Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-08November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 8, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 9:06 A.M.), Mr. F. R. Bowie (arrived at 9:05 A.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:55 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jrt, County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept the consent agenda items for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. ~ Item 4.1. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for October 24, 1989, was received as information. Item 4.2. received as information as follows: GENERAL FUND 1989/90 REVENUES EST. REVENUE County Executive's Financial Report for September, 1989, RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES 47,205,381 2,205,563 COMMONWEALTH 4,030,235 628,778 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 182,370 ~i 0 TRANSFERS 876,508 · 0 TOTAL 44,999,818 - 4.67% 3,401,457 - 15.60% 182,370 - 0.00% 876,508 - 0.00% 52,294,494 2,834,341 49,460,153 - 5.42% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP iYTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH AND WELFARE EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL TOTAL 3,276,077 899,133 1,184,533 296,172 4,909,111 1,517,695 1,878,248 1511,358 3,291,121 !873,724 27,003,594 4,~46,834 1,846,106 ~65,460 1,419,881 ~44,902 3,522,797 ~55,608 3,963,026 35,477 2,376,944 + 27.45% 888,361 + 25.00% 3,391,416 + 30.92% 1,366,890 + 27.23% 2,417,397 + 26.55% 22,556,760 + 16.47% 1,080,646 + 41.46% 1,074,979 + 24.29% 3,367,189 + 4.42% 3,927,549 + 0.90% 52,294,494 9,846,363 42,448,131 + 18.83% November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) SCHOOL FUND REVENUES 216 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 504,313 157,732 346,581 - 31.28% 17,793,385 3,172,808 14,620,577 17.83% 357,600 0 357,600 0.00% 27,331,258 4,440,652 22,890,606 16.25% 45,986,556 7,771,192 38,215,364 16.90% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD INSTRUCTION ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT FACILITIES TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES 35,926,619 4,866,737 31,059,882 + 13.55% 1,632,075 511,704 1,120,371 + 31.35% 4,071,242 i,464,602 2,606,640 + 35.97% 3,883,929 i 971,565 2,912,364 + 25.02% 472,691 363,525 109,166 + 76.91% 45,986,556 81,178,133 37,808,423 + 17.78% 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 240,000 77,537 162,463 32.31% 527,040 0 527,040 - 0.00% 12,069,583 0 12,069,583 - 0.00% 2,607,670 0 2,607,670 - 0.00% 1,421,070 0 1,421,070 - 0.00% 16,865,363 77,537 16,787,826 - 0.46% EXPENDITURES 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 236, JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 29, PUBLIC SAFETY 569, PUBLIC WORKS 1,603, EDUCATION 12,303, PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 2,040, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 81, TOTAL OTHER FUNDS REVENUES 594 158,705 77,889 + 67.08% 908 0 29,908 + 0.00% 795 36,842 532,953 + 6.47% 494 218,427 1,385,067 + 13.62% 622 10,989,109 1,314,513 + 89.32% 031 683,207 1,356,824 + 33.49% 919 26,824 55,095 + 32.74% 16,865,363 1989/90 EST. REVENUE 12;113,114 RECEIPTS iYTD 4,752,249 + 71.82% BALANCE COLLECTED YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 CDBG-AHIP 0 T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530 CHAPTER I 510,628 CHAPTER II 51,893 MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000 MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200 FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0 0 10,000 i280,359 75,753 350 0 99,800 33,213 45,025 0 3,833 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 - 0.00% (10,000)+ 0.00% (280,359)+ 0.00% (75,753)+ 0.00% (350)+ o.oo% 0 - 0.00% (99,800)+ 0.00% (33,213)+ 0.00% 1,425,505 - 3.06% 510,628 - 0.00% 48,060 - 7.39% 49,000 - 0.00% 88,975 - 0.25% 0 0.00% 0 - 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) SLIAG PROGRAM 0 3,911 (3,911)+ 0.00% CBIP SEVERE 419,823 0 419,823 - 0.00% E. D. PROGRAM 557,501 0 557,501 - 0.00% COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 7,056 676,904 - 1.03% TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 0 22,130 (22,130)+ 0.00% MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 0 10,000 0.00% JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,061,246 420,196 1,641,050 20.39% JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 0 0 0 - 0.00% JOINT DISPATCH FUND 689,552 165,692 523,860 24.03% JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 191,730 8,366 183,364 4.36% JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND 0 50 (50)+ 0.00% STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 318,023 0 318,023 0.00% FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT 0 0 0 0.00% VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 11,289 56,446 - 16.67% DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,098,389 155,608 1,942,781 7.42% OTHER FUNDS TOTAL 9,269,210 1,342,856 7,926,354 - 14.49% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 2,879 (2,879)- 0.00% SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 8,637 (8,637)- 0.00% MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 243,356 (243,356)- 0.00% CDBG-AHIP 0 75,753 (75,753)- 0.00% T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 350 (350)- 0.00% GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 24,292 (24,292)- 0.00% FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 186,384 (186,384)- 0.00% DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 24,816 (24,816)- 0.00% FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530 97,627 1,372,903 + 6.64% CHAPTER I 510,628 57,759 452,869 + 11.31% CHAPTER II 51,893 7,735 44,158 + 14.91% MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000 9,388 39,612 + 19.16% MISC. SCHOOL CRANTS 89,200 7,418 81,782 + 8.32% FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 0 0 + 0.00% DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 0 0 + 0.00% DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0 0 0 + 0.00% ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0 0 0 + 0.00% SLIAG 0 1,755 (1,755)- 0.00% CBIP SEVERE 419,823 44,810 375,013 + 10.67% E D PROGRAM 557,501 30,695 526,806 + 5.51% COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 46,878 637,082 + 6.85% TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 0 220,424 (220,424)- 0.00% MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 0 10,000 + 0.00% JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,061,246 519,353 1,541,893 + 25.20% JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 0 992,980 (992,980)- 0.00% JOINT DISPATCH FUND 689,552 209,686 479,866 + 30.41% JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 191,730 24,019 167,711 + 12.53% JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND 0 0 0 + 0.00% STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 318,023 2,667 315,356 + 0.84% FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT 0 0 0 + 0.00% VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 11,289 56,446 + 16.67% DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,098,389 155,219 1,943,170 + 7.40% TOTAL 9,269,210 3,006,169 6,263,041 + 32.43% Item 4.3. Letter dated October 31, 1989, from Mr. Charles L. Conyers, Director, Division of Special & Compensatory Programs, addressed to Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent, re: approval of application for support under Chapter 1 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 100-297 for school year 1989-90, was received as information. Not Docketed: Mr. Way said he had requested a joint meeting with City Council in the afternoon of December 13 to discuss the Solid Waste Task Force report. City Council preferred a luncheon meeting at the Omni Hotel on November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) 218¥ December 19. He asked what Board members preferred. The consensus of the Board was that an afternoon meeting is more productive. The Board agreed on the afternoon of December 19 if that is suitable to City Council. Not Docketed: Mr. Way called to the attention of the Board a letter from the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors asking the Board to support a state- wide effort to convince members of the General Assembly to return a portion of lottery profits to the localities. He felt that some action should be taken during this meeting today. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: January 18(N), March 22 and April 5(A), 1989. October 19(A), 1988; No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Request to abandon a portion of State Route 629 (formerly Brown's Gap Road). Mr. Bain said he would abstain from the discussion since he is represent- ing the applicant in the acquisition of property. He then left the meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Edward H. Ripper, owner of property in the White Hall District, is requesting that the Board abandon a portion of Route 629 which runs through his property. Mr. Ripper has indicated that illegal activities are occurring on his property brought about by use of the road including: poaching, spotlighting of game, t~espassing, dumping, littering and the riding of all-terrain vehicles (ATV's) and motorcycles. Staff opinion is that abandoning the public right-of-way may deter some of these activities but would likely have little effect on trespa$sing, poaching, and littering. Mr. Cilimberg said there appears to be some confusion as to the current status of the roadway. Mr. Ripper has requested that the Board abandon the rights of the public and that the Virginia Department of Transportation discontinue maintenance of the remaining port~on north of the "end of state maintenance" sign. Mr. Ripper has placed a g~te and a "no trespassing" sign on the road. Without abandonment of the road~ there would be some question as to the legality of that gate. ~ Mr. Cilimberg noted that this road was u~ed during the Civil War and has some historic significance. The objective of~ithe Comprehensive Plan includes preservation of historic as well as scenic an~ natural resources. He pointed out that this road provides hiking access to ~he Shenandoah National Park. For residents of Albemarle County, that may b~ the most significant point concerning this road. He said that two representatives from the National Park Service are present to speak to the issue of access to the Park. They are interested in maintaining access to the Park {or the public, even though they are sympathetic to Mr. Ripper's concerns over ?illegal uses on his property. Mr. Cilimberg said this road also provides access to utility companies for access to the Park. ~ Mr. Cilimberg summarized by saying that ~r. Ripper's situation is not uncommon in remote areas of the County. As a =~property owner he has the right to post and gate his property at the limits of the public right-of-way. However, staff's preliminary review indicates =ithat there is a substantial public interest in maintaining public access t~!o the Shenandoah National Park which would outweigh the proprietary interest !!of the individual property owner in this case. Therefore, staff recommends that this public right-of-way remain in public use. Unless Mr. Ripper can p~?esent evidence that public use of any portion of .the roadway has been abandoned, staff opinion is that the existing gate and trespass signs may be illega~illy placed. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:55 A.M.) Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, commented on the portion of road from the end of state maintenance to the Albemarle County border. He said when the Department of Transportation too~ over the Secondary System of Highways in 1932, there was a road which appea~s to be in this general loca- tion which ran from Route 810 to the County bo~der at the top of the mountain. He said the Shenandoah National Park was creat&d after that date, and it does November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) not show on the map he reviewed. He said a 1945 map shows the road at its current length, which indicates that some time between 1932 and 1945, some action was taken on the upper portion of the roadway. Mr. Roosevelt has found no record of what that action was. To his knowledge, the County has retained the authority to abandon and discontinue roadways since 1932. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors' records between 1932 and 1945 should contain any action taken by the Board. Mr. Sandy Reeves, Management Assistant at the Shenandoah National Park, came forward to speak. He said the Park staff has researched the access in question. He reported that Mr. Ripper has b~en a good neighbor and has worked with the Park to prevent illegal use of the Park. He added that the Park certainly opposes vandalism, illegal huntingland littering. However, it is not appropriate to deny the public access toga national park. He said the Park was created to preserve resources while~allowing visitor use of the area. His recommendation is that the Board not alt~r the present status of the area and continue to allow the road to be used from the end of state maintenance to the Park boundary. He felt that the status df Route 629 beyond the end of present state maintenance needs to be clarified. If the road has been aban- doned to public use, the National Park Service has discussed access for hiking through that area. He concluded by saying t~at access to the Park from the bottom of the mountain is becoming a continu{hg problem as more development occurs, and the Park Service hopes that abandonment has not occurred. Mr. Ripper came forward to speak at thiJi time. He lives in Arlington currently and plans to establish a permanent~esidence at this location. He said he purchased the land this past summer.:~ The use of this road came up in discussing the purchase of this property wit':the owner. In the sales con- tract, Mr. Ripper had a provision placed thaO~ he be allowed a period of time to have his rights and responsibility regarding the road analyzed before t, purchasing the property. He said he and his ~ife viewed the closure of the road as an enhancement to their enjoyment of ~heir property. Mr. Ripper said the road passes within 5!~ feet of the house at the closest point. Activities up and down the ro!ad are disruptive to the peaceful enjoyment of the property. He had engaged Mr!~ Bain to act as his attorney in the closing on this purchase and had asked Mr!i~ Bain to research the issue of the status of the road. Mr. Ripper wanted to!~know if he had the legal right to put a gate at the end of state maintenance; and what the process was for requesting abandonment. With Mr. Bain's assurance that the issue could be presented to the Board, he went forward with ~he purchase of the land. He erected the gate referred to today and is reqnesting abandonment of the portion from near the house up to the present!end of state maintenance. Mr. Ripper said it is approximately one mile between the present end of state maintenance and the location of his gat~ to the Park boundary. It is his lawyer's opinion, said Mr. Ripper, that h& has the right to control access on that part of the road, whether it be vehicular or foot access. Therefore, he has not viewed this as an issue .regarding ~ark access. He said he fully believes that he has the right to prohibit the public from using the road. Being an avid hunter, Mr. Ripper explained that he in no way wants this to be construed as anti-hunting efforts. The!ilproblem is the amount of illegal activity going on in this area. He said he h~s been told of illegal bear hunting at night and spotlighting of game as ~ell. Mr. Ripper said a tenant living in a portion of his house for 20 yearsJis well aware of the illegal activity going on there. He added that the N~tional Park Service concurs that this is probably one of the worst areas for i~legal bear hunting near the Park. In addition to the illegal hunting, Mr. ~ volume of trespassing as well as dumping and i tures verifying the dumping problem. He has p the road to try to prevent the dumping. He h~ personally because folks will not take kindly the property after 20 years of having the free ipper said there is a large ittering. He handed out pic- laced many posted signs along s been warned to be careful to not being allowed to hunt on Rom to do so. He said he has done everything that he can to slow down the iRlegal use of the property. Regarding the need for access by utility Dompanies, Mr. Ripper said he gave keys to the gate to the power company and!the telephone company the November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) weekend the gate was installed. He also allowed a Park Ranger to put his lock on the gate. Mr. Ripper felt that the people having a legitimate need to be there have access through the property. Mrs. Cooke said she noticed on the map a jeep trail coming from an adjoining piece of property onto Mr. Ripper's and wondered if that contributed a problem. Mr. Ripper said the tract is owned by Mr. Joe Henley. He said Mr. Bain had researched that and informed him that Mr. Henley had received permis- sion from the previous owner to use that road. Mr. Ripper said he is drafting an agreement with Mr. Henley to allow his continued use of that jeep trail. He said Mr. Henley understands and shares hi~ concerns about illegal activi- ties and views the closing of this road as an asset to him because it will stop people coming onto his property as well. Mrs. Cooke said she just wanted to point out that there is another access into this area through the jeep trail in case Mr. Ripper thought an abandonment action would completely stop all access. ~ Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Ripper how he proposed to keep people from illegally coming into the area. Mr. Ripper said if th~ Board votes to abandon this portion of road he is requesting, he would i~stall another gate below the house. He said someone would have to get byi~the gate first, and then would have to come right by the house to go any further. The present gate is in a forested area which is well past the house. !He said people are well past the house now before he can determine that any i~egal activity is taking place. Mrs. Cooke asked what control was at th~iother end of the road. Mr. Ripper said the National Park Service has a ~te at the Park boundary. Vehicular traffic cannot come down that road i~oward his house, except those authorized by the Park Service. Mr. Bowie asked how Mr. Ripper would kee~ people off his property even if a gate is placed near the house, having consi~erable frontage on Route 810 and Route 629. Mr. Ripper said he has posted hisiproperty extensively. He under- stands that the abandonment of the road alone~will not cease all illegal usage. In any case, people will know they ar~ trespassing. Mr. St. John said his understanding is that the road Mr. Roosevelt described was taken into the State Secondary System in 1932, but it is no longer maintained by the State. The fact tha~ the Department of Transporta- tion no longer maintains this road beyond a c~rtain point creates no presump- tion whatsoever that the upper section of the!i.road has been abandoned. It simply means that maintenance by the State been discontinued~ Unless Mr. Bain or someone can produce minutes where the Boar~ of Supervisors has abandoned that strip of road, it is still a public righ~-of-way. He said if the action to abandon is not found in the public record,!then Mr. St. John takes issue with Mr. Bain's opinion. The owner has no legal right to put a gate up if there is no recorded abandonment of the road. i! He said he highly questions Mr. Ripper's action of installing the gate. Mr. Kirk Hughes, representing the applicant, said he has researched the records at the Court House and found no recordi of a resolution either abandon- ing that section or taking it in. Mr. St. John said the road is in the State System of Highways. Mr. Hughes said the road ~Shown on Mr. Roosevelt's map appears to be in the vicinity of the current ~oad. He said his survey of the area does not show any evidence of another ro~d that could have been called Brown's Gap Road. ~ Mr. St. John suggested that he be allowed to discuss with Mr. Bain and Mr. Ripper the results of the research on this matter. Mr. St. John said he has done much research on the status of old roads in the County. He said the County is laced with old roads, some of which were never taken into the Secon- dary System in 1932. TheyWere never taken in~o the system and neither were they abandoned. The fact that they did not become a part of the Secondary System does not mean that they are not still t~ this day public roads. He pointed out that the public access to this roa~ is stronger than the case of some County roads because this was taken into ~he System. He said more research should be done, and he would be glad ~o work with Mr. Ripper and his lawyer. He said the Board could either schedule a public hearing date or postpone any decision until further research is completed. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Hughes read from the Virginia Code in reference to public use of the road. There has been no maintenance of the road by VDoT past the sign, and that is what Mr. Ripper is basing his request on. Mr. St. John said this is a legal point which the Board cannot decide. He said there is an Attorney General's on the Code section quoted by Mr. Hughes which states that the section does not apply to this situation. Once a public road, always a public road unless it is abandoned through an official action Of the Board of Super- visors and the Highway Department. Mr. St. John said everybody agrees that this road was at one time a public road, and that establishes conclusively the fact that it is still a public road unless it has been abandoned. He said it would be best for he and Mr. Bain to get together and discuss the matter. Mr. Perkins said he had asked the Clerk!to check the Board's records regarding maintenance of Route 631. He said:the Clerk had found that mainte- nance had been discontinued, but the right-of-way had never been abandoned. He said it appears to be the same situation here. The State no longer main- tains the road, but it is free for anyone toitravel. For the road to be abandoned, it means that only the landowners would have a right-of-way. Even if the Board agreed to abandon this portion, l. since the National Park Service is involved, he thought the road would still ~serve as a public right-of-way for foot travel at least. Mr. St. John said that was incorrect. He said the Park Service could only control this road inside its boundaries.