- cates a higher attrition rate for minority employees in Albemarle County. II. EMPLOYEE DEMOGRAPHICS BY GENDER October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 12) The County work force consists of 1891 employees. 1248 (66 percent) are female. division is as follows: Of this number, The distribution of males/females by 25] Division Total Males Females Local Government 364 199 (54.7%) 165 (45.3%) School Division 1466 404 (27.5%) 1062 (72.4%) Joint Security 61 40 (65.6%) 21 (34.4%) Exhibit 4 (on file) indicates that female employees earned slightly higher merit evaluation scores than male employees in both the school division and local government. Annual income analyses indicate that, in local government, 26 (15 percent) of the female employees earn at least $25,000 annually whereas 73 (37 percent) of the male employees are in this earning category. In the school division, 488 (46 per- cent) of the female employees earn at least $25,000 per year, while 41 percent of the male employees earn this annual income. Thus it appears that the distribution of higher paying positions is more equitable in the school division versus local government due primarily to the availability of teaching positions. III. TRAINING The first year of the Affirmative Action plan focused on supervisory training. The following workshops were offered through the Person- nel/Hnman Resources Department: VALUING DIVERSITY~ PART I: "Managing Differences" During this session supervisors learn how to recognize talent and how to develop and motivate diverse employees. VALUING DIVERSITY~ PART II: "Diversity at Work" During this session supervisors learn how to succeed in the multi-cultural work place. VALUING DIVERSITY~ PART III: "Communicating Across Cultures" During this session supervisors examine differences in cox~unica- tion styles. GENERAL EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ORIENTATION: During this workshop supervisors discuss fair and equal employ- ment regulations and practices, the definition of Affirmative Action, and the various components of the Albemarle County Affirmative Action Plan. SEX DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT: During this workshop supervisors analyze the effect of sex stereotypes in evaluating a person's qualifications. They also learn to recognize and handle instances of sexual harassment. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: During this workshop supervisors learn to recognize behaviors that indicate race-based prejudices and contribute to subtle discrimination. They also learn to identify the causes and potential consequences of department or job categories predomi- nately filled with members of one race. AGE DISCRIMINATION: During this session supervisors learn what constitutes age discrimination and how to avoid common assumptions that may lead to age discrimination. INTERVIEWING~ PART I: October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 13) 25 During this session supervisors discuss the legal aspects of conducting interviews and pre-employment inquiries. They learn how to develop interview questions and to manage the interview process. INTERVIEWING~ PART II: This session is designed to allow persons who have completed "Interviewing, Part I", to practice/role play the skills they learned in Part I. Participants also have the opportunity to share experiences they have had in conducting interviews. THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT: This workshop is designed to assist supervisors in meeting the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. This session addresses problems with drug use and abuse on the job. Fifty-nine Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity sessions were conducted during 1989-90, repeating each workshop at least three times. One hundred sixty-five individual employees participated in one or more sessions, and 11 employees completed all ten components of the AA/EEO training program. At the conclusion of each training session, participants completed evaluation forms. The evaluation results are summarized on the attached chart (on file). IV. CONCLUSIONS Recox~endations: While the County employee demographics replicate the overall racial composition in the area, there are still some issues to be addressed. Moving minority employees into higher paying job classes will entail several efforts: 1) An aggressive internal career counseling program must be implemented. This should include identification of career interests and goals and an effort to train current County minority employees in skills necessary to fill promotional vacancies. An example of such an effort is the school division's administrative intern program. During 1989-90, two minority teachers were provided full salary while they received their masters degrees at the University of Vir- ginia. After successfully completing the program, they were placed in administrative positions for 1990-91. Such efforts at identifying internal talent and providing train- ing and placement are perhaps the best means of rectifying imbalances in various job classes. 2) An active recruitment program consisting of trainee posi- tions and internships for minority employees will, perhaps, expand our pool of minority employees. For 1990-91, a budget has been provided to support a County-wide recruit- ment effort. 3) Although the training for supervisors was important, it is critical to expand this program to employees. Heightening awareness among our employees about affirmative action issues could have a positive impact on retention of minority staff members. A greater effort must be made to identify and address concerns of minority employees about any barri- ers they perceive to succeeding in the County work force. A joint effort with Piedmont Virginia Community College to encourage minority employees to seek associate degrees will be launched this year. October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) (Page 14) In summary, the 1989-90 year was one in which important training and awareness of affirmative action issues occurred. This report has identified areas regarding career advancement and retention of minor- ity employees which should become the County's focus in the future." Mr. Way asked the cost implications in order to fulfill the recox~enda- tion for an aggressive internal career counseling program. He asked if additional personnel would be need. Dr. Hastings said she does not anticipate additional personnel. Dr. Hastings, Dr. Jennings and Mr. Brandenburger will be getting more involved with employees in terms of communicating about skill levels and interests and ways to improve those skills. For example, there is a new program where teacher assistants are encouraged to go ahead and receive an associate degree, go into a four-year degree program and then be potential employees of this school system as teachers. The same type of program is being developed for police officers. Therefore, it is not a matter of more costs. It is a matter of heightening the awareness of employees. Agenda Item No. 2g(3). Construction cycles in general. Mr. Agnor said since the School's Long Range Plan was completed and projects were broadly scheduled, there has not been enough lead time provided for the hearing and review procedures, especially in the development of the site plan. The Board is interested in having a construction cycle in which a school construction project is completed possibly in April with the opening iQ September. Enough leeway is then allowed for lags in construction and for installation of equipment. Mr. Bowie said it makes common sense to everyone to have construction projects end by May or June. Mr. Martin agreed that both Boards must work toward that goal. Agenda Item No. 2h. Discussion: Disposition of Whitewood Road property. Mr. Bowerman said his reason for asking that this item be on the agenda was satisfied by the discussion of Agenda Item No. 2d. Agenda Item No. 2i. Traffic control at schools. Mr. Martin said he had asked that this item be on the agenda for discus- sion. However, the problem has been resolved, and there is no further need for discussion. Agenda Item No. 2j. Advance to the Cafeteria Fund. Mr. Agnor explained the difference between an appropriation and an advance to the Cafeteria Fund. At the end of the year in preparation for the final audit, the Finance Department prepares a summary of the fund balances. The State auditors require that the funds not show a negative balance at the end of the fiscal year. The cafeteria fund is treated differently from other funds because it is viewed as an "enterprise fund", meaning that it is self-sufficient. The County's General Fund has never been requested to appropriate money to supplement the cafeteria fund. When the review showed a deficit in the Cafeteria Fund, Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, asked the Board of Supervisors to advance money to that Fund for this school year sc that the State auditors would not score us as having over-expenditures on a self-supporting fund. The Board of Supervisors took that action. That does not wipe out the deficit, but simply transfers money as an advance to the Cafeteria Fund. This money must be returned to the General Fund at the end of the succeeding year. Mr. Agnor said the Board would like to have an idea of how the Cafeteria Fund is functioning by mid-1990. Mrs. Wood asked the amount of the advance to the Cafeteria Fund. Mr. Agnor said the amount was $46,770. Mrs. Wood said she was under the impres- sion last year that raising the school lunch fee would ensure that the Cafete- ria Fund would operate in the "black". October 3, 1990 (Joint Meeting) 25 (Page 15) Mr. Martin said in the past the Cafeteria Fund has operated~at a deficit, and school lunch prices have been raised periodically to cover those deficits. He asked if the fee last year reduced the deficit. Mr. Agnor said he does not believe there was a deficit last year. Mr. Papenfuse said over the years the Cafeteria Fund has actually been depleting a surplus. Personnel costs and the lack of Federal commodities last year depleted more than the revenues. He said an analysis is being done of the Cafeteria Fund. Mr. Papenfuse explained that participation in the school lunch program generally diminishes the first year prices are raised. He said the worst thing to do right now is to raise the price again before participa- tion has risen. Mr. Bowie said the Board's position is that this advance is a loan, and the Board expects it to be paid back. He reminded the others present that there is no such thing as a "free lunch". Mr. Agnor said the State auditor views other self-sustaining funds as a part of the curriculum and the operations of the School, and they are lumped all together. The Cafeteria Fund is treated differently, and because it showed a deficit for the first time, money had to be advanced. Mrs. Moore asked the Chairman of the School Board to place this matter the School Board's agenda for further discussion. Mr. Bagby said he is concerned about the procedure when a financial matter of the School Board goes before the Board of Supervisors without the School Board seeing it first. He feels that procedure needs to be reviewed so that School Board matters come to the School Board before going to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bain said in this case there was nothing the School Board could have done. Mr. Bagby said the School Board is responsible for the School System and should review the items that are passed on to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowie said he did not know the School Board was not aware of the advance. Mr. Agnor explained that there was a deadline for closing the County's books by the tenth of September. He said this was actually an audit function and not really an operational function, although he can see Mr. Bagby's point of view. Mr. Ward asked if this means that $47,000 must be found somewhere else in the school system. Mr. Agnor said it means that $47,000 must come from the Cafeteria Fund. Money cannot be transferred from one fund to another fund. The Cafeteria Fund must be restored to a healthy financial position. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mrs. Moore requested that School Board members be placed on the Board's mailing list for copies of the agenda each week. Mr. Ward said since the new budget cycle is ahead, he invited the Board of Supervisors to share advice and possibly set up a joint session for dis- cussing budget ideas. Mr. Way agreed that a joint meeting would be beneficial. Mr. Bowie said this can be an item of discussion at the next joint meeting in November. PoM, The two Boards agreed to a joint meeting on November 14, 1990, at 4:00 Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. At 4:55 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. CHAIRMAN October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 25 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 3, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve Item 5.8 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Copies of Planning Commission Minutes for August 28, September 11, September 18, September 25 and September 27, 1990, received as information. Item 5.2. Letter dated September 19, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer at VI)oT, in response to Mr. Peter Way's request concerning trash dumping along Broadway Street (Route 1115) in the Woolen Mills area, received as information. (In his letter, Mr. Roosevelt said he personally reviewed the area and found that some items, including a mattress, had been dumped along the roadside, but the majority of the trash was at the end of the street beyond the "End of State Maintenance" sign. He directed his workers to pick up the trash in the area which is state maintained. He will be unable to clean up the dumping which has occurred beyond that point.) Item 5.3. Letter dated September 18, 1990, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Coxmissioner of VDoT, stating approval of a request to add Route 866 (Green- brier Drive) to the Secondary System, received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated November 15, 1989, the follow- ing addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective September 18, 1990: ADDITION LENGTH Branchlands Route 866 (Greenbrier Drive) - From Route 1452 to 0.17 mile East Route 1452 0.17 Mi." Item 5.4. Letter dated September 26, 1990, from Mr. J. A. Echols, VDoT, advising that the location and major design features for improvement at the intersection of Routes 743 and 606 (0743-002-235, C501) near the Charlottes- ville-Albemarle Airport have been approved, received as follows: 25 October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) "This is to advise that the Virginia Department of Transportation has approved the location and major design features for the above project which is an improvement at the intersection of Routes 743 and 606 near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The Federal Highway Adminis- tration has also concurred in the environmental evaluation prepared for this project. Maps, drawings, an environmental evaluation and other information concerning this project are available at the Resi- dency Office." Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated September 21, 1990, from Delegate George F. Allen to the Director of Legislative Services re: Property Tax Exemption Bill for The Meadows Housing Corporation in Albemarle County, received as informa- tion. (In his letter, Delegate Allen requests Mr. Miller to draft a bill effectuating this property tax exemption.) Item 5.6. Letter dated September 21, 1990, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Execu- tive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, forwarding the budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1990, received as information. Item 5.7. Memo from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated September 19, 1990, for- warding a copy of the Department of Planning and Community Development's Work Program for FY90-91, received as information. Item 5.8. Resolution to Accept Lego Drive in Ashcroft Subdivision into the Secondary System. Request dated July 6, 1990, was received from R. L. Beyer Construction, Inc., on behalf of Liberty Land, Ltd. The following resolution was approved by the vote as shown: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Vir- ginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspec- tion and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Ashcroft Subdivision: Lego Drive: Beginning at Station 0+70, a point common to the centerline of Lego Drive and the edge of pavement of the Frontage Road (F-179), thence in a northerly direction 5,240 feet approximately to Station 51+70, the edge of the new pavement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60-foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 803, pages 612 and 613; Deed Book 1115, pages 425, 426, 428 and 429; Deed Book 737, page 428; and Deed Book 944, page 759. Agenda Item No. 6. A request that Route 844 and an old road on the east side of Route 743, extending from Route 844 to Route 643 at the dam of the South Fork Rivanna River be officially named "Panorama Road". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the request presented to the Board on September 19, 1990. He said several property owners along the section of old road on the east side of Route 743 have expressed opposition to naming the road "Panorama Road". Other road names have been suggested and it was also sugges- ted that the road not be named due to concerns about promoting public travel along the road. Mr. Bowie commented that several phone calls and letters have been received objecting to the road name. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting.) (Page 3) 257 The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Sharon Carter, a resident of Route 844, said she is anxious to name this road. She understands the concerns expressed by the residents on the old section of roadway because that road is private and is little more than a driveway. Recently properties have been subdivided and more houses built on Route 844. Several roads off of Route 844 already have road names. Mr. Bowerman asked if that section of road is now being referred to as Panorama Road. Mrs. Carter said when the residents give directions, they say they live on Panorama Farms Road. Mrs. Pamela Murray, the originator of the request, said she and her husband are building a house on the unnamed road east of Route 743. In addition to wanting a road name, it was her understanding that all of the roads in the County would eventually be named. She agreed with the name "Panorama Road" because her in-laws live at Panorama Farms. Her in-laws also agreed with the road name, but would prefer "Panorama Road East" and "Panorama Road West". Another name suggested by some residents is "Mill House Road". There are five families living on the old unnamed road. She suggests that since there is not a consensus on a road name, the Board may want to defer the request to allow the residents to get together and decide on a mutually agreed upon road name. Mr. Cilimberg said a letter has been received from Mrs. Lillian C. VanderVeer, suggesting either the name "Rio Mill Lane" or "Mill Cottage Lane" for the section of road between Route 743 and Route 643, since the word "panorama" has no meaning for this stretch of road. Mrs. VanderVeer included with her letter a history of Rio Mills. Mrs. Eleanor Wright, a resident of Route 844, said she would like the road named. She has a difficult time giving people directions to her resi- dence. When she tells people where she lives she says Panorama Farms Road. Mr. Robert Davis, a resident of the small unnamed road, said he has no problem with naming the road. His plat shows Old Rio Mill as the name of the road. He would prefer the road have some other name instead of Panorama Road. He sees no panoramic view from this road. He has no problem with getting together with the neighbors and deciding on a name. Since this road is privately maintained, he asked if naming it would change its status from a private road to a public road. Mr. Bowie said naming the road will not change its status. Mr. Bill Goodman, another resident of the unnamed road, said he concurs with Mrs. Murray and Mr. Davis. He agrees the road should be named, but is concerned about the consequences of giving it a name. The road is a one-lane road and there have been several accidents on it. Any more traffic on the road would be detrimental to the residents. He does not want a name to give the implication that it is a public road. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris immediately offered motion that the Planning Department work with a committee of concerned citizens along these roads to seek a resolution on a road name. Mr. Bain commented that the people who live on the west side are in agreement with the road name. Mr. Bowie commented that the people should get together and decide on the road name and not put that added burden on the Planning Department. Mr. Cilimberg said although the residents on the west side agree with the name Panorama, one of the rules used in road naming is that on continuous sections of road the same name is used throughout the entire length of the road to aid emergency services. After asking Mrs. Murray and with her concurrence, Mrs. Humphris amended her motion that Mrs. Pamela Murray chair a committee of the property owners along the entire length of the roads to decide on a mutually agreed upon name. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie said he would support different road names if that's what the people want. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with naming the roads "east" and ~'west~ . October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. A request that a portion of Route 678 between Route 676 and Route 614, of approximately 1.83 miles, be officially named as "Briar Lane". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg said the request is for a portion of Route 678, between Route 676 on the south and Route 614 on the north, to be named "Briar Lane". Route 678 continuing south from Route 676 is known as Owensville Road. Route 678 on the north side of Route 614 is known as Ridge Road. The staff has done research and the proposed road name does not conflict with any other names. Mrs. Humphris said she received a call from a citizen stating that old historical maps refer to this road as "Decca Road". Some of the citizens think that the road does have a historical designation and that "Briar Lane" means nothing. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had not prepared a report on the road, only confirmed that there is no conflict in using the name "Briar Lane". The public hearing was opened. First to address the Board, Mrs. Barbara Hicks said she lives at Decca. Her family owns a farm named Decca Farm because of the little town of Decca that used to be in the area. The town of Decca consisted of two mills and a post office. The last mill was destroyed by a flood in 1940. The area has always been known as Decca and County maps refer to the area as Decca. Mrs. Sherry Buttrick, a concerned citizen, said in 1907, the Massey map of Albemarle showed the town of Decca with a post office. In defense of preservation of Albemarle's historic resources and cultural literacy, she suggests that "Decca Road" is a more suitable road name. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said if this is an example of what the Board will have to go through in naming roads, he does not want to continue doing so. He has no problem with naming the road "Decca". He does not feel strongly one way or the other, but he does not want to have continuous hearings on naming roads. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Bain. He added that everyone who lives on the road has been notified of the public hearing and there has been no other response. Mr. Perkins commented that Mrs. Schubert, the originator of the request, indicated she had found no historical significance with the road. The name "Briar Lane" was solely an arbitrary selection. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to request staff to research the name "Decca" for this section of road and bring back a recommendation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-90-13. South 29 Land Trust. Request to amend SP-77-70 to allow for location of single-family dwellings on 2.496 acres previously intended for recreational use (Proffered). Property at northwest corner of intersection of Powell Creek Road and Poes Lane in Hollymead. Tax Map 46B2, Section 2, Parcel D, is zoned PUD. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18 and September 25, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: Adjacent properties are developed with single-family houses. This site is flat and currently vacant. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted five proffers. A sketch submitted indicates that the proposed lots would be of similar size to those currently existing. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 2 Planning and Zoning History: May 8, 1972. The Board of Supervisors approves SP-156 which establi- shes the Hollymead Development. At this time, this property was shown for 24 units. December 14, 1977. The Board of Supervisors approves SP-77-70.which amended the previous approval and converted this site from residential to recreational. The Zoning Administrator has prepared a statement on the allowed uses for this site which also provides a history for this site. Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the Community of Hollymead in an area recommended for low density residential use (one to four dwelling units per acre). The requested density for this site is 2.8 dwelling units per acre. Summary and Recommendations: The applicant's proposal will result in a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The overall density for the Hollymead Subdivision is 2.6 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's proposal, therefore, appears to be consistent with the general pattern of development in Hollymead. In addition, the applicant has proffered building setbacks which are consistent with those used in the Hollymead Development. The applicant has proffered that driveways are to. enter off Poe's Lane and Allen's Way. This proffer is consistent with County policy to restrict access to secondary streets as opposed to main thoroughfares. Staff recommends the acceptance of the proffer restricting access as being consistent with County policy. This development will result in approximately 70 vehicle trips per day. Staff is unable to determine potential traffic counts if this site were developed as a recreational area. Potential impact on schools is three additional students at Hollymead Elementary, two additional students at Burley Middle School and two additional students at Albemarle High School. This development will not result in greater overall density for the Hollymead development, as approved with SP-77-70. For that reason, staff has not provided a fiscal impact analysis. Staff has received one letter concerning this request. This letter states a concern over the existing condition of the site. The proper- ty had been used as a staging area when development was occurring in Hollymead. Areas of asphalt and gravel are present on the site. Staff is unable to determine if any materials have been buried on site. At the time of development for each lot, the Inspections Department will require adequate footings which may require removal of unsuitable fill if it is determined that existing soils are inade- quate. The original intent of indicating this site as recreational was to provide an alternative recreation facility at such time as the exist- ~ng recreation facilities, located adjacent to the Silver Thatch Inn, were unavailable for use by the residents of Hollymead. The existing recreational facilities and open space are now owned by the Hollymead Citizens Association, Inc. Therefore, there does not appear to be a need to reserve this site as an alternative recreational facility. The requested use is less intensive than the original use, 24 units. Proffers limiting access and providing for setbacks similar to those in other sections of Hollymead will provide for orderly development. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the intent of SP-156 and SP-77-70, the Comprehensive Plan, and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Not more than seven (7) single-family lots; Driveways to enter off Poe's Lane and Allen's Way; Thirty-foot (30') building setback (front); October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Twenty-foot (20') building setback (rear); Ten-foot (10') building setback (side); The development of the seven lots will be in accord with the sketch dated August 27, 1990." 26 Mr. Cilimberg said the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 18, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of'ZMA-90-13 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mrs. Humphris said there was a letter in the file in which a concerned resident says: "I don't know what concerns other neighbors might have over the ravine". Mr. Cilimberg said the person writing the letter indicated at the Commission meeting that he had reached an agreement with the property owner on development of the site. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Melton, representing the applicant, said he has nothing further to add. He did come to a mutual understanding with the neighbor concerning the cleaning of the lot. He is present to answer any questions Board members may have. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said it bothers him when a subdivision shows recreational space and then when the subdivision is built out, the developer comes back with a request for use of the recreational space. He asked if all adjacent property owners and the homeowner's association have been notified of this request. Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes", all adjacent property owners and the homeowner's association were notified. No one expressed opposition to the request. Mr. Perkins asked how this request is different from the one that came before the Board several months ago for use of an area in Northfields Subdivi- sion reserved for recreational use. Mr. St. John said it was the intent from the beginning that this space would be used as an alternate only to the recreational facilities. Also, nobody objects to this request. The Chairman ascertained that there was no one present from the Hollymead Homeowner's Association. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve ZM~-90-13 subject to the following proffers as set forth in a letter dated September 12, 1990, from Dr. Charles W. Hurt: 1. Not more than seven (7) single-family lots. 2. Driveways to enter off Poe's Lane and Allen's Way. 3. Thirty-foot (30') building setback (front). 4. Twenty-foot (20') building setback (rear). 5. Ten-foot (10') building setback (side). The development of the seven lots will be in accord with the sketch dated August 27, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-90-09. Cathcart-Turner Development Company (applicant), Hurt Investment (owner). Request to rezone 24.06 acres from R-l, Residential, to PRD, Planned Residential Development, with a maximum of 360 units. Property on east side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extd.) east of The Armory (Neighborhood 4). Tax Map 91, Parcel 2 (part). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18 and September 25, 1990.) October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 26 (Page 7) Mr. Way said before this request is presented to the Board, he has some comments to make. If Board members read the Planning Commission minutes on this petition, they saw that the majority of time, the staff report and applicant comments dealt with assessment of impact fees. The final consensus was that the issue could not be resolved because neither the staff nor the developer had adequate information. He suggests, and if the Board is inclined, that before long dissertations by staff and the developer are presented on how each arrived at their assessment for impact fees, that the Board determine whether the petition should be considered on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan or the issue of impact fees. If the discussion is going to center on impact fees, it is his personal opinion that the Board should defer the request at this time. He does not think the Board is prepared to make a decision regarding impact fees. Mrs. Humphris suggested going ahead and discussing fiscal impact but leaving out how all of the numbers were arrived at. Mr. Cilimberg said the information on the assessment of impact fees in the staff report was presented for information only. The staff was not able to do a complete economic impact analysis. The Commission's decision was not based on the applicant's ability to make a cash proffer, but instead based on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said based on the kind of analysis the Board has before it, the County has an ordinance which allows the acceptance of cash proffers. The Board can use the statement of the fiscal impact of this proposal on the County in its decision of the rezoning request. Mr. Bowie said no cash proffer has been offered and he agrees that the Board should not get into a debate on how the numbers were arrived at. Mr. Cilimberg then presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: This site is a portion of Hillcrest property. The site is bordered on the east by a lake. The Calvary Baptist Church is adjacent to the south. The National Guard Armory is located directly west of this site. To the north, the site is bordered by Piedmont Virginia Community College. The site is wooded primarily with pines and falls away from Route 742 at approximately a ten percent slope. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct 360 multi-family rental units. Recreational facilities for the benefit of the development have been indicated. Two entrances to Route 742 are proposed. Access to the residue of the Hillcrest property has also been indicated. Summary and Recommendations: Section 8.5.4 requires that the Commis- sion review the application and make a recommendation. Based on such findings, the Commission shall recommend approval of the PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifi- cations, or disapproval. a. The suitability of the tract .... Finding: The proposed development would have a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. As stated previously this site is recommen- ded for high density development which is 11 to 34 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, this application appears to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The soils on this site consist of Catoctin Loam, Fluvanna Silt Loam, Myersville Silt Loam, Orange Silt Loam and River Chewacla Complex. The Orange Silt Loam is shallow to rock and poorly drained. It should be emphasized that special development techniques including subsurface drainage facilities as well as special attention to surface drainage may be required for develop- ment on Orange Silt Loam. In addition, substantial excava- tion including possible blasting may be necessary. The Riverview Chewacla soils is subject to occasional flooding. A complete description of soil limitations is provided. The other uses adjacent to this site will be primarily non- October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 26~ residential, Virginia Forestry Building, Armory, PVCC, Calvary Baptist Church. This site will be landscaped in order to prevent impact from adjacent uses. High-Density residential provides for a transition between the existing non-residential uses and those areas recommended for medium- density residential use. b. Relations to major roads, .... Finding: This site will access Route 742. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that 'this section of Route 742 is currently tolerable, but with other developments already ap- proved, the road will become non-tolerable'. The Virginia Department of Transportation made this same comment during review of ZMA-85-29 for Mill Creek. Staff has employed similar techniques as those used in review of ZMA-85-29. The plan provides internal access roads that provide two points of access to Avon Street as well as providing for access to the residue of the Hillcrest property and to the County's proposed southern collector road between Avon Street and Route 20. The site will be served by public water and sewer. The buildings will be sprinkled as required by the building code. Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts .... Finding: The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to ensure compliance with this requirement. d. Specific modifidations in PD ... Finding: Staff has worked with the applicant as to revisions to the application plan. No modifications in PD or general regula- tions requested or proposed. The applicant and staff have developed the following agreements which will control future activity at the site if accepted by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: Development shall be in accord with plan dated July 18, 1990, titled Lakeside Apartments, page 1-3; o Primary (northern) entrance road shall be constructed in accord with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and reserved for dedication. Dedication shall occur at such time deemed appropriate by the County; Southern entrance road shall be constructed in accord with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and shall be reserved for dedication. Dedication shall occur at such time deemed appropriate by the County; Recreational facilities shall be for the use of the residents and guests of Lakeside Apartments only; Staff approval of maintenance agreement for dam to include a provision that the lake shall not be reduced more than 20 percent in area; A 15 foot pedestrian access easement shall be provided adjacent to the lake for the benefit of the residents of the Lakeside Development; 7. Administrative approval of final plans. The proposed plan provides access to the residue of the Hillcrest property and to the proposed southern collector road. The application plan indicates extensive landscaping. (During review of the final site plan, staff will verify that the canopy provisions of Section 32.7.9.9 are met.) October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 262 The Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended both right and left turn lanes for the primary (northern) entrance to this site. These improvements will be constructed by the applicant at the time of construction of the main entrance into the site. The Department of Transportation has commented that up to 3600 vehicle trips per day could be generated from this site under the proposed plan. Potential traffic under the current R-1 zoning is 240 vehicle trips per day. Development Impact to Public Facilities: At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning staff will review rezoning requests for their fiscal impacton public and transportation facilities. This analysis is limited to those rezonings that have some affect on facilities that are identified in our Capital Improvements Program or Six Year Road Plans and have a cost associated with them. The analysis will be based on a fair share determination of a particu- lar development's impact to affected facilities. It must be pointed out that this analysis is cursory, due to lack of information on revenues and the amount attributable to this development. The cost outlined by staff only indicates the proportionate share of construc- tion costs the additional development generated by the rezoning over by-right development. Attached to this report (on file) is an analy- sis provided by the applicant concerning the fiscal impact of this proposal. The staff is not capable at this time to respond to the accuracy of this information. This analysis reflects a net increase in revenues to the County. Our only comment is that the revenue/cost differential indicated in their report does not appear to consider general county costs and operation and maintenance of facilities. (Note: In an addendum to the staff report in order to clarify staff comments, concerning the development's impact to public facilities, staff stated that the last sentence of this paragraph should be disregarded. Operation and maintenance cost cannot be considered as part of the analysis of a development's impact to capital facilities as per relevant section of the Code of Virginia concerning cash proffering.) In addition, staff states that the analysis provided by the applicant was based on the total capital cost for all improvements in the current CIP without differentiating between specific improvements that will be directly impacted by this development. As outlined in a memo from Mr. Cilimberg to the Commission and Board, dated May 30, 1990 (on file) the staff will provide fiscal impact analysis on those rezonings which have been identified in our CIP or six year road plans. Staff has provided information for only those projects for which the poten- tial additional population will likely affect the capacity of these facilities and where the staff has a reasonable understanding of the capacities and service standards of those facilities. No cost impact could be determined for the Avon Street/Route 20 connector since the ultimate design and capacity of that road is yet to be determined and the traffic distribution from this development to the proposed road is not available. Facility Improvement and Impacts: The following are those facilities which will be affected by the rezoning request: mo Transportation: The following projects are listed in the CIP and the Six Year Plan: Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road (est. $1,375,000) and 1-64/Avon Street Interchange (est. $5,043.000). Information concerning ultimate road design, road capacity and traffic impact of development to the overall roadway network is not available at this time. Therefore, the overall cost impact cannot be determined. Analysis will be possible when the County traffic modeling system is received and is operational. Schools: Schools affected by this proposal are Cale ~lementary, Walton Middle, and Albemarle High School. One project is cur- rently proposed in the CIP at Albemarle High School (Phase I Renovation est. $5,319,540). October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 26z Based on additional students as estimated by multipliers current- ly used by the County, a total of 94 additional students are anticipated, 16 at the high school level. Cost attributable to this development based on the proportion of high school students to overall school capacity is $50,056 or $139/du (Cale Elementary has already been funded and is nearing completion. Cost of construction is $5,622,000. Based on anticipated elementary school enrollment as proportion of school capacity, $592,840 of construction cost is attributable toward the rezoning or $1,647/du). Parks and Recreation: One project is identified in the CIP: Cale Elementary, Community Park Recreation Facilities ($35,000). Based on service area and capacity of the facility and additional residents located in the service area, this development a total of $2761 is attributable, or $7.67/du. (The Southern Regional Park is already funded and under construc- tion; $1,864,000. However, cost impact to this facility based on service area and capacity standards would be $29,413 or $81/du.) Libraries: This proposal is considered to be in the service area of the Main Library. One project is scheduled in the CIP for entrance renovation and maintenance ($17,500). Based on propor- tionate impact to library capacity, the proportionate share of this project is $690, or $1.92/du. Because of the very general nature of this analysis, staff is not recommending any action based on these estimates. They are presented for the Commission's information concerning the fair share determina- tion of a particular development's impact on facilities based on the cost of proposed improvements and without regard to revenue sources and proportionate share of revenues generated by the development. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the intent and purpose of planned developments as well as the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Based on the review of the application, staff recommends approval of ZMA-90-09 Cathcart/ Turner Development subject to the following: Development shall be in accord with plan dated July 18, 1990, titled Lakeside Apartments, page 1-3; Primary (northern) entrance road shall be constructed in accord with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and reserved for dedication. Dedication shall occur at such time deemed appropriate by the County; Southern entrance road shall be constructed in accord with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and shall be reserved for dedication. Dedication shall occur at such time deemed appropriate by the County; Recreational facilities shall be for the use of the residents and guests of Lakeside Apartments only; Staff approval of maintenance agreement for dam to include a provision that the lake shall not be reduced more than 20 percent in area; A 15-foot pedestrian access easement shall be provided adjacent to the lake for the benefit of the residents of the Lakeside Development; 7. Administrative approval of final plans." October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 26 (Page 11) Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 21, 1990, recommended approval, by a vote of four to three, of ZMA-90-09 subject to the seven conditions recommended in the staff report above. The following addendum to the staff report was presented: "The applicant has worked with staff to modify and clarify agreements 2 and 3. The proposed agreements have been revised to state as one agreement: 'The applicant agrees to reserve for dedication upon demand of the County, a 50 foot right-of-way from Route 742 to Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. The applicant agrees to construct a 40 foot curb to curb cross section along this right-of-way approximately 500 feet perpendicular to Route 742 and then approximately 520 feet parallel to Route 742. Costs incurred in having the road accept- ed into the state system shall not be borne by the applicant unless the need for dedication is generated by this development.' This revised agreement is consistent with the previous agreement. However, it clarifies the method of access and insures a right-of-way of adequate width for a public road. The applicant has revised the plan to show the approximate location of the road system. This will require that agreement #1 be revised to reflect the current plan. Staff now recommends approval of ZMA-90-09 Cathcart/Turner Development subject to the following agreements: Development shall be in accord with plan dated July 18, 1990, revised September 10, 1990, titled Lakeside Apartments, page 1-3; The applicant agrees to reserve for dedication upon demand of the County, a 50 foot right-of-way from Route 742 to Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. The applicant agrees to construct a 40 foot curb to curb cross section running approximately 500 feet perpendicular to Route 742 and then approximately 520 feet parallel to Route 742. Costs incurred in having the road accepted into the state system shall not be borne by the applicant unless the need for dedication is generated by this development; o Recreational facilities shall be for the use of the residents and guests of Lakeside Apartments only; Staff approval of maintenance agreement for dam to include a provision that the lake shall.not be reduced more than 20 percent in area; A 15-foot pedestrian access easement shall be provided adjacent to the lake for the benefit of the residents of the Lakeside Development; 6. Administrative approval of final plans." Mr. Cilimberg said on September 27, 1990, the petition was returned to the Planning Commission and the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the revision of agreements 1, 2 and 3 and replaced those conditions with the new conditions 1 and 2 as shown above. Mrs. Humphris asked who will pay for the road and who decides whether the dedication is generated by this developer. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant will provide the right-of-way and build the cross section necessary to accom- modate a public road. The applicant will also put in the base and surface to meet the requirements of his development. Mr. Bain asked about the access along the southern end of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that access is to be a private drive and parking area for the development. The southern access is not intended to be a public road. Mr. Bain asked the reasons for the private drive. Mr. Cilimberg said the developer did not want to make it a public road and wanted to keep it internal for the development. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 26 Mrs. Humphris asked if there will be any turn lanes off of Avon Street. Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes". Mr. Bain asked if a stop light will be required. Mr. Cilimberg said that VDoT will make that determination based on warrants. Mr. Bain asked who would have use of the southern entrance. Mr. Cilimberg said the resident who lives on that portion of the property. Mr. Bain said he has a problem with that part of the application. Mr. Cilimberg said this would be a private driveway between two state roads. Mr. Bowerman asked how far south the connector road is to be located. Mr. Cilimberg said the road is several hundred feet to the south of this site. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any situations in the County with a private drive between two access roads. Mr. Cilimberg said the same situation exists at the Squire Hills Apartment complex. Mr. Humphris asked the acreage of the lake area. Someone from the audience replied 12 acres. Mrs. Humphris asked the purpose of the condition "... the lake shall not be reduced more than 20 percent in area." Mr. Gilimberg said that condition takes into account what might happen during construction activity that could affect the volume of the lake. Mrs. Humphris said the condition seems to imply some future consideration of the lake area. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not aware of any such future plans. The public hearing was opened. Representing the applicant, Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, the architect for the project, said the applicant looked at the Comprehensive Plan, considered the impacts of the project on the County and worked with the staff to develop a reasonable and sensible project. This land is part of a larger tract which has a bearing on the road issue. It is the intent of the developer to build a high-quality apartment complex. There is a need for this type of affordable housing in this location, adjacent to the City of Charlottesville and not in the Route 29 North corridor. This project is at the low end of the high density scale recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the proposal is to provide a contained community. The original scheme for the project provided an entrance road and a loop connector with the intent that residents would enter and exit the property from Avon Street, and that the roadway system within the project would be for the residents only. If required, the developer will provide improvements along Avon Street to facilitate turning lanes and to bring the roadway up to state standards. For safety purposes and at the request of VDoT, a second lane at the southern entrance was added. That is the primary function of the southern entrance. The developer has done everything from an internal planning stand- point to discourage residents and other persons from using that second entrance~ as a primary entrance. Mr. Wassenaar then discussed the developers plans for providing a future connection between the subject parcel and the adjacent property. The developer discussed two alternatives with staff and has agreed to provide the right-of-way that the County required in order to facilitate the largest number of planning options. The two alternatives were either along the southern edge of the property line (the church property) or to make the connection through the main entrance drive. Mr. Wassenaar said this site is quite beautiful. The topography starts high on Avon Street and goes down to the lake. The applicant sees the lake as a major amenity to the project and as a major recreational resource that they hope to develop and devote to the residents of Lakeside. The developer has no intent to change the level of the lake in any way. The staff requested that the lake level be preserved as is. The lake is man-made and there is an existing dam. The entire beach front has been dedicated to protect it from development. It would destroy the character of the development to build around or destroy the lake area. Mr. Bowie asked the purpose of the 20 percent requirement. Why not state that the applicant will maintain the dam and will not lower the level of the lake? Mr. Rip Cathcart, the applicant, said the 20 percent was a figure included in his original purchase contract with Dr. Hurt, the owner of the property, because it was indicated that Dr. Hurt may have reason to lower the level of the lake at some point in the future. At this time, Dr. Hurt still owns the balance of the lake. That is the reason for the 20 percent. He is not sure why that was made a condition of this application. Mr. Wassenaar said the applicant would be willing to agree to never change the property and to permanently dedicate to the center of the lake. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 26 Mr. Cathcart said his agreement with Dr. Hurt states that he will never do anything to lower the lake at all and would never do anything to reduce the size of the lake, meaning to fill in any part of the lake, by more than 20 percent. The property subject to this application is 24 acres of the 176 acre Hillcrest property. Again, the agreement concerning the lake is that the owner of the land would never lower the level of the lake and would never do anything to decrease the size of the lake by more than 20 percent. Mr. Cilimberg said this condition states that this applicant will not diminish the area of the lake at all. Mr. Wassenaar said the applicant intends to develop the property in three phases. The improvements to the road will happen immediately and be continu- ous throughout the project. It is his opinion that the critical issue before the Board should be preservation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is the only thing that makes sense and governs the planning of what happens in the County. The destruction of the Plan, as a viable means for development, would be an unmitigated disaster for the long term ability to control growth in the County. Before the Board tonight is a plan that is in every respect sensitive to the Plan, to zoning density and represents the least impact to the County. Mr. Wassenaar said in discussions with the County, they attempted to deal with the issue of impact fees and the physical impact relative to capital improvements. The applicant also provided an analysis. The total of what the staff feels is the impact of this project on the County is approximately $662,000. Looking strictly at the impact of this project, the applicant feels that the project, based on property tax values and revenues that will be added to the County, is approximately $162,000 per year. In the first year, this amount is short of the full impact. If he ran that calculation and looked at what that cash flow to the County will support, he finds that in the first year their contribution to revenues and to the debt capacity of the County from a capital improvements standpoint is approximately $1.4 million or about 2.1 times the first year's impact. That would effectively pay off the impact of the project through additional property tax revenues. In addition, using a normal increase in property values over the years, this project will add an additional $60,000 every year for the duration of its life. He feels this proposal is responsible from the standpoint of recognizing the County's cash needs, the developer's responsibilities, and is also in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Wassenaar was aware that it would cost the County $235,000 to educate the children from this development. Mr. Wassenaar said the $162,000 represents additional property tax revenue only. The total revenue stream from residents would add more to the tax base. The reason no cash proffer was offered is because they could not come up with a viable solution. If that becomes the issue, he will be disappointed because he thinks it is an unfair proposition. Next to address the Board, Mr. Rip Cathcart, said he and his partner Rob Turner, are the developer/applicants for this project. He is present to answer questions and to expand on some of the previous comments. He is in the apartment business in the local area. Recognizing a strong need for middle income rental property on the south side of town, he began searching for a site about a year ago. He spent considerable time analyzing this 24 acres with respect to suitability as a residential housing rental complex, and with respect to impact on its surroundings and its impact on Albemarle County. He contacted all of his future neighbors, Calvary Baptist Church, Piedmont Virginia Community College, Tandem School, Mill Creek, and showed and discussed his plans with these people and they have all been fully supportive. This project will not aggravate the traffic situation on Route 29 North. The area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for high density residential use. The first phase of the project will include 90 to 100 units. The request for 360 units is to provide them with some flexibility. They propose to build 270 to 320 units. The project is for middle income people which he defines as a household income from $18,000 to $35,000 per year. The rents will be in the upper $400's for one-bedroom units and the $700 range for a three-bedroom apartment or townhouse. They intend to provide housing for a broad range of types of people. They are not just building one bedroom units for single people or two bedroom units for graduate students. They are building one- bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom garden-style apartments, and two and three bedroom townhouses. They intend on targeting singles, families, gradu- ate students and retired people. This is definitely not a low income project. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 26 (Page 14) He feels that they will be providing the best value in terms of rental property in the area. They will offer an apartment complex for an active lifestyle where people will have an opportunity to enjoy the facilities without having to join a health club. They are offering a life style of convenience for anyone who works in the downtown area. The rising costs of buying homes in the County has made it impossible for a large segment of the population to purchase a home. Comparable rental housing in the County is filled up. In doing his feasibility survey, he found that there were a large number of apartment renters who work in the downtown area. He met with several of these people and found that many of them rent in locations that are considerably further from the downtown and University areas than Lakeside Apartments will be. These people would like to see good quality rental housing available close to the downtown area. It is important that careful consideration be given to proximity of housing to employment centers. Lakeside Apartments is less than two miles from the downtown area and less than two and one-half from the University area. Mrs. Humphris asked where the additional 33 units would go if the maximum 360 units were built. Mr. Wassenaar said the number of proposed larger units would be reduced to one or two bedroom units. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said he thinks the bottom line is fiscal impact versus the Comprehensive Plan. He supports the Plan, but the Board has nothing in place that concretely and substantively covers impact fees. This project is not going to be built overnight. Although the proposal has problems, he thinks this is a viable plan. Overall the general concept is within the confines of the Plan. Mr. Way said he concurs with Mr. Bain's statement. This project is within the guidelines of what the Board has set out for the community. He does feel that condition #4 needs to be clarified. Mr. Bowie suggested adding the word "area" after lake to read "... the lake area shall not be reduced more than 20 percent in area." Mr. Cilimberg commented that this applicant does not have control over the entire lake area so he suggests that the condition read: "Staff approval of maintenance agreement for dam to include a provision that the lake shall not be reduced in area by the applicant." Mr. Bowie asked if this applicant owns the entire dam. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no". Mr. Bowie disagreed with the recommended wording. He is not sure he will support the application, but the maintenance agreement is part of the approval of the application and he has no problem with saying the lake area will not be reduced. Mrs. Humphris said she is frustrated that time and time again the Board is faced with having to make a decision without the proper tools. It is frustrating that proffer guidelines are not in place. She is a strong suppor- ter of the Comprehensive Plan, but she also knows that it is not intended that everything in the Plan will be built tomorrow or next year. It is a long range plan. It is possible that this project is the right thing for this piece of property, but she thinks concern for the taxpayers must be shown. This project will cost the taxpayers money and this Board is the one represent- ing the taxpayers. The Plan is a long-term plan and the timing of how it is implemented is important. There are some proffers with this petition, but they do not translate into money that will help the taxpayers. If the Board to allow this development, to go along with the Comprehensive Plan, to take pity on the people who cannot afford to purchase a home, to get traffic off of Route 29 North, and all of those words that were used to push buttons tonight, it is saying to the taxpayers that the Comprehensive Plan is so important that this project just has to be done although this rezoning will cost you money. She thinks the applicant knows the County needs the money to pay for this project and she thinks it is a poor excuse that no dollar proffer has been made just because "there is nothing concrete in place". She thinks the Board needs to look at what the County is getting and what it is giving in return. The County is getting a high density residential project which may be beneficial for that piece of property. In return the project will cause overcrowding in the schools and cause a significant increase in traffic. This rezoning also gives the applicant an extremely valuable piece of property. She likes the idea, but it is going to cost the taxpayers money to support the project, not only in capital needs, but every year in services provided to the development. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 26 Mr. Bowerman said he does not disagree with the statements made by Mrs. Humphris, but this Board cannot sit here and wring its hands because it does not have the necessary tools. He cannot justify voting again this project when he voted for the low and moderate income housing project on Route 20 North and voted for the Barclay project in Crozet, both of which were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He has consistently looked at the Plan as the tool by which the Board asks developers to abide. He feels the cannot vote against the Plan when it is not suitable. He has a diffi- cult time voting against this application when it meets all the criteria for rezoning and meets the public health, safety and welfare. Mrs. Humphris asked if an application can be denied if it has an unac- ceptable fiscal impact. Mr. St. John replied "yes". That is a finding the Board would have to make. Although it is true that the Board does not have a fiscal impact study in place, if it were in place, all that would do is provide the Board with the certainty about the figures. The Board would still have to decide which to give more importance to, the Comprehensive Plan or the fiscal impact. Mrs. Humphris said she believes the Board will never get a cash proffer from a developer as long as it keeps approving rezonings without one. Mr. Bowie said he does not believe the Comprehensive Plan mandates that there be thousands of acres of high density. The Plan says there must be growth in the County and this is the least objectionable way to do it. If it must happen, this is where it should be. He is not sure he would even support the concept of proffered zoning because it "smells" too much like selling rezoning. No matter how much money is offered, if the project does not look like a good idea for the County, he thinks it should be denied. Either the project is a good idea or not. He gets tired of hearing that the Board wants certain things because they are shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bain said he would rather have the rezoning where there are public facilities in place rather than 25 miles from Charlottesville. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way to approve ZMA-90-09 subject to the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with an amendment to condition #4 to read: "Staff approval of maintenance agreement for dam to include a provision that the lake area shall not be reduced more than 20 percent." Mr. Perkins suggested that the condition be "total lake area". Mr. St. John said this developer only owns a portion of the lake. The devel- oper is willing to state that the area shown as his part of the lake will never be diminished. He has no control over the other portion of the lake. The Board has no say in the contract between the applicant and Dr. Hurt. The applicant has standing to enforce that contract. He suggests adding a condi- tion that the lake level and the area of the lake will not be reduced. That will insure that even if the total area is reduced 20 percent, the reduction will not take place on the applicant's shoreline. Mr. Way asked what happens if the applicant decides to change his maintenance agreement with Dr. Hurt. Mr. Bowie asked how half a dam can be maintained. Mr. St. John said he does not know how half a dam can be maintained because it is no good if only one side is being maintained. Mr. St. John then suggested other language that the applicant will take no action to reduce either the area or level of the lake as shown on his property and will enforce his contract with the owner of the other half of the lake to prevent any reduction in area of more than 20 percent. The 20 percent is measured by 20 percent of the whole lake, not just of the other side of the lake. Mr. Bain asked why the 20 percent is being considered. Why not just state that what is shown on the plan will not be reduced? Mr. St. John said he has no problem with that language. Mr. Bain suggested the following language for condition #4: "Staff approval of mainte- nance agreement for dam to include a provision that the total lake level and lake area on this plan shall not be reduced." Mr. Bowerman asked about the private access. He has a problem with a private access being a connection between two public roads. That is clearly a parking lot which could develop as a thoroughfare. Mrs. Humphris said a similar situation exists at Old Salem Apartments on Barracks Road. Although there is a designated entrance and an exit, people choose to use the exit as an entrance just because it is more convenient. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) There is no turn lane and it creates an extreme hazard. It bothers her that this is going to be an attractor for traffic. It will definitely be a short cut for a lot of people. Mr. Bowerman suggested adding a condition that at such time as the connection is made this entrance be blocked. Mr. St. John asked if VDoT will take into the state system a road that serves only a rental complex. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no". Following some more discussion on wording of the condition, Mr. Way said he has no problem with adding a condition #7 as follows: "The southern entrance road to the future connector road to be closed off at such time as the connector road is accepted into the State Secondary Highway System." Mr. Bain seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Humphris. (The conditions of approval are as follows:) Development shall be in accord with plan dated July 18, 1990, revised September 10, 1990, titled Lakeside Apartments, pages 1-3; The applicant agrees to reserve for dedication, upon demand of the County, a 50 foot right-of-way from Route 742 to Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. The applicant agrees to construct a 40-foot curb to curb, cross-section running approximately 500 feet perpendicular to Route 742 and then approximately 520 feet parallel to Route 742. Costs incurred in having the road accepted into the state system shall not be borne by the applicant unless the need for dedication is generated by this development; Recreational facilities shall be for the use of the residents and guests of Lakeside Apartments only; Staff approval of maintenance agreement for dam to include a provision that the total lake level and lake area on this plan shall not be reduced; A 15-foot pedestrian access easement shall be provided adjacent to the lake for the benefit of the residents of the Lakeside Development; 6. Administrative approval of final plans; The southern road entrance to the future connector road to be closed off at such time as the connector road is accepted into the State Secondary Highway System. Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-90-07. Entrance Corridor Overlay District and Architectural Review Board. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 30.0, Overlay Districts, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to add an Entrance Corridor Overlay District; and to add a new Section 34A.1, Architectural Review Board. (Deferred from September 19, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg said there were a lot of concerns at the last Board meeting about what the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District was accomplishing for the County. The staff was directed to work with the Planning Commission to structure an ordinance that would be more definitive and have more "teeth" in terms of how it dealt with proposed development design along corridors. The Commission devoted eight hours last week in two work sessions to this issue. The Commission did make substantial changes to what was originally presented to the Board. A strong emphasis needs to be placed on corridor planning and the need for corridor plans that provide guidelines along individual corri- dors. Some Commission members preferred the original ordinance because it left administration of the EC Overlay District to the Commission and limited its provision to general site plan consideration rather than design and architecture control. This ordinance before the Board would be administered October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 27 (Page 17) by an Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB would rely on definitive design guidelines which are not provided with this ordinance. Some general guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan have been provided. The original ordinance was designed for administration by the Commission, and to also be consistent with some of the preliminary regulations being developed by the City of Charlottesville. The County staff has been working with City staff to identify some general entrance corridor guidelines. Joint efforts regarding corridor planning may end up being a City/County/University coordinated effort. If the Board adopts the proposed ordinance, staff recommends that the effective date of the EC Overlay District be a future date in order to allow the ARB time to develop interim guidelines for recommendation and then appro- val by the Board. The design orientation of the ordinance will require staff assistance for the ARB. He added that the Planning Department has neither the time available at the present or the expertise to provide that kind of staff- ing. He then presented a map which outlined the routes proposed for the EC Overlay District. Mr. Bowerman asked what is meant in Section I of the Design Standards: "Protect vistas to and from historical buildings and areas when development occurs." It seems to him that could be about anywhere looking at anything. Mr. Cilimberg said one of the concerns was any development being visible from a registered landmark. He thinks this was a general statement intended to recognize the fact that there are a number of historical areas and buildings in the County and that protecting those areas and buildings and the vistas to those areas is important. Like many of the standards, this is not clearly definitive. Mr. Bowerman asked if it could vary from corridor to corridor. Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes". Mr. Agnor said he is not certain how the Board plans to proceed, but Mr. Cilimberg made a comment in his presentation that the staff was unofficially working with the City in coordinating entrance corridor planning. There has been no real official coordination with either the City or University. It has been suggested to him that an ordinance of this magnitude-should be reviewed by the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) Technical Committee. He thinks this ordinance should be cycled through the PACC Technical Committee and brought back through the Planning Commission to the Board. The public hearing was opened. First to address the Board was Mr. Blake Hurt, a real estate developer. He is against ugly buildings and for attrac- tive buildings. He has great concerns about this ordinance because as a professional real estate developer and as a self-taught architect, he likes to think he knows what he is doing and he does not need an ARB to tell him what to do. He thinks this draft of the EC Overlay District Ordinance is much improved from the original draft, but it suffers from: 1) having too many roads; 2) too much authority; and 3) too little direction and use of that authority. The ordinance needs to be improved. As an example, he lives on Route 20 North in Franklin Subdivision. He has built a lot of houses in Franklin. Across from him is the historic Franklin house which was built for the son-in-law of Benjamin Franklin. The houses that he has built in the neighborhood, including his own, do not match the white clapboard siding of the historic Franklin house. Their houses are visible and he thinks they do match in terms of proportion and aesthetic appeal. The value of the houses in the area is in excess of $250,000. Nevertheless, under this ordinance, the subdivision would not be what it is today. In fact, he is Chairman of the ARB for Franklin Subdivision. He serves without any committee members. His rules are fairly simple. Those people who want to buy a lot and build 'a house have to show him their plans. He then tells them the outside of the house must have cedar siding, be earth toned and have an expensive roof. It is an architectually harmonious neighborhood and one that is not troubled with a lot of eyesores. If this ordinance was applied in Franklin, it would have resulted in several problems. His house, which is located across from historic Franklin would have to look like Franklin. Most of Franklin is built on sharp hills and in crevices. The area around Franklin was flattened and the house itself built on a little hill top. In order to preserve topography in the area, he did not want to cut off the tops of hills. He wanted to match the topography. This ordinance says he has to preserve the historic views, distance and match the compatibility of the house next door. This ordinance does not have guidelines. If he was sitting on a newly appointed ARB, with no concept of how to implement this ordinance, he would say "here is a historic house and I want all houses around it to look similar." Second, there are six houses October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 27 (Page 18) visible to Route 20 in Franklin and fewer that are visible from the historic Franklin. There are 45 units in the subdivision. The 45 houses are not visible from Route 20 or historic Franklin, but under this ordinance, they would have to qualify in every architectural detail. He thinks these regula- tions should not be rushed and should be crafted a little bit more carefully so that the intent to have an attractive corridor is met. He thinks the other houses in the subdivision should not have to look like the one at the entrance and this ordinance would require that. Next, this ordinance requires that before he can get final site plan approval, he has to present 45 sets of plans telling the ARB what the subdivision will look like. He does not want to do that. Houses are being built in Franklin at a rate of three or four a year. Over a ten year period, he will change the size and shape to match the charac- teristics of the market place. This ordinance will not allow that because before he can get his final site plan to build his first house, he has to tell the ARB what the last house will look like. That rushes the development and forces a homogeneity of the subdivision that is probably going to be ugly. If he does not tell the ARB what all of the houses look like at the beginning, then he has to come back before the ARB again. Why should unseen houses suffer the same regulatory delay as houses that are part of the corridor? Is the ARB going to require that he have 45 architectural plans completed prior to the site plan and in what detail will he have to complete those plans? Do these houses all have to look like the historic Franklin house? How does he as a builder change his design to fit the marketplace over a period of time? These guidelines have problems. He recommends the following: 1) The Board choose only four roads from the 16 roads listed and decide how detailed the criteria will be; 2) Phase in the authority of this ARB. It takes time for a new board to get an idea of what its job is. Those lessons are learned at the expense of the developer. Since the ARB is going to dictate what the aesthe- tics of the County will be, it should have experience before starting. He suggests that there be a one-year period where all certificates of approval are automatic. Even though the developer has to come before the ARB and shOw the plans, they will be automatically approved; and 3) Instruct the ARB in the ordinance that during the first year the architectural guidelines be formu- lated for each route and that there be plenty of community participation. This should be a group effort. Without good clear guidelines, an ARB could end up with confusing and ineffective regulations which would result in developers coming before this Board and this Board then becoming the ARB. Mr. Herman Key, representing the Independence Resource Center, said his main concern was the exemption of ramps and handicapped access being incorpo- rated into the ARB realm of responsibilities. The present system has been effective in making sure that ramps and handicapped accessibility are incor- porated into new buildings as well as renovations. This has the potential for several problems such as increased costs to the developer in terms of trying to develop something that is aesthetically pleasing as well as creating a time lag. As a person who is in a wheelchair, he is more concerned with seeing ramps constructed than seeing something aesthetically pleasing. He would like some language to insure that there be some committed effort to provide handi- capped accessibility. Next to address the Board, Ms. Helen Schwiesow, Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Cox~ittee for Citizens for Albemarle and a resident of the Samuel Miller District, said the Committee appreciates what the Board is attempting to do. The Committee sees the creation of a historic preservation plan, along with the adoption of a historic preservation ordinance, as inte- grally tied to the intent of both the EC ordinance and creation of an ARB. Citizens of Albemarle urges the appointment of a separate historic preserva- tion committee by the Board to work on specific historic preservation objec- tives, while the ARB addresses its initial tasks related to the EC ordinance. Members of this committee would be pleased to serve on an officially appointed historic preservation committee for the County, together with any other members the Board would choose to appoint. She sees this committee as report- ing recommendations directly to the ARB and/or to Planning staff. She under- stands that current constraints do not allow for assignment of a Planning staff member to this project. Nevertheless, she believes that an appointed citizens committee could do a great deal to expedite achievement of the aims of historic preservation. Mr. Andrew J. Dracopoli, representing Worrell Investment Co., an owner of property on Route 250 East, said they are very affected by this ordinance, which he thinks addresses a lot of his original concerns, particularly changes October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 27 that relate to adding visibility language, that only buildings visible from the entrance corridor street would be covered by the EC ordinance even though they may technically be in the district, the same with sign regulations. He thinks that helps to eliminate a lot of the superfluous nature of the ordi- nance. He still has concerns with the language which states that the district extend the full depth of any lot that is contiguous to an entry corridor street even if it exceeds 500 feet. He thinks this is a slightly discrimina- tory provision. He does not think that people whose parcels run all the way to the entry corridor should be penalized. There are a lot of parcels 600 feet from an entry corridor which are not contiguous to the entry corridor so would not be governed by this and structures could be erected which would not be compatible with this ordinance. He expressed concerns about the timing of this ordinance. Last night there was an issue before the Planning Commis- sion about a proposal for development on Pantops Mountain which is of concern to Worrell Investment. This ordinance gives the Board the tools to do some- thing about that development, the Board does not have design guidelines in place and that is the one critical element to this ordinance. He understands that there is tremendous pressure to do something. If the Board adopts this ordinance effective immediately and creates an ARB, the ARB will be working in a vacuum. The ARB will have considerable guidelines on topography, vegeta- tion, but have no guidelines whatsoever about architecture, building design, roof materials, building materials, massing of buildings, etc. Once this ordinance is adopted, it becomes critical that guidelines be developed imme- diately and that they be developed on a corridor by corridor basis. He is also concerned that the ordinance has "sprouted wings". It seems like almost every road in the County has become a part of this ordinance whereas when it originally came up, it had only five or six roads. He would like to see it scaled back to just major roads. He has worked with the County and has tried to be constructive because he feels that the value of the Worrell property is inversely proportionate to the ugly buildings across the road. He supports the concept of this ordinance. He thinks there needs to be a few minor changes made with the understanding that design guidelines have to be deve- loped and that the ordinance alone will not solve all the problems. Site specific design guidelines must be developed. Mr. Raymond Haas, representing the University of Virginia, said the University supports the County's desire to improve entranceways. He thinks that the planning and land use agreement (PACC) is a valuable asset to the County. He can understand that there could be some sense of urgency about the passage of controls over entranceways and if that is the case, he would strongly recommend that the proposed ordinance be discussed at the next meeting of the PACC. If there is not a sense of urgency, then a mutually agreed upon set of policies, ordinances or statements could be developed jointly. This is a wonderful opportunity to work cooperatively and develop something that can be endorsed by everyone thus reducing the possibility of conflict between the three agencies in Area B and Area C. Again, he suggests that this ordinance go to the PACC for endorsement by all three bodies. Mr. Bowie said he would support sending the ordinance to the PACC for review. Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, representing the Piedmont Environmental Coun- cil, said with regard to Mr. Haas's comments, he does not think the PACC agreement requires that general ordinances of county-wide application have to be submitted to the PACC for review. He thinks it would be inconsistent with the agreement to apply this regulation to University property or Areas B or C without running that part through the PACC. He does not think adoption of the ordinance should be deferred until the PACC can review it. He agrees with the comments made by Mr. Dracopoli. With regard to the comments made by Mr. Hurt, Mr. Hurt was absolutely incorrect in almost everything he said. This ordi- nance does not apply to residential development. It only applies where a site plan is required which would not be the case with Franklin or any other subdivision. Most residential and agricultural structures are not going to be affected by the ordinance. The ARB must be established before this ordinance can be implemented. The proposed ordinance allows the preservation of natural features. The ordinance does nothing with respect to building size, shape or orientation until the guidelines are approved by this Board. He knows that the staff worked hard on the ordinance and tried to incorporate comments from the many people who expressed interest in development of the ordinance. He sensed that the Commission had some concern about the time under which they October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) had to operate, but were generally pleased with the finished project. He thinks staff and the Commission should be commended for doing a terrific job in a short period of time. If this ordinance is in place and there is an ARB, even without the guidelines, this ordinance will allow some control over the site for the proposed project on Pantops. He thinks the Board needs to be careful with respect to proffers. If a developer proffers something with respect to this ordinance and if the Board accepts those proffers, the prof- fers take precedence over the ordinance. That also applies to sketches and plans submitted as part of the proffer. There is nothing in this ordinance which would allow the kind of detailed review and mandating of architecture criteria Mr. Hurt suggested. He thinks these guidelines speak more to site development, orientation and shape of buildings. He added that Mr. Dan Jordan, Director of Monticello, could not be present tonight and asked that he inform the Board that he supports the adoption of this ordinance and particu- larly the inclusion of Route 20 South. He urges the Board to consider adopt- ing as interim guidelines this proposed ordinance. It will take months of work to come up with definitive guidelines for even one corridor. This interim authority would give the ARB the authority to review development projects while they are developing the guidelines. There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie asked if the guidelines developed by the ARB will come back before this Board. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes". Mr. Bowie asked if there is anything the ARB can do to prevent handicapped accessibility. Mr. Cilimberg responded no. There was some wording in the original version that would have excluded ramps from review procedures. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 30.0, Overlay Districts, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to add an Entrance Corridor Overlay District; and to add a new Section 34A.1, Architectural Review Board. Mr. Bowie noted a letter received from Mr. Daniel P. Jordan, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, stating Monticello's endorsement of the proposed EC Overlay District and commending the County for its initiative in bringing forward this positive preservation measure. Mr. Bowerman then seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board may be creating a monster. There are a lot of things in this ordinance. It makes so many references to other codes and sections, that someone needs a state code book to see what every- thing refers to. Mr. St. John said if this ordinance is enacted and made effective immedi- ately, then no final site plan can be approved until a certificate of appro- priateness has been issued by the ARB. That would be a problem if no ARB is appointed soon. He does not feel that staff can hold certificates on site plans for any substantial length of time. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Board should be able to appoint an ARB in a reasonable length of time. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Board set the appointments for November 14. Mr. Bowie asked if the ordinance could be enacted and it be stated that the provisions which require approval of the ARB are waived until there is an ARB. Mr. St. John replied "yes". Mr. Cilimberg said if the ordinance is adopted effective immediately and someone submits an application to the Zoning Admini- strator tomorrow, the ARB would have to act within 60 days of that submittal or the application is deemed to be approved. It would be simpler for the Board to establish an effective date for the ordinance and after that date the default mechanism would kick in. Mr. Bowie said he would rather adopt the ordinance and let the default mechanism just kick in. Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bowie. Mrs. Humphris said her motion stands as stated. Mr. Way said he has a serious problem with Section 34A.1. He is vio- lently opposed to the creation of committees that tell him who he has to put on the committee. He thinks this Board is capable of deciding that it needs a licensed architect and a landscape architect. He has no problem with those people being on the ARB, but he does not want it to be mandated. He has no problem with creating an ARB, but he thinks the first thing that is going to October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 27 (Page 21) happen is that this Board will have to start hiring staff. He is not sure he ms willing to commit to this project in the next budget cycle. He understands that it is important, but he would prefer to see the process slow down a bit. Mr. Bowie said he shares Mr. Way's concerns about staff, but the number of roads shown on the list are there at the request of the people. He has had numerous phone calls from people asking him to add their road to the list. He has no problem with deleting the references to a licensed architect and a landscape architect. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it would be cynical of this Board if it thought this ordinance was needed and then was not willing to give funds to get it in place in a reasonable period of time. This ordinance has been needed for a long time. Initially, all the ARB will be looking at are site characteristics, topography, vegetation, etc. Until the ARB is appointed and drafts corridor design standards, the Board will not be able to apply regula- tions to that corridor. This ordinance gives the Board the tools to start dealing with some of the issues it has been complaining about. He thinks that the concerns Mr. Haas raised with respect to the PACC are legitimate concerns and the PACC Technical Committee should review the ordinance. However, he does not think the County proceeding with adoption of this ordinance at this point precludes the three-party agreement. He does not think the concerns raised by Mr. Hurt will be in evidence until this Board begins to deal with approving the recommendations of the ARB. He thinks there are ample protec- tive elements in the ordinance to allow modification in the future. Also, this Board must make a decision about priorities. Mrs. Humphris said the words used by Mr. Haas when he said "unless there was a sense of urgency" reminds her that she does feel a strong sense of urgency. This ordinance is long overdue. She thinks the Board needs to adopt this ordinance tonight and deal with the questions at a later date. Mr. Cilimberg clarified for that Virginia Route 631 should be Virginia Route 631 South. Mr. Perkins said he has the same concerns as Mr. Way about creating more bureaucracy. He does not deny that there is some need for this ordinance and that the white "Taj Mahal" on Pantops Mountain indicates that need, but the Board has to remember that architects also designed that building. He does not think there has to be an architect on the ARB. He thinks the people selected to serve on the ARB should be knowledgeable and have some common sense. Mrs. Humphris said there is a need for specific expertise on this Board, somebody who understands plans and drawings and knows the terminology. Mr. Perkins said the Board is not going to get that from architects; "Just look at our own school buildings". Mr. Way said this Board should not continue to appoint people to boards to vote on issues who have self interests. He will not support this ordinance if that language remains in the ordinance. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it is important that all of the Board members agree to the ordinance and then amended her motion to delete the first sentence in the second paragraph of Section 34A.1 relative to requiring the appointment of a licensed architect and a landscape architect to the ARB. As seconder, Mr. Bowerman agreed with the amended motion. Mr. Cilimberg said this language was drafted at a time when it was anticipated that the ARB would also be administering a historic preservation district. Membership was to coincide with requirements of the Historic Landmarks Commission's certification of local government programs so the County's ARB would be assured of meeting those requirements. Mr. Way said he still objects to the language. Mr. Perkins asked why the=e are not six members on the ARB. Ail of the magisterial districts have entrance corridors. Mrs. Humphris said she does not think there should be district appointments so the Board can choose whomever is the best choice, regardless of where they live geographically in the County. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board members should come up with names county-wide and vote on those names. Mr. Bain agreed. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 27~ (Page 22) AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. : None. (The Ordinance as adopted and the Entrance Corridor Design Standards are set out below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 30.0 - OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND TO ADD SECTION 34A - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted ~o add a new Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District - EC, and new Section 34A, Architectural Review Board, as follows: 30.6 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT - EC 30.6.1 INTENT The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural control of development; to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism; to support and stimu- late complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural significance, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and visitors thereto. 30.6.2 APPLICATION The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter referred to as EC) is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: -Along arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Code, including section 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the board of supervisors to be signi- ficant routes of tourist access to the county; or -To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by section 15.1-430(b) of the Code; or -To designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district and/or other overlay district. EC overlay dis- tricts are hereby established: To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of section 30.6 of this ordinance which are contiguous to the rights-of'way of the following EC streets in Albemarle County; or To a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the rights- of-way, whichever shall be greater, along the following EC streets in Albemarle County: October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 30.6.3 30.6.3.1 30.6.3.2 30.6.4 27 1. U.S. Route 250 East. 2. 'U.S. Route 29 North. 3. U.S. Route 29 South. 4. Virginia Route 20 South. 5. Virginia Route 631 South. 6. U.S. Route 250 West. 7. Virginia Route 6. 8. Virginia Route 151. 9. Interstate Route 64. 10. Virginia Route 20 North. 11. Virginia Route 22. 12. Virginia Route 53. 13. Virginia Route 231. 14. Virginia Route 240. 15. U.S. Route 29 Business. 16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass; 3. Where this district overlays an SA-highway district, the parking and building setback regulations of the SA-highway district shall apply. In all other regards, the provisions of this section shall apply. PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted by right in any EC overlay district: a. Uses permitted by right shall include all uses permit- ted by right in the underlying districts except as herein otherwise provided. BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT a. Uses permitted by special use permit shall include all uses permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts; b. Uses permitted by right pursuant to section 30.6.3.1, any portion thereof which would be visible from an EC street, involving outdoor storage, display and/or sales. This provision shall not apply to residential, agricultural or forestal uses. AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK REQUIRE- MENTS; HEIGHT REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except where the provisions of this section require provision of improvements or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and rural preservation development, minimum yard, and setback requirements, and height regulations shall be as provided by the underlying October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) district, except that the following provisions and limita- tions shall apply to any development or portion thereof which shall be visible from a designated EC street. 27 30.6.4.1 For any development subject to approval under section 32.7, site development plan, of this ordinance, the commission shall not approve any final site development plan unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8, as the case may be, for all buildings and improvements shown thereon. Such certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the proposed development as to conditions of issuance and shall state that the proposed development as may be modified by conditions of issuance is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. In making such determination as to consistency with design guidelines, the architectural review board may specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limita- tions as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of this ordinance. 30.6.4.2 Regulations of section 32.7.9, landscaping and screening requirements, shall apply within any EC overlay district except that: In addition to the provisions of section 30.6.4.1, the architectural review board may require specific land- scaping measures in issuance of a certificate of appropriateness, as the same may be related to insuring that the proposed development is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific BC street. Existing trees, wooded areas and natural features shall be preserved except as necessary for location of improvements as described in section 32.5.6.n, provided that the architectural review board may authorize additional activity upon finding that such activity will equally or better serve the purposes of this ordinance. Such improvements shall be located so as to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from EC streets to the extent such practi- ces are authorized under the adopted design guidelines. The certificate of appropriateness shall indicate the existing features to be preserved pursuant to the preceding paragraph; the limits of grading or other earth disturbance (including trenching or tunnelling); the location and type of protective fencing; and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree walls. No grading or other earth-disturbing activity (includ- ing trenching or tunnelling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded areas nor intrude upon any other existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation. Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of existing features shall be clearly and visibly deline- ated on the site prior to commencement of any grading October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 27 or other earth-disturbing activity (including trenching or tunnelling) and no such disturbing activity or grading or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within such area. The visible delineation of all such existing features shall be maintained until the comple- tion of development of the site. In addition, an applicant for development subject to the provisions of section 30.6, shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the designated agent of the commission to further insure that the specified existing features will be protected during development. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particu- lar case, such checklist shall conform to specifica- tions contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through III-297. 30.6.5 SIGN REGULATIONS 30.6.5.1 GENERAL REGULATIONS No sign which would be visible from any EC street shall be erected, established or located without issuance of a certificate of appropriateness by the architectural review board. The location, configuration, design, materials and color of all signs and structures shall be encouraged to be in character with the historical and environmental setting of Albemarle County, and section 30.6.1, intent, of this section. No sign shall visually dominate the structure to which it is attached and shall be architecturally harmonious with the surrounding structures. Indirect lighting shall be encour- aged. With the exception of temporary event, auction, trespass, political and six (6) square feet or less sale or rental signs, signs proposed to be visible from any designated EC street shall be reviewed as provided in this section. Ail signs subject to review under this section shall be processed as follows: The applicant shall submit to the zoning administrator two (2) copies of sign drawings at a scale not smaller than one (1) inch equals two (2) feet; The zoning administrator shall transmit one (1) copy to the architectural review board within five (5) calendar days from the date of application; Thereafter, the application shall be processed in accord with section 30.6.7, administration, of this ordinance; Except as otherwise limited in a specific case pursuant to the provisions of section 30.6.4, the following types of signs shall comply with yard or setback regulations of the underlying district: Auction sign Directional sign Identification sign Location sign Political sign Sale or rental sign Subdivision sign Temporary event sign Trespass sign 30.6.5.2 REGULATION OF NUMBER, HEIGHT, AREA, TYPES OF SIGNS The following regulations shall be in addition to section 4.15.3, generally, and shall be further limitation on 28 October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) regulations contained in section 4.15.3.6 and section 4.15.3.7, specifically: The aggregate sign areas allowed for freestanding business, projecting business, business wall, loca- tional and directional signs shall be reduced by one-half (1/2) within EC overlay districts. Free-standing business and projecting business signs shall be limited to ten (10) feet in height above grade, eighteen (18) square feet per single sign face, and to one (1) sign per separate highway frontage. Business wall signs shall be limited to twenty (20) feet in height above grade, thirty-five (35) square feet per single sign face, and to one (1) sign per separate highway frontage. Business roof signs shall not be permitted within EC overlay districts. Locational signs shall be limited to ten (10) feet in height above grade, six (6) square feet per single sign face, and two (2) signs per establishment. 30.6.5.3 The provisions of section 30.6.5.2 notwithstanding, the architectural review board may reduce sign setback and/or increase sign size to a distance not less than nor an area not greater than allowable by the underlying zoning district upon finding that proposed location, configuration, design, materials and colors of such signage together with landscap- ing and screening proposals and other improvements would result in development of equivalent or superior harmony to the intent of the EC district in general as well as specific design recommendations for the particular EC street corri- dor. 30.6.6 NONCONFORMITIES; EXEMPTIONS 30.6.6.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the provi- sions of the EC overlay district which does not conform to the provisions of the EC overlay district shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of this ordinance. 30.6.6.2 No provisions of this section shall be deemed to preclude the zoning administrator from authorizing repair and main- tenance activities as set forth in section 6.2 upon deter- mination that the same would not be contrary to the intent of the EC district. 30.6.7 ADMINISTRATION Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be administered by an architectural review board created and appointed by the board of supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A, architectural review board, of this ordinance. The architectural review board shall be responsible for issuance of certificates of appropriateness as required by this section. Application for a certificate of appropri- ateness together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0, fees, of this ordinance shall be filed by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator. Materials submitted with theapplication or on subsequent request by the architectural review board shall include all plans, maps, studies and reports which may be reasonably required to make the determinations called for in the particular case, with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records. The zoning administrator shall 28 October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) forward the application together with all accompanying materials to the architectural review board within five (5) calendar days of the date of application. Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first class mail to each member of the commission and board of supervi- sors. No certificate of appropriateness shall be issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific location of development, including magisterial district, appropriate county office where the application may be reviewed and date of the architectural review board meeting. Upon receipt of an application, the architectural review board shall schedule the same for hearing and shall cause such notice to be sent as herein above required. The architectural review board shall confer with the applicant and shall approve or disapprove such application and, if approved, shall issue a certificate of appropriateness therefor, with or without conditions together with such modifications as deemed necessary to insure compliance with this section. Failure of the architectural review board to approve or disapprove such application within sixty (60) days from the date of application shall be deemed to consti- tute approval of the application. Nothing contained in section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district EC, shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the commission in its exercise of preliminary or final site development plan review as set forth in section 32.0, site development plan, of this ordinance. It is the express intent of the board of super- visors that matters related to public health and safety as may be defined by the con~nission shall prevail over issues of aesthetics as may be defined by the architectural review board. Therefore, the commission in its review of any preliminary or final site development plan may modify, vary or waive any requirement of the certificate of appropriate- ness as issued by the architectural review board upon finding that such action would better serve the public health or safety. 30.6.8 APPEALS The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discre- tion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration of this section may demand a review of the application by the board of supervi- sors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request there- for in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. In so doing, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such deci- sion to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) 28 decision is rendered by the board Of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person ag- grieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectur- al review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof. 34A 34A.1 34A.2 AI~CHIT~CTSRAL I~VI~W BOM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: APPOINTMENT AND ORGANIZATION There is hereby created an architectural review board consisting of five (5) members, who shall be appointed by the board of supervisors and shall have the powers and duties as set forth herein. All five (5) members shall be qualified residents of Albemarle County and shall have a demonstrated interest, competence or knowledge in architecture and/or site design. Members shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years and shall serve at the pleasure of the board of supervisors. Initial appointments shall be for two (2) members for four (4) years and three (3) members for two (2) years. The architectural review board may, from time to time, adopt such rules and regulations consistent with the ordinances of the county and the laws of the Commonwealth as it may deem necessary to carry out the duties imposed by this ordinance. The meetings of the board shall be held at the call of its chairman or at such times as a quorum of the board may determine. The board shall choose annually its own chairman and vice-chairman who shall act in the absence of the chairman. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact. Ail records of official actions shall become part of the perma- nent records of the board. A quorum shall be a majority of all the members of the board. Within the limits of funds appropriated by the board of supervisors, the architectural review board may employ or contract for such secretaries, clerks, legal counsel, consultants and other technical and clerical services as the architectural review board may deem necessary for trans- action of its business. The architectural review board shall have the authority to request the opinion, advice or other aid of any officer, employee, board, bureau or commis- sion of the county within the scope of his or its respective competence. Members of the architectural review board shall receive such compensation as may be authorized by the board of supervi- sors, from time to time, by ordinance or resolution. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD The architectural review board shall administer the provisions of section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, in accordance with duties as set forth in such district; and shall promulgate appropriate design standards for such districts for ratification by the board of supervisors; October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) b. The architectural review board may, from time to time, recommend areas for designation as EC overlay dis- tricts; c. The architectural review board shall be advisory to the commission, board of supervisors and board of zoning appeals in rezonings, special use permits, site devel- opment plans, subdivisions, variances and other matters within EC overlay districts. 28 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS INTENT - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS These standards apply to all EC street corridors in Albemarle County and are intended to provide a framework for design of development as may be visible from such corridors to ensure such development will be harmonious to and consistent with the statement of intent together with the regulations of Section 30.6 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DIS- TRICT (EC) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The Architectural Review Board, in reviewing a development for consis- tency with the standards shall be particularly mindful of the Board's intent that these standards be employed as guidelines only, not mandatory regulation. These standards are presented as recommenda- tions by employing the term "should" in their text. This permits substitution of alternative measures in a particular situation; however, an alternative should only be accepted upon demonstration that the public purpose and intent of the EC district would be satis- fied to an equivalent degree. The following GENERAL STANDARDS should be used to preserve scenic quality: A. Give priority to maintenance of existing vegetation adjacent to roadways when wooded areas are developed. B. Locate development on the edge of, or adjacent to, a wood line where it is less obtrusive than in an open area. C. Adapt development to the topography rather than unnecessarily modifying the topography and natural setting to accommodate development. D. When development occurs, retain trees on hillsides and ridge lines for screenings so as not to alter the visual character of the ridges. E. Locate structures at levels so as not to exceed the tree line of hillsides and ridges. F. Incorporate significant landscape features, both natural and man-made, into new site designs. G. Use plant species native to the region and best adapted to the climate to blend in with the surrounding landscape. H. Plant street trees along public roads. I. Protect vistas to and from historical buildings and areas when development occurs. J. Design public utility corridors to fit the topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities, when possible. Distribution lines should be placed underground. The following GENERAL STANDARDS should be used in areas of critical slopes: October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) A. Adapt development to the topography and natural setting of the County rather than modifying the topography and natural setting to accommodate development. Excessive grading, cutting, and filling should be discouraged while imaginative and sensitive design should be encouraged. B. Design public utility corridors to fit the topography. "Straight line" and "up and over" alignment in areas sensitive to such routing should not be permitted. The following GENERAL STANDARDS should be used in wooded areas: A. Protect wooded or partially wooded areas subject to development by limiting clearance of trees on the site to approved building site and access roads. 28 Provide the equivalent of ten trees per gross acre in open areas subject to development. Unless otherwise.required for purposes of screening or ornamentation, plantings should be indigenous species as recommended by the Virginia Division of Forestry. The following GENERAL STANDARDS are recommended to guide c~rcial development: Concentrate and cluster highway-oriented commercial activities to minimize traffic hazards and adverse visual impacts. Provide linear landscaped area along public roads and property lines. As a method of historic preservation and to utilize federal tax credits, make any conversion of qualifying historic buildings to commercial uses compatible to their historic character. The following GENERAL STANDARDS are recommended to guide industrial development: Locate industrial uses adjacent to compatible uses (commercial, public or other industrial, etc.) as opposed to residential or other sensitive area. Locate agricultural and forestal indus- tries convenient to the uses they support. Where an industrial use desires a location near a sensitive area, consideration should be given to transitional uses such as commercial offices. B. Address objectionable aspects of an industrial use through a combination approach including realistic performance standards, buffering and special setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. At the time of rezoning, the applicant should submit proposals to mitigate objectionable aspects. The following RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS are a basic framework in which to guide future development proposals. In application of these stan- dards, it should be recognized that substantial changes in the econo- my, housing market and housing industry warrant frequent review of these standards. A. Residential Densities It is intended that gross or overall housing densities be compat- ible with the local environment, the scale of public facilities and utilities available or planned, and the character of develop- ment in the vicinity. Net densities should be significantly higher than gross densities when feasible (i.e., clustering) in order to provide usable open space and visual amenities, and to protect the County's natural resources. B. Residential Development Design October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) 285 Preserve sensitive areas as open space; maintain trees and vegetation; consider siting for solar orientation; and orient residential development to the natural setting. These are virtual "no cost" factors,which tend to provide a more workable, efficient and pleasing living environment. Base design on a rational use of land reflecting topographic and other physical features and natural boundaries of the site, rather than imposing a rectilinear layout intended solely to satisfy minimum ordinance requirements. In larger developments, vary building orientation and setback, facade treatment, and lot size to avoid repetitive- ness. C. Residential Land Use Relationships Natural screening/buffering is preferable to artificial screening/buffering. Use of natural site features is the highest priority for providing screening/buffering. Because Interstate 64 is a limited access highway, interstate inter~ changes may be the primary focus for development activities. To accommodate appropriate land uses in the vicinity of certain inter- state interchanges while maintaining the safety and functional and aesthetic integrity of such interchanges, the following standards and policies are recommended: Maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity should be emphasized in review of applications for development. Such review should occur early in the development process (i.e., rezoning petition, special use permit application) and should address such matters as: control of access, use of service road or reverse frontage development; separation of access from inter- change ramps and other transportation planning concerns; land- scaping and buffering; setback; signage; building mass and height; and orientation in regard to aesthetic concerns. The Urban Area interchanges, particularly the Route 29/250 bypass and Route 250/Shadwell interchanges, serve as gateways to Charlottesville and the Urban Area and deserve particular atten- tion to desirable visual impact. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board desired to accept the efforts of Citi- zens for Albemarle's Historic Preservation Committee and if the Planning staff would be able to give them minimum input and guidance. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not want to get involved in staffing a committee. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that without staff participation there will not be the total resources available to come up with a workable and feasible plan. He thinks Citizens for Albemarle may be able to come up with a good plan, but he does not think that their plan would be reflective of all of the needs of the community. He would like to see their participation with others. Mr. Bowie said unless the Board has an objection, he will write a letter in response to Mr. Haas' letter of September 25. As he reads the PACC agree- ment, if the City and County are going to pursue a proposed regulation, it needs to go before the PACC before adoption. If that is not what the agree- ment means, then he feels the agreement needs to be renegotiated. Mr. Cilimberg said next week, at the joint meeting with the Commission, the Planning staff's work program will be an agenda item for this Board to look at. He thinks a historic preservation committee will ultimately need some close coordination with staff and will need to involve a wide variety of people. He does not want to discourage Citizens for Albemarle from what it is trying to accomplish. He suggests the group continue its work and the staff will make sure it gets into the work program next year. Ms. Schwiesow said the group has made an effort to some of the most knowledgeable individuals in the community. The Committee is not limited to just members of Citizens for Albemarle. This committee began with Citizens October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 28( (Page 32) for Albemarle but one of their founding members is Mr. Ed Lay, a very knowledge able person in this area who is not a member of Citizens for Albemarle. The group does not want to draft a one-sided, distorted ordinance. The group is trying to reach into the community and make direct contact with landowners. There was no further discussion at this time. Agenda Item No. 11. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Organization Agreement. Mr. Agnor said the final draft of the Rivanna Solid Waste Organization Agreement deletes the four-fifth's vote section. One addition is an attached Exhibit I which sets out those capital projects being anticipated to meet solid waste management needs. At its' meeting on Monday, October 1, City Council modified Paragraph 3.2, Transfer of Personnel, which originally transferred the employees of the Ivy Landfill into the state retirement system. City Council amended that paragraph to make those employee benefits equal to the City's retirement system. Mr. Bowie said Section 4.3, Specific Facility, is the section which provides for facilities such as Lickinghole Creek to be paid for by the requesting facility. The intent was that the facilities would be run by the Authority after construction. The agreement now states that the facility will be run by the County. That will not work. Ail tipping fees will go to the Authority and this states it will be operated at the County's expense. The words "and operate" should be deleted to read "... the Authority shall provide such requested facilities at the sole cost of the City or the County, as the case may be" and add the following sentence: "Once in place, the operation will be the responsibility of the Authority." Mr. Agnor said Section 4.1 references additional facilities, Section 4.3 is for a specific facility and he wonders if adding words to the beginning of Section 4.1 will cause confusion. Mr. Bain said he interpreted Section 4.1 as being subject to authorization by the governing bodies; in Section 4.3 it references authorization by only one body. Mr. Bain said it was his understanding that City Council recommended a change on Exhibit I. The first sentence should read: "... through tipping fees or otherwise." Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Mr. Bain said in Section 4.1, Additional Facilities, the second sentence reads: "...by the governing bodies of the Parties hereto and any additional jurisdictions..." He does not want any distinction in the future between what that referred to, meaning that it should refer to Section 4.3. Mr. St. John said it needs to be clarified that Section 4.1 has no bearing on Section 4.3. He then recommended deleting the language proposed by Mr. Bain in Section 4.1 and in Section 4.3 add at the beginning of the sen- tence: "Not withstanding the provisions of Section 4.1 in the event .... " Mr. Bain agreed with that recommended language. Mrs. Humphris said in Section 5.1, add a comma after "shall" in the second sentence to read: "The Authority shall, as soon as practical .... " Mr. Bain then offered motion to recommend adoption of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Organizational Agreement to City Council with the changes outlined above. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Designation of TJPDC as Regional Planning Body for Solid Waste Management. Mr. Agnor said the TJPDC is requesting area jurisdictions to request the State Department of Waste Management to designate the TJPDC as the regional planning body for developing a regional solid waste management plan. The preparation of a regional solid waste management plan is a major undertaking. The requirements of the State are similar to those the County and City had completed two years ago by an ICF Technology report. It is staff's opinion October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 2 (Page 33) that the County and City need only to update the data compiled in that earlier report, i.e., population projections, waste stream data, etc., which can then be integrated as part of the regional plan. The long range regional goals for waste disposal and recycling must be worked out with the member jurisdictions. Mr. Bowie asked if this obligates the County to any budgetary costs. Mr. Bain responded "no". Funding procedures have not been established. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution supporting designation of the TJPD as the regional planning body for the purpose of developing a Solid Waste Management Plan: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DESIGNATION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT AS REGIONAL PLANNING BODY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Whereas, the State Department of Waste Management is requiring each city, county, town, designated region, planning district or service authority to submit a Solid Waste Management Plan by July 1, 1991; and Whereas, the member governments of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission have a history of cooperation on solid waste issues as well as on environmental and related matters; and Whereas, there are mutual solid waste management interests and needs among the jurisdictions within the Thomas Jefferson Planning District; and Whereas, there exists for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District a data base of information on solid waste and other related data needed for solid waste management planning; and Whereas, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is capable under the Virginia Area Development Act of acting as the regional planning body for the governments within its boundaries; Therefore be it resolved that, the governing bodies designated below do hereby request of the Director of the Virginia Department of Waste Management designation of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District as the regional planning body for the purpose of developing a regional solid waste management plan. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr~ Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Choose Public Hearing Date in Crozet on Affordable Housing Project. Mr. Perkins said it has been suggested that a public hearing be held in Crozet to give the public an opportunity to express their feelings concerning the affordable housing project. Following some discussion of dates, the consensus of the Board was to meet on Monday, October 29, 7:30 P.M., at the new Crozet Elementary School. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: May 16, 1990. No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments: Rockfish Scenic River Committee. Mr. Way said he has received some additional information concerning the appointment to this Committee and asked that this item be deferred to the October 10 meeting. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 28 (Page 34) Mr. Bowie said the Board has received many applications for appointment to the Child and Youth Commission. He suggested that Board members individu- ally review the applications and choose seven to ten names and the Board will discuss the names from those lists at the October 10 meeting and decide on an interview process. Mr. Bowie requested the Clerk to advertise for applications for the Architectural Review Board. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Bowerman said November 21, which is a regular Board meeting, is the day before Thanksgiving and he suggested changing that meeting to November 28. The Board members were in agreement. Mr. Perkins said he received a phone call from Rev. Barbour, Pastor of the White Hall United Methodist Church, informing him that Habitate for Humanities is having a meeting at the VEPC0 building, located on Fifth Street at 1-64, on October 9, at 5:30 P.M., concerning housing. Habitate for Humani- ties is a private organization involved in developing affordable housing in communities. Mr. Bowie said he received a letter from the Mayor of our Sister City in Italy who will be in Charlottesville on October 18. The Mayor asked to meet with him and the Chairman of the School Board to discuss the Student Exchange Program. In the past, this Board has said that if the School Division would run the program then it would fund the program from the School budget. He asked if there was any change in the Board's position. There being no response from Board members, Mr. Bowie said he would reiterate the Board's position that the funding for the program should come out of the School budget. Mr. Bowie said on October 17 he sent a memo to all members of the Board concerning scheduling an Executive Session to discuss reorganization of the executive staff. Following some discussion, it was suggested that the Board meeting in Executive Session on October 16 at 2:00 P.M., with Mr. Tucker. Mr. Bowie said he thinks reduction in expenditures begins at the Board level. He thinks it is important that the County be represented at the Virginia Association of Counties' meeting, but he also suggests either limit- ing the number of Supervisors attending VACo at County expense or limiting the amount of money paid by the County. He suggests $175 per supervisor. Mr. Bain said he will attend the VACo meeting. He is on the Finance Committee. Mrs. Humphris said this is an important function and she thinks that Albemarle County needs to be well represented. VACo is the strongest arm the County has to work for it in Richmond and she thinks participation is impor- tant. She does not think participation should be discouraged in any way. She does not mind paying her entire way, but thinks it is ridiculous to do. This is their job. Mr. Bowie said the Board recently approved the County Execu- tive's recommendation that no more than one employee be allowed to attend a meeting at County expense. Rather than limiting the number of members attend- ing VACo, he would prefer that all go and limit the amount paid. Mrs. Humphri~ said she would prefer that the Board members be encouraged to attend. Mr. Bain said he is not in agreement with limiting the amount of money. He sees this as a function of the Supervisor's position and it is important that the Board be there in mass. Mr. Bowie said he feels amount paid per Supervisor should be limited. Mr. Bowerman also said he would be attending VACo. Mr. Perkins said he was not attending the VACo meeting this year. October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 28~ (Page 35) Mr. Bowie confirmed that only two Board members intended to take a tour of the Virginia Discovery Museum. Mr. Bowie announced that there will be a seminar on the 1990 census and redistricting on October 23. Mrs. Humphris asked that the discussion return to the VACo conference. She does not think this is fair. She is fairly conservative, but thinks the Board is carrying this to ridiculous extremes if the County cannot afford to send them to their own professional conference. This is the one conference all Board members should attend each year. She thinks Albemarle County should make its presence known. There was no other discussion. At 12:18 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn into executive session for discussion of legal matters (2.1-344.A.7) relating to the nativity scene, and personnel matters (2.1-344.A.1) relating to a specific individual. Roll was called and the ~motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 12:42 A.M. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following certification of executive session: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, difcussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. St. John explained that a bill has been received from Green and Rosenfield, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Nativity Scene Case in the amount of $62,257.38 for their legal services. He reconmnends that the bill be paid. Following some minor discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the following resolution approving payment of $62,257.38 from the General Fund Balance for legal services to plaintiffs in the Nativity Scene Case. FISCAL YEAR: 1990/91 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR NATIVITY SCENE CASE. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100011010310000 REVENUE PROF SERVICES-LEGAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION $62,257.38 $62,257.38 AMOUNT 2100051000510100 FUND BALANCE TOTAL $62,257.38 $62,257.38 October 3, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 29C (Page 36) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins that the County pay the expenses of Board members to attend the VACo annual meeting in November, 1990. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. There being no further business tO come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:48 A.M. CHAIRMAN