~ If the Board abandoned this road, the Park Service would have nothing to ido with it unless in the abandon- ment a right-of-way for foot travel was resecVed. Mr. Perkins said he did not think the Park Service would allow this to beiabandoned without such a reser- vation. Mr. St. John said the Park Service could not stop the abandonment. They could only urge the Board not to take that action. Mr. Way suggested that this request be placed on the agenda for discus- sion at another time. (Note: Mr. Bain returned to the meeting.) Mr. Way said a legal question has been raised, and Mrl St. John has suggested that additional research be done and the request b~ deferred. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Bain if he had already researched the minutes of the Board of Supervisors to determine whetherithis segment of Route 629 had been abandoned. Mr. Bain said he had not. M~. St. John said he takes issue with the right of the owner to put up a gate Unless abandonment action has taken place. Unless it has been abandoned byj!the Board of Supervisors, it is still a public road regardless of the fact that the State Highway no longer maintains it. The only question requiring mo~e research is whether the Board of Supervisors ever took action to abandon it~ Mr. Way explained that the question now is whether that information can Me obtained within a week. Mr. St. John said the burden is on the one who asserts that a public road has been abandoned to document that fact. Mr. Bain said he thought a week would be sufficient. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer action on this request to abandon a port~on of Route 629 until November 15, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by. the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain. (Mr. St. John left at 10:00 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Discussion of Connecting Common- wealth Drive to Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said this is in response to the Board of Supervisors interest in the alternative of connecting Commanwealth Drive directly to Greenbrier Drive instead of repairing Peyton DCive. This more direct connec- tion of Commonwealth with Greenbrier is a concern of residents in Berkeley who feel it would promote through traffic movements in the Berkeley subdivision. Also of concern is intended development of lan~ in the path of this alignment November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) for which several site plans were approved in the past, but which have now expired. There is also an issue as to the relationship of this alternative connection to the proposed Peyton Detention Basin and whether both can be physically accommodated in this area. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this direct Commonwealth/Greenbrier connection was discussed by the Planning Commission during the recent review of the Comprehensive Plan. Initially, this had been the preferred connection, but was removed when it became apparent that the more likely project would be the improvement and upgrading of Peyton Drive although the direct connection would eliminate the offset intersection now.~ He noted that with the extension of Greenbrier Drive to Rio Road, a second offset intersection would exist. He said the elimination of as many offset intersections as possible is desirable. Regarding concerns of Berkeley residents, Mr. Cilimberg said the elimina- tion of any connection of Commonwealth Drive~ to Berkmar Drive in the north Berkeley area would further reduce the possibility of through traffic move- ments in Berkeley. Much of that through traffic would be internal traffic in staff's opinion. As to the potential for development of property in the direct Commonwealth Drive alignment, Mr. Cilimberg said this area is shown as Community Service and High Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The real issue for development is the question of access, which is a concern to both staff and potential developers. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if any improvements~would be made to Peyton Drive if this connection were made. Mr. Cilimberg sa!id he thought that would be the case. Mr. Lindstrom asked who uses Peyton D~ive. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know of any properties having direct access to Peyton other than Comdial. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any e~timates of the cost of each approach. Mr. Cilimberg said a bid has beeni!received for Peyton Drive im- provements. Mr. Agnor said the cost was est..~mated at $200,000, and the bid t]~JA~ in at $380,000. Mr. Lindstrom~the leng{h of the road. Mr. Cilimberg sai~ ab--6~t 60'0 fe~t in length. Mr. Bain asked what time frame would bei~needed to get bids on the ject. Mr. Agnor said the Peyton Drive improvements could be rebid in the ing. Switching to the Commonwealth/Greenbrier direct connection would mean elay of another three to four months for the design and approval process. Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen to P~yton Drive in the meantime. Mr. or said the Board had already approved pa~ching Peyton Drive as a temporary sure. Mrs. Cooke asked when that would occur. Mr. Agnor said it would efully be done before Thanksgiving. In response to Mr. Lindstrom's ques- regarding the cost, Mr. Agnor said it ii impossible to estimate the cost the Commonwealth/Greenbrier connection unfil the project is designed. He d Peyton Drive has underground utilities ~hich have to be relocated and which caused the bid on that project to be se high. He said that relocation of utilities would be avoided with a direct connection. Mr. Bain asked if the County would be obligated to maintain Peyton Drive if the direct connection went through. Mr. ~gnor said Peyton Drive was dedicated to public use, but never accepted ~to the system. He said-the County would not be obligated to maintain th~ road. Mr. Lindstrom asked the vehicle trip count for the direct connection. Mr. Cilimberg said it is 3000 vehicle trips per day. Staff's opinion is that much of this traffic is of local or internal Origin. He added that rights- of-way would have to be acquired for the direct connection. Mr. Lindstrom asked how long it would take to obtain meaningful estimates for this project. Mr. Richard Moring, Count~ Engineer, said the right-of-way would first have to be acquired. It could take three to four months to have a design prepared and approved by the Highway ~epartment. He said it would also take two to three months to have thePeyton Drive project rebid. There would not be a tremendous amount of'time differenc~ between the two projects. Mr. Perkins asked if both projects could be done during the next con- struction season.- Mr. Agnor said they could. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bain said it makes sense to him to get rid of a problem. Mr. Bowie said other possible solutions should be looked at before making a decision. He asked Mr. Moring if an estimate could be made before three months. Mr. Moring said he felt that the work on Commonwealth Drive, including acquisition of right-of-way, could certainly be done without an increase in the original estimate for Peyton drive of $200,000. He said Commonwealth Drive is shorter and less complex, but the right-of-way has to be acquired. The two projects appear to be in the same order of magnitude financially. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to direct staff to bring back an estimate of the cost and feasibility of making a direct connection of Commonwealth Drive to Greenbrier Drive in lieu of corrections to Peyton Drive. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: ROute 29 North Crossover Study. Mr. Cilimberg said that in August, the B~ard of Supervisors had requested the Department of Transportation to extend th~ permit to the Kessler Group for the closing of a crossover near Maupin's Stor~ on Route 29 North. That time was extended until such time as either the KeSsler Group completes the Forest Lakes project, or a comprehensive closing of all crossovers noted for closing in the Hollymead area is undertaken, whicheve~ comes first. At the same time, the Board requested a ~eview of the proposed crossover closings in the Route 29 Corridor Study (adopted by the Board on May 10, 1979) to determine whether they are still appropriate recommendations. He said the criteria used by staff to review these crossovers were adequate sight dis- tance, adequate spacing between crossovers, v~rtical curvature and grade at crossovers or approaches on Route 29, and the !?xistence of turn lanes. The study recommends the closure of eighteen crossovers from the City limits to the Albemarle-Greene County line. %~ date, four of those eighteen have been closed. These include the crossove~i just south of Branchlands Boulevard, one just north of Route 643, one a~i~i the southern entrance to the Hollymead Subdivision, and one just north of ~e Forest Lakes entrance across from Mercer Carpets. Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff has reviewed the crossovers in the field and discUssed the recommendations with ~he Virginia Department of Transportation. He said staff found the recommendations for crossover clo- sures generally consistent with established criteria for existing conditions. However, staff felt that two crossovers proposed for closure should be recon- sidered. One is located between the crossoveri, for Camelot and Briarwood/G.E. Fanuc. The Study states that it should be clODed to provide adequate spacing between crossovers. However~ there appears to~i~be adequate spacing between the existing crossovers. Furthermore, Briarwood m~y be required to access Route 29 at this crossover, and it also would provid~ access to land now zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. The second c~ossover to be reconsidered is north of Route 643. This crossover has adequate sight distance and was recox~nended for closure to provide adequate crossover spacing. However, with the crossover to the south now closed, and thei~jrecommended closure of the crossover to the north, adequate spacing would?be provided. There is a deceleration lane on the northbound side only. Mr. Cilimberg noted tha~ crossover No. 26ii north of Hollymead and south of the crossover at Maupin's Store, is reporte~ in the study to have inade- quate sight distance. It has been determined, ;~since the Study was made, to have adequate sight distance~ However, since ~his crossover has vertical curvature problems on Route ~9 heading south, ~2nd has no deceleration lanes, VDoT and staff still recommend closure during ~he comprehensive closure of crossovers noted in this study. In summary, Mr. Cilimberg said the origin~l recommendations for cross- overs are found to be acceptable. There are onjly two crossovers recommended November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) 224.L for closure in the study which staff recommends keeping open. One is No. 38 located at G. E. Fanuc. The other crossover, No. 20, is north of Route 643. Regarding the remaining crossovers, staff suggests that they be addressed in the Six Year Primary Road Plan. Should the Board wish to proceed with the comprehensive closure of crossovers, staff recommends that a priority list of crossover projects be established and recommended for inclusion in next year's Six Year Primary Road Plan. An estimate of the cost to close a crossover is between $3000 and $4000. Mr. Bowie said the crossover which resulted in this report was the one near Maupin's Store. He asked if staff is still recommending closure of that crossover. Mr. Cilimberg said they were. Mr. Bowie asked what would happen to the traffic which currently crosses at that point when the crossover at Maupin's Store and the crossover south of that one are closed. Mr. Cilimberg said those closures would force traffic to gp to a lighted intersection at Hollymead and go North on Route 29. Mr. Bowie asked what distance that is. Mr. Cilimberg said it is about two-thirds of i!a mile. He said the intersection before Maupin's store is also a lighted intersection. (Mr. St. John returned at 10:31 P.M.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to proceed with staff's recommendation for closings. Mr. Perkins said he is concerned about ~!losing a crossover that is important to a business which has been there ~Yor such a long period of time. Perhaps a study should be made to determine ~zom which direction the customers are coming to Maupin's Store. Mr. Bowie saidl he is concerned as well. However, he felt that a decision has to be mg~e regarding the entire crossover policy. Mr. Way said the alternative to clo~ing the crossover would be to install a deceleration lane because of the safety factor there. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board that iCs action in August was that the Maupin Crossover closure would be Mr. Kessle~!s responsibility as a condition of his rezoning. ~' The crossover would be clo~d by Mr. Kessler before leaving the Forest Lakes project, or along with the el{her crossovers under the Six Year Primary Plan, whichever comes first. He,said that decision has already been made by the Board. It was simply delayed to coincide with the remaining closings. AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion carried b:y the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. ~: Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matte~rs. There were no other highway matters to come before the Board. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an '~Ordinance to amend Section 16-5 of the Code of Albemarle, to provide for the ~emoval of trash, garbage, refuse, etc., from any property in Albemarle ~ounty. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 24 and October 31, 1989.) Mr. St. John said this ordinance was drafted in order to bring the County Code in accord with the Virginia State Code. iThe previous section applied only to structures, while this amendment applies to property including struc- tures, but not limited to structures. He suggested that the caption be changed for clarity in reading. Mr. Way opened the public hearing at this~ time. Mrs Sally Thomas, President of the Leag~ of Women Voters, said her organization supports the amendment of this sehtion of the County Code in order to strengthen the County's ability to p~lice and control illegal dump sites. However, she questioned whether the o~.iginal text should be deleted in its entirety as is currently proposed. The o~%ginal text makes it unlawful for County residents to accumulate and store ~rash on private land. If this clause is deleted, it appears to make it legal for residents to accumulate and November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) 225~ store garbage on their land. She suggested that it would be desirable to have alternatives between legal action depending on the situations. Mrs. Thomas also questioned the deletion of the clause requiring all trash to be placed in water tight containers until transported to a public sanitary landfill. It seems that the present law restricts County residents from placing garbage at the roadside in open containers, and the proposed language removes that clause. She felt retaining such a clause would be valuable because open garbage containers contribute significantly to the litter problem. Mrs. Thomas reiterated her support for strengthening the Code, but asked that the Board consider these suggestions before deleting all of the language of the original text. Mr. St. John said Mrs. Thomas' points are well taken. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. St. John said the new ordinance begins by saying that when ordered by the County to remove trash, the owner would have to comply. It does not make it unlawful to accumulate it in the first place. That point is well taken. The ordinance should begin by saying it is unlawful for the owner of any property to accumulate refuse, etc. in the Cdunty. He said the last sentence of the original paragraph talking about wate~ tight containers should be retained as well. Mr. Bowie said both suggestions were excellent. He supports adding both items back into the ordinance. Mr. St. John i~aid the new language "tracks" the State Code, but he felt that those porti~s of the original language could be left in. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and sec~ded by Mr. Bain to defer this item to November 15 to allow the County Attorney to incorporate suggested changes into the proposed language. Roll was called and the motion carried b? the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Solid Waste Task Force will be studying hazardous wastes. He said he has received seyeral inquiries from citizens regarding the accumulation of such things as paint and paint thinner. Mr. Bain said there will be a recommendation from~the Solid Waste Task Force regarding hazardous materials. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an 'Ordinance to vacate a portion of a plat showing a public right-of-way between 2800 and 2704 Commonwealth Drive in Berkeley Subdivision. (Advertised in the ~aily Progress on October 24 and October 31, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg said staff has discussed t~e need for emergency access and the effect of a through connection from Commonwealth Drive to Berkmar Drive with Ron Slaughter, Chief of the Seminole Trai~l Fire Department. Mr. Slaugh- ter indicated that this emergency access has not been utilized and is not a desirable alternative for his department. Mr.~ Slaughter further stated that a road connecting Commonwealth Drive and Berkma~ Drive in this location would severely limit any opportunity for expansion o!f the Seminole Trail building. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board feels that the! alternative for access to Route 29 provided by a Commonwealth/Berkmar Drive cohnection is not desired, then the remaining issue for consideration is the use of at least part of the existing right-of-way as a pedestrian and bikeway system link between Berkeley and Berkmar Drive. The County's Pedestrian Ob~Stacle Study Phase II: Pedestrian Network Analysis completed in 1987 ~dentifies a pedestrian path between Commonwealth Drive and Berkmar Drive in this location as a potential project to link Berkeley with the commercial areas of Neighborhood One. The County is also planning to undertake a Bikeway Plan in conjunction with the City and the University. Preservation of this'ilright-of-way for a bikeway location may be a resultmng recommendation of th~s planning effort. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) 22~ Mr. Cilimberg said that staff recommends the retention of 20 feet of right-of-way in the current location to allow for the possibility of a com- bined pedestrian and bicycle path. Typical standards for construction of such a path call for a minimum of six feet of paved area and a maximum additional two feet of graded shoulders on both sides of the pavement. The recommended retention of right-of-way would allow for this improvement as well as a buffer on either side to the adjacent residential a~eas. The public hearing was immediately opened. Mrs. Patricia Moore, a resident of 2800 Commonwealth Drive, was present to request that the entire right-of-way be v~cated. She said the pedestrian or bike path would be a dangerous situation ~ecause Commonwealth Drive is already dangerous for children or bikers due ito the normal traffic volume. Cars park on the street, and cars cannot pas~ each other without one car pulling over. She said unless the bike path would be made safe to the end of Commonwealth Drive, it would be adding fuel Co the fire to have any bike path. She also pointed out that the bike path woul~ have to go around the fire house if there is any expansion to the fire house. She said bikers currently pass in front of the fire station bay, which Mrs. Moore felt could be dangerous as well. Mrs. Moore has lived at 2800 Commonwealth Drive for eight years, and no one maintains the property. She has to cleani up beer cans, and her 86-year old neighbor calls at night because there are~teenagers loitering on this property. Mrs. Moore said if the right-of-way is vacated, she and her neigh- bor would beautify the property and maintain Lt. She said she has no inten- tion of telling the neighbors not to use it, and she has no intention of expanding her home onto this property. However, she feels there would be more control over the people who frequent the area:~ She said currently the neigh- bors come through her yard in bad weather because the path over this right-of-way gets in such bad shape. Mrs. Moore said the last time she appear~ed before the Board with this request, she was requested to bring a resolution from the Homeowners' Associa- tion stating that they do not object. She has that resolution, and the President of the Homeowners' Association is p~esent as well to answer ques- tions. She said the Association supports vacation of the entire right-of-way. The Board had also asked that Chief Slaughter!ibe present, and he is here. Mr. Ron Slaughter, Chief of the Seminole 1Trail Fire Department, came forward to speak, along with the President of ~the Fire Department. He said the Fire Department would like to see the 50-fOot right-of-way closed. Regarding the bike path, he said that would n~t be a problem to the Fire Department. When the Fire Department began 1~ years ago, the calls numbered 165 for the first full year and increased to 8!45 last year for the 25-square mile area this department covers. He said within the last month, the coverage area has been extended to the South Fork of tH!e Rivanna and includes Hollymead and Forest Lakes, along with the Earlysville ~ire Department. In February, the Seminole Trail Fire Department will recei~,e its fourth Class A pumper which will fill the station. He said it is anll. all-volunteer station, and probably the fastest growing in the area. He ~elt the only shortcoming this Fire Department has is the lack of aerial service. If they ever get aerial equipment, then two bays would have to be inst~lled. He said there would be no place to 'expand except through the parking ~ot. Mrs. Cooke said she felt the Fire Department would not want to see a development that would encourage a tremendous ~mount of bike or pedestrian traffic through the area from a safety standpoint. Mr. Slaughter said that was absolutely correct. Mr. George Stovall, President of the HomeOwners' Association of Berkeley, reiterated Mrs. Moore's feelings regarding bicycle traffic. He said it would be a big mistake to do anything to encourage mdre bicycle traffic through that area. It is difficult now for cars to pass alqng the street if cars are parked on both sides of the street. It would ~e even more dangerous should a biker come along at the same time. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engin~ier, said this is an issue of a potential transportation need versus the immedi~ate desires of the community. November 8, 198'9 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) 22~ He agreed that the roads within Berkeley immediately adjacent to this area are not designed for additional traffic or through traffic if the right-of-way were developed through to Berkmar Drive. However, the Route 29 Corridor Study adopted by the County in 1979 indicates that this is an optional access to this subdivision when the crossover at Dominion Drive is closed. He said Dominion Drive will absolutely be closed at some point in the future. Mr. Roosevelt said egress from Berkeley Subdivision will be dramatically affected, and the flow of traffic trying to come out of the Four Seasons area will affect Route 29. He said the Board has abandoned a number of rights of way over the past few years that would interconnect subdivisions and allow traffic to move without getting on Route 29. He said this road falls into that category. The rightrof-way is dedicated to ~he County, and the County has control over its future use. He recommends ~hat the decision for use of this right-of-way be left for a future Board. The public hearing was closed at this time, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowie said he could not see the CoUnty tearing down a fire station to build a road some time in the future. The fire station has to expand and has to have that right-of-way. He said he does ~ot see any value in building a bike path that will take children through soMebody's backyard and a fire station parking lot. He said he would support the request to vacate this ight f ay r -o -w . Mrs Cooke said she concurs with Mr. Bo~%e. She added that she is a biker and supports the need for bikepaths in ~lbemarle County. However, when a bike path is developed, children are not t~ primary users. There has to be sensitivity to the residents of the area. On':ithe other hand, she said Mr. Roosevelt makes a good point regarding the R~te 29 Corridor Study. Mrs. Cooke said the road needs are different in this area since 1979. Therefore, she supports the vacation of this right-of-way, eliminating any bike or pedestrian pathway there as well. s Mr. Bain said he could not upport the r~equest. He understands the con- cerns of the people who live in the subdivis{~n. However, when the property was purchased it was a fact that the right-of!~way was publicly dedicated. Although nothing was developed there, it was Dlear that a future use could potentially be made of that right-of-way. Heisaid he would like to have more information regarding the fire department's n~eds and the possibility of vacating a portion of the right-of-way. He f~lt that it is essential to allow some public access for bikers. At this point, motion was offered by Mrs~ Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the ordinance set out below vacating~lthe right-of-way between 2704 Commonwealth Drive and 2800 Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Bain's comments and with Mr. Roosevelt's perception that this is an asset of the County and the public which should not be sacrificed for the interest of the adjoinijg property owners who purchased their property knowing that this was public a~cess. Mrs. Cooke said the Board has to cons~de~ not only the concerns of the landowners, but also the fact that a fire station is now there. The impor- tance of fire protection and the upgrading and expansion of the fire services to address the needs of that community far outweighs any argument that bikers should have a right to use this right-of-way, ii She said safety from the fire aspect should be a prime consideration. Mr. Bain said he did not disagree that t~e safety issue is important. However, that is not something that this Boar~ has studied. He does not have a plan from the fire department regarding theft needs. He could not agree with making a decision on this right-of-way based on information he has never seen. Mr. Lindstrom added that the needs of t~he fire department might well be a basis to abandon this right-of-way. But un~il a specific proposal is made, he feels it is premature to take this action.. Mr. Bowie said that the residents had beeh asked to bring resolutions and to bring other people. He said if the Board had wanted to see fire station plans, it should have requested them earlier. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) 22D Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mr. Lindstrom. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-482b, as follows: Section 1. That part of a certain plat of O. R. Randolph, Engineer, dated September 29, 1961, captioned "Berkeley Community Subdivision Plat - Section 4" of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 373, page 79, showing a cul-de-sac at the easternmost end of Commonwealth Drive with a fifty-foot strip heading in a southerly direction from said cul-de-sac and designated as "50.0' street", this strip being between Lot 9, Block 9, Section 4, Berkeley, and Lot 19, Block 7, Section 4, Berkeley, is hereby vacated and the dedication of said strip of land fifty feet in width to pu61ic use is rescinded. Accordingly, be it hereby further ORDAINED that fee simple to the southernmost strip shall revert to the ~wners of Lot 9, Block 9, Section 4, Berkeley, and Lot 19, Block ~, Section 4, Berkeley, respectively, then from the centerline ~f said strip subject to any easements and utilities or other matter~ of record. The 25-foot strip shall become a part of the respective lots. Section 2. The vacation set forth~in Section 1 of this ordi- nance shall in no way vacate any other Nortzon of the street, road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and re~orded on the aforementioned plat. Section 3. Pursuant to Section 15~1-485 of the Code of Vir- ginia (1950) as amended, the Clerk of th~ Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, is requested to write ~n plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and is requested to make reference to the same on said plat to the volume and page in which the instrument ~f vacation is recorded. Section 4. Such vacation of a porte,on of the aforesaid plat shall be effective on and after November~ 8, 1989. Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President, Piedmont Virginia Community College. Dr. Deborah DiCroce, new President of PiAdmont Virginia Community College (PVCC), introduced herself to the Board and s~id she was delighted to become a part of this community. She reported that PVCC is committed to providing quality education which is geographically, educationally, and financially accessible. She said their continuing education program works closely with the County School's coordinator of adult and ~ommunity education programs to offer classes of interest to County residentsi~! In that vein, PVCC offers 46 classes at Albemarle High School in which 7001~students enroll each semester. PVCC began working with the Charlottesville-A~bemarle Technical Education Center in 1988. In the fall semester of 1989~! 11 classes were being offered at CA-TEC with 150 students enrolled for each'~semester. She reported that in 1988-89, PVCC enrolled 20.8 percent of the 41~ members of the Albemarle High School 1988 graduating class and 20.3 percent~of the 213 graduates from Western Albemarle High School. Dr. DiCroce said that PVCC currently pro~:ides courses and training to county businesses mnclud~ng Cooper Industr~es,~ G.E. Fanuc, Comdial, Sperry Marine, and Teledyne Avionics. She concluded ~y saying she is looking forward to working with the Board to expand PVCC's se~ices to meet the needs of Albemarle County. ~ Mr. Way said the Board is particularly pi!eased with and proud of the academic work at Piedmont. He said when the B~ard interviews for an appoint- ment to the Piedmont Community College Board, Dmphasis has been placed on the continued development with the business commun'iitY as well as with vocational institutions. Dr. DiCroce said that is one oflthe areas she hopes to explore November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) 22~g and build upon and depends on the College Advisory Board to help advise as to the best way to accomplish that. (The Board recessed at 11:19 A.M. and reconvened at 11:30 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 11. Status Report: SP-88-45, Pope and Mikkelsen Pottery Studio and Kiln. Mr. Agnor reported that the Zoning Administrator has indicated that the applicants have complied with the conditions of the special use permit. They have now been issued a certificate of occupancy. The Zoning Administrator recommends that revocation of the permit not be pursued further and the matter dismissed from the agenda. Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, said there is compliance on the part of the applicants. She made an inspection before this Board meeting, and the old kiln enclosure has been dismantled. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to remove SP-88-45 from the agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service to Tax Map 59-7B1, between Flordon and West Leigh Subdivisions. ~ Mr. St. John said the Board has documents reflecting the history of this matter. He reviewed for the Board the fact that certain easements the Albemarle County Service Authority acquired from landowners to install pipes were granted and recorded. As payment to the!landowners, the Service Authori- ty gave the right to connect to the waterline.when it was laid in the ease- ment. In Mr. St. 3ohn's judgement, that vested a property right in the landowner to this connection. If that right ~s not honored by the Service Authority, that would be a breach of its contract under this easement. The Service Authority would be liable to the property owner for damages created during construction of the waterline. If tha~ breach is forced upon the Service Authority by refusal by the Board of ~upervisors to allow the Service Authority to keep its commitment, that constitutes a taking of this property right by the County. In that case, the Count~ and not the Service Authority would have to pay for it. He said there are ~ither easements similar to this. He said in all the cases he is aware of, the ~ight to connect was included and vested in the easement at a time when the thei~Property in question was within the service area boundaries of the Service Authority. In other words, the Service Authority did not exceed its powers a~ that time. Later, the service areas were diminished. Mr. St. John said he had prepared a resolhtion for the Board's considera- tion which would address all similar applicatf~ons and eliminate the need for the Service Authority and an applicant to aPp$~r before the Board for this action in the future. He noted that the resoi~tion provides that no more than one connection is deemed to be required by thi~ resolution on any particular easement. He said there may be cases where t~e land has been divided into two or more parcels subsequent to the easement co~nitment by the Service Authori- ty. Then there is the question as to which parcel gets the right to use the one connection. Mr. St. John summarized by saying that the Board has a choice to either pay the value of these easements or honor the easements. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a distinction between industrial, commer- cial, or residential connections. Mr. Brent responded that a connection is differentiated only by the size of the line. :~ Mr. Bowie asked if the utility connectionilreferred to is water. Mr. St. John said the connection is for water. He sai~ he mulled over the use of the word, "utility", and concluded that there is no easement for sewer connection November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) of which he is aware. Mr. Brent said he is not aware of any, but would be reluctant to say that none exist. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Brent has records of these easements. Mr. Brent said he did not. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the easements are recorded anywhere. Mr. St. John said they are recorded in the Clerk's Office. He said the title to each piece of property would have to be reviewed. Mr. Bain said he assumes that the language in these Service Authority easements was approved by the County Attorney's office and would be the same on each easement. Mr. St. John said this happened before he became County Attorney, and he could not say that was so. He said he knows there were a mass of commitments made by the City which the County took over under the Four-Party Agreement. In doing that, the County agreed and covenanted to assume the obligations that the City had made on those easements. Mr. Brent said~most of these acquisitions occurred in the period of time when the distinction between the County and the Service Authority was not as clear as it is ~oday. He said these situations are most prevalent on the line from Piney Mountain to Ivy and the line from the Scottsville water plant into the Town of,Scottsville. Ail of these occurred in the late 1960's and early 1970's. He thinks the easements are confined to these areas and these time frames. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a precedent is being set by which the County could not buy another easement right in the future. Mr. St. John said he did not think so. Mr. Lindstrom said his reservation concerns the number of cases there might be and whether the connection means commercial or residential. Mr. St. John said the County can always buy the right. He said this resolu- tion would not set any precedent because the 'Board is already in the posture of being told to either honor it or buy it. That option would always be open to the Board. Mr. Bowie asked if that option would be '~.available on a case-by-case basis. Mr. St. John said there has never beep a procedure where the court superimposed its judgment on that option, to iris knowledge. He said all that is necessary is some rational basis for distinction. Mr. Bowie said the basis is the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked what issue it would '~aise if the easement does not expressly state the nature of the connection What is permitted and the Board specifies "one residential connection". Mr. pt. John said this resolution presupposes that the property is outside the ~ervice area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this should be discussed in executiv~ session. Mr. St. John said that would not be necessary. He said it is d~fficult to predict what the courts will do in this area. However, Mr. Stil John's opinion is that if the Comprehensive Plan and the service area boundaries coincide with each other and zoning coincides with both of them, then ~he reason the Board is doing this is because in 1971 someone put this property right in an easement. He thinks the courts would recognize that fact. ~.If this is an aberration to the regular land use program of the County, it wa~ engaged in by the Board only because it was necessary to avoid the posture~iof taking someone's property and going back on a written, recorded commitment. French Slaughter, III, appearing ~or the applicant, said the Mr. D. request is only for this one particular parcel. He asked the Board to rule favorably on this application. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the request is fo~ residential service. Mr. Slaughter said it is for one house. Mr. Bowie! asked if this property could be subdivided. Mr. Slaughter said he was not sur~. In any event, the property owner does not intend to subdivide. Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant is aski~ for connection for one house, and he would like to see the resolution tailori~d for that. Mr. Slaughter said if approval could be given at this meeting, hi~ client would appreciate it because the house is already under construction. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. BowSe and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution to include a~d permit one residential connection only to the property shown within t~e green enclosed line on the plat of Gloeckner and Osborne dated August 13,!.i1987, showing survey of Parcels November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) D and E, as presented by Mr. French Slaughter and made a part of these min- utes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the service area boundary of the Albemarle County Service Authority is deemed to include and permit one residential connection only to Tax Map 59-7B1 for water service; and FURTHER that said property is shown within the green line on a "plat Showing Survey of Parcels D and E~ located on the east side of State Route 677 in Albemarle County, Va.!, as prepared by Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc., dated August 19, 1987", ~aid plat being initialed "FRB" on November 8, 1989, and made a part of the record. Agenda Item No. 16. Review: Forestry Department's Master Plan for Blue Ridge Hospital Site. Mr. Lindstrom said last week he met with..Mr. Craig Covey, Mr. Werner Sensbach, Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and other members of the committee working with the University regarding the location of the administration complex on the Blue Ridge~Hospital site at the foot of MOnticello Mountain. At that time, the architect for the project presented models of the project which are on display today in the Lobby. He said representatives of the Thomas Jeffer- son Memorial Foundation were also present at i~that meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said the purpose of that meetzng was to evaluate ~he proposal .on the 25 acre portzon of the 250 acres of the Blue Rzdge Si~te. He pointed out a chart on the wall prepared by staff explaining the two~i~alternatives presented by the architects. ?~ Mr. Lindstrom said this area is shown i~!the County's Comprehensive Plan as Rural Areas, and the proposed project is n!~t a rural use. The PACC Agree- ment with the University states that propert~in Area B would be subject to a jointly agreed upon plan before any development took place. For various reasons, this project came about before a plaf~ was proposed or developed under the Agreement. Therefore, it seems that the ~greement falls back to a posi- tion whereby the University agrees to use "it~ best efforts" to comply with the existing plan, which is ' !! ' the County s Comp~ehenszve Plan for rural designa- tion. As Mr. Covey pointed out in the previohs meeting, the County has no direct authority to review, approve, or deny ~his particular proposal. In fact, Mr. Covey had asked on what grounds the!iBoard intended to look at the plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is lookin~ at the project because it has a public obligation to defend its ComprehensiveilPlan and to try to preserve a national historic site. With that as background, Mr. Lindstrom said the concern is whether there might be a way that this building can be located somewhere on that property that would be less intrusive. He said, frank!y, it would be problematic to find another place on the tract for a building this size. He said another question was whether a better location, more Harmonious with the topography, could be found on the 250 acres. For these reasons, the two alternatives have been presented. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he is aware that the ~niversity and the Division of Forestry have spent a lot of money on the pla~s and are anxious to go forward. His concern is that the Board has a responsibJ~lity to the 65,000 people it represents. The Board needs to get as much l~verage as possible on the development process, even though the County m&y not have any legal authority. He said there are a number of hurdles that this project will have to go through before the construction can be startedi~ One of them is an environmen- tal assessment by the State Council on the Environment. He said there was a very frank discussion in last week's meeting ahd he intends to be just as frank in reporting that meeting. He feels that essentially the County is being asked to sanction these plans. In fact,~there was a lot of pressure in November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 23~2~ (Page 18) that meeting for the committeei to do just that. He felt the committee did not have that authority and that the Board of Supervisors needed to see the proposal. This proposal will be presented to the Planning Conanission at a public information session later in the year, But since the Board is one of the parties to the PACC Agreement, it should decide whether to sanction any version of the proposal as being in compliance with the spirit of that Agree- ment. His feeling is that before the County gives up any leverage it may have through the Agreement and through the representative capacity it has, some- thing needs to be accomplished in a significant way in the public interest. He does not see any advantage to sanctioning .a project clearly in violation of the whole essence of the Comprehensive Plan ~n that location. Certainly, changing the location of the building and its orientation on the site will have some effect on how the proposal is viewed. He said staff has assessed that and has prepared a report to that effect. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 12:00 Doon.) Mr. Lindstrom said this proposal represe~nts one-tenth of the total acreage of the site, and there is no master P~an for this property. If it is developed piece by piece, the ability to dea~i~with the impact of developing the whole tract is fractioned. He feels strd~gly that the Board should consider getting a significant buffer easeme~ dedicated along Route 53 before any plan is sanctioned. He further suggestedlthat a buffer be 150 feet from the property line, not from the center of th~iroad. Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates the e~$orts being made to try to work out a compromise. He feels the Board should !look at the plan, hear the presentation from the staff and the Universit~ representatives, and then consider what it wants to do. The Universityi~needs to know the Board's response promptly. He thinks the Board shoul~ take a position, indicate that position in writing, and get a response. If ~he applicant is not willing to go along with what the Board suggests, then t~e Board would have to consider what action to take at a separate time. .~ Mr. Way said the Board would hear Mr. Ke~ler's report next. Mr. Cilimberg inserted that this plan has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission as to either alternative. It is s~heduled for the Planning Commis- sion agenda on November 28 for review of one or both of the alternatives. Mr. Keeler noted that there is a scale m~del of the plan in the lobby for the Board to review. He referred the Board t6~ the comparison of various aspects of the site plans for Plans A and B in his letter dated November 7, 1989. He had evaluated Plan B under the siteiplan provisions of the County's Zoning Ordinance. He noted that it is a master plan and does not have the engineering detail required for site plans. ~herefore, some of the comments he made in his report are rather general. ~ (Mr. St. John returned at 12:18 P.M.) Mr. Keeler reported that Plan A, the initial plan for this site, was reviewed by County staff. Along with other reviewers, County staff recommend- ed the pursuit of alternative layouts. He saiH the Department of Forestry had complied with that recommendation. Mr. Keele~ said Plan B is generally consistent with staff recommendation. County!~taff favors Plan B over Plan A for the following reasons: The development would be less visibl? from Routes 20 and 53; Plan B offers superior road layout and configuration. Problems of the T-intersection are avoided. The Hospital access road will likely have more traffic in the~future and remains the favored route under Plan B. ~ Mr. Keeler noted that an application from:a private owner for such a project at this location would require an appl$cation to amend the Comprehen- sive Plan to first include this property in th~ growth area. Then an appro- priate commercial or industrial zoning on the Property would have to be November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) 23~3~ obtained, as well as an amendment to the Service Authority service area boundaries to obtain water and sewer service to the property. There are two recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan relevant to this particular property: Development plans along Route 20 are to be sensitive to its status as an entry corridor to the Urban Area and Monticello. 2. Consider recommendations of the City/County/University Planning and Coordination Council for the Blue Ridge/Route 20 South Study Area. Incorporate adopted recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan for the County. Regarding access to the property, Mr. Keeler said the County would normally require a 200 foot turn and taper lane into the entrance and a 200 foot turn and taper into the median. He said the applicant has proposed an acceleration lane. Mr. Keeler said staff does not favor this because of the danger involved and recommends that the acceleration lane be deleted. He said staff has determined that the existing Hospital access road to Route 20 is too close to the median crossover, and recommend~ that this access be deleted because it does not meet the requirements ofi~the County's ordinance of 500 feet distance between crossovers. Regarding public roads, staff feels that=Plan B is superior to Plan A. One of the problems that may be encountered is that there is a substantial amount of landscaping within the right-of-way!ithat apparently would be dedi- cated to VDoT. In the past, VDoT has not permitted landscaping within the right-of-way, and particularly within medians~ Mr. Keeler said he is unsure of the relationship between VDoT and other state agencies in that VDoT main- rains their roads, but apparently does not require them to meet the same standards for improvements that are required Of private individuals. He said in his experience, VDoT has been loathe to have any type of landscaping in the right-of-way for maintenance reasons, particularly in medians. Therefore, while landscaping is shown on the plan, Mr. K~eler is unsure as to whether it would actually be permitted by VDoT. Mr. Keeler recommended that signage com~ly with the Scenic Areas Overlay District. He pointed out that Route 20 is both a County and a State scenic byway. Lighting should be limited to providing adequate illumination for circulation and safety purposes. Accent lighting of the building or buildings and tall lighting structures should be avoided so as to visually protect Routes 20 and 53 and Interstate 64. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Keeler said the plan exceeds the County's minimum landscaping requirements, although he did not scale everything off. While finished slopes are a three to one ratiQ, due to the length of some slopes and the erodability of the soils, staff recommends that consideration be given to planting some stabilization planti~material in those areas. In closing, Mr. Keeler suggested a design change due to a long-standing County policy to minimize grading involved wi~h a project. The floor eleva- tion difference between the two buildings is ~ntended in part to "hide" the Administrative Services Facility (ASF) building from the Headquarters build- ing, and this design suggestion may interfere '.With that objective. .However, the recommendation is to redesign access to tH~ ASF building to intersect the entrance drive at the first entrance to the H~hdquarters building. Mr. Keeler said this could represent a significant reduction in the volume of grading on the eastern corner of the~ property, i'. Mr. Lindstrom said if this were a privatel developer, the first question for the Board would be whether to amend the comprehensive Plan to allow the development. The Board should not feel constrained to the normal limitations of site plan review which the Board would havel if this were a private develop- ment in the Comprehensive Plan, and in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Essentially, what the Board is being asked to ldo is either ignore this propos- al or sanction it. Being asked to sanction a Proposal inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan simply because it is a Stat~ agency, should be cause for the Board to use a fairly free hand with the t~rms it will approve. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) 234., Mr. Lindstrom wondered if it is possible, given the topography, that these buildings could be bermed into the side of the hill in a way to reduce the horizontal profile, taking into account the fact that a lot of earth moving will have to take place. He said the model shows a lot of artificial trees. When they are scaled off to size, they would have to be really big trees to prevent the buildings from being seen. He said they are not the kind of trees that he is likely to see there in his lifetime unless he lives to be a fairly old person. Mr. Lindstrom said this property is being conveyed to the Division of Forestry, and Mr. Covey is here representing ~the Division of Forestry. The transfer of this property is the University's decision, and for that they are getting space made available on the grounds where the current Forestry build- ing is located, which is very important to them. The University Real Estate Foundation is also getting an option on the land on Fontaine Avenue from the Division of Forestry. This transfer clearly benefits the University, so it is proper to look at the PACC Agreement and not get confused by the fact that the Division of Forestry is going to be located there. Mr. Lindstrom said when he talked about a buffer along Route 53, he was not just referring to it as far as the limitsi of this parcel goes, but all the way up the whole Blue Ridge property tract. The question of berming the buildings into the side of the hill is someth.ing he would like Mr. Keeler to address. He said the issue in question is whether the Board is willing to give some sanction to a project which is incomsistent with the Comprehensive Plan from a pragmatic recognition that the prsject will probably proceed in exchange for advantages to the public. The question is whether those advan- tages are sufficient for the Board to waive its participation in the future of this project. Mr. Keeler said he thought the 38,000 square foot building, which is basically a storage building, could be bermed/~!as Mr. Lindstrdm suggested. Mr. Lindstrom added that one of the buildings is about 38,000 square feet, and the other is about 100,000 square feet. For comparison purposes, Mr. Lindstrom said the Visitor's Center across the road is 6ne-tenth of the combined size of these buildings at 14,000 square feet. For f~rther comparison, Mr. Keeler said 140,000 square feet would be larger than'~i!the Shopper's World shopping center, which is about 120,000 square feet. St would be slightly smaller than Albemarle Square, which is 180,000 square fee{. Mr. Keeler said that he and Mr. Cilimber~ had visited the site, and it is their opinion that the building would not be ~isible from Route 53 because of the varying topography between Route 53 and t~e building if the existing vegetation is left in place. Mr. Lindstrom s~id that means undisturbed from beyond the limits of this parcel as it is designated on the plan. He said that the vegetation along Route 53 approaching from a higher elevation is what screens the development along Route 53. Mr. Cilimberg added that the combina- tion of the vegetatmon and a h~lls~de keeps the building on the other side of the hill from view. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a ii!50 to 200-foot undisturbed buffer along Route 53 would preserve that scre~ening. Mr. Cilimberg said that is his and Mr. Keeler's opinion. He said theCe is a fairly narrow area of visibility into the site with a stream crossing and heavy vegetation. If that is undisturbed there would be little visibility. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the berming could be done and would it make a difference on Route 20. Mr. Keeler said the building has been desligned with windows all around, and that is the problem. Mr. Lindstrom agreed!that the Board is seeing these plans after a tremendous amount of time, moneyi~.and effort has been spent. It makes it difficult to address the concerns of putting a building this size in that location. Mr. Keeler said that both plans representila substantial amount of grading intended to achieve some of the screening measures talked about. He felt the building could certainly be dropped further in'elevation into a "teacup" shape. Mr. Lindstrom asked what could be donei~to the administrative services building. Mr. Keeler said it is basically a m~tal building, and he thought it could be "dropped" into the ground. Mr. Covey said he represents the architects for the Department of For- estry, and they have been assisting in finding)the best solutions based on November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) 23~5! everyone's input. He said that effort has resulted in Master Plan B. He has been working in the community on this project for about a year and one-half with different entities involved in the project. He wants to be responsive to the community with regard to the site so that the location, amenities, screen- ing, visibility, and other issues would be comfortable to those involved. He hopes these issues have been addressed in Plan B to everyone's satisfaction. Having read the memo from Mr. Keeler, from the meeting Mr. Lindstrom referred to, and from understanding Monticello's position, he feels that Plan B is the choice. The project provides the opportunity for the University and Monti- cello to work together on the buffer that Mrl Lindstrom mentioned. That is being discussed and negotiated as a separate, item regarding the project. He said it would be appropriate to pause for any specific questions the Board might have and to defer to Mr. Leonard Sandridge from the University of Virginia. He said he feels it is appropriate for the University to be the spokesman here, and not the architect for the Department of Forestry. Howev- er, he said he is here to work with the Boar~ in any way and to help view the models in the lobby. Mr. Bowie asked how tall the buildings ~ould be. Mr. Covey said the headquarters building reaches approximately 59 feet at the peak of the roof. He said there is a first floor basic brick w~ll and parapet. Above that and stepped back is glass from which the second ~loor offices would look out, and above that is a sloped metal roof. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the height ofi.~he administration services facility. Mr. Covey said it is approximatel~ the same height. It is a combination of brick and metal. There is bri~k about half way up on the lower side with metal to the roof. The roof is a ~.tandard seam metal roof sloping upward. Ail colors on both buildings are mashing. Mr. Way asked the color of the metal bu~dings. Mr. Covey said the roof is dark green to blend in with the surrounding trees. It will not be a red roof like the Visitor's Center across the ro~d. He said they are trying to make it a low profile, non-visible project. He pointed out that the adminis- trative support facility has already been betted and dropped into the ground about seven or eight more feet than originally designed. He said they are trying to take into consideration ways to better use the land as a natural barrier for the project. Mr. Way said he wants to know what color the metal part of the building other than the roof will be. Mr. Covey said he misunderstood his question. He said the concept is to have a soft, light ~rown color with a lighter stripe in brick as an accent. It will basically be !garth tone colors in the lower parts of the building and green on the roof agove. He said those colors are appropriate for the Division of Forestry's image and for the Division of Mineral Resources which will use a part of th9 building. Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes that the ~roject is so substantial that talking about the color of the roof may seem ~icky. However, there will be a lot of roof out there. Green is great in thei!!.summer when everything else is green. He said one color he has seen used is~.a rusty sort of brown which blends in with green in sua~ner and doesn't logk out of place in the winter. Mr. Covey said he was certainly willing to work with the Board regarding the color issue. However, there are several othe{ people involved who have to be dealt with. He asked the Board to understand~that there are a lot of things to be balanced at one time. He realizes that iit. is an important site and has a number of important people involved in help~ng~ make the decision. He said he appreciates the Board's input. Mr. Ray Haas said it is important to kee~ in mind that this is the first project under the joint Agreement in Area B, ab everyone is learning how to make the Agreement work. Area B is treated a~ibit differently than Area A because of the special concerns of the County.i~ He said the basic premise should be kept in mind that, as the Planning s~laff· reported, this is State property and is exempted from local regulations. He said he mentions that because, while the County has a Comprehensive?lan for this piece of property in Area B, the University has a plan as well. ~He said the University's plan probably has not had the long standing of the ~ounty's, but at least the Plan was that the Blue Ridge Site certainly would n~t be rural as a basic premise. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) 236 He said the Agreement called for the University to receive suggestions on any property it would be developing in Area B and to make a good faith effort to conform to the Agreement by accepting the suggestions. The University has kept the County representatives on the Planning and Coordination Council informed of ideas about this possible transaction. He said the minutes show that this has happened for up to a full year in advance of getting to today's stage. He said that is important to keep in mind. Mr. Haas said this would be a Department of Forestry project, not a University of Virginia project. The Board of Visitors has approved the transfer of the property to the Forest- ry Department. While that is true, the University voluntarily has stayed "up front" in informing the County. He said from the University's point of view, that is an important demonstration of good f~ith related to the Agreement. The normal procedure would call for a submittal of plans to the Planning Commission. He said this plan is on the agenda for the Planning Commission for November 21. Because of the special concerns of the Board of Supervisors, the University agreed quickly and readily to meet with a special committee, aside from the Planning Commission. Mr. Haas said he has taken notes here to:day, and of course there are minutes from the meeting of the special committee. He said the University will proceed with a Joint Area B Study of this area, and he felt that should take place whatever the long term problems might be related to these kinds of issues. The University, working with the Department of Forestry, has made many changes to the plans as originally conceived. He said the whole site was changed because it might be better for the cQ~unity. He said the road was changed, and the locations of the buildings h~ve been changed. A whole group of things have happened as a result of the U~iversity and the Department of Forestry receiving suggestions through the spirit of the Agreement. Mr. Haas said from his perspective as someone who took part in all of the f negotiations leading up to the inal PACC agreement, these changes are superb evidence that the Agreement is working. The ~niversity is here to get the Board's suggestions; the suggestions of the IP!%anning Commission; and they will make a good faith effort to conform to those ~uggestions. He said that is what the University agreed to do, and he believes it is working. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Haas could te~% the Board anything about the buffer. Mr. Haas said a suggestion related t~ the buffer has been received and is under review. He said he personally t~inks that some kind of a buffer will be provided. Mr. Bain asked what the time frame would!i'~be for that response. Mr. Haas said he felt that a response to the buffer suggestion would be done by the time of the presentation to the Planning Commission. He said a great service the Board can give is to let the University k~ow what their suggestions are. A~ 12:49 P.M., the Board went into the l~bby to view the model prepared by the architect for the Forestry Department. Regarding the crossover not having Suffidient sight distance from Route 20, Mr. Covey indicated there would be no pro61em in taking out the crossover because of safety issues. Mr. Covey then des6ribed the intended traffic flow patterns around the buildings, iI Mrs. Cooke said she was confused by this pro3ect. She said does not understand what is being asked of the Board, S!ince the Board does not usually see a project until Planning Commission ' ~ revmew!iihas been completed. She asked what the purpose of the review is when the Board has no technical recommenda- tions from the Planning CommiSsion. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood that theitime frame for the project does not allow for the normal process. The specifi~ question the Board should address is whether it wants to make recommendations on how to make this project'more acceptable from the County's prospective and communicate that to the architect and the Planning Commission. Heisaid the Board may decide it does not want to be a part of the process. ~ Mrs. Cooke said the Board does not have t~ie expertise to do that, and that is what the staff and Planning Commissionilare to do. She said this looks like a completed project, and that is not in the spirit of the Agreement November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) 23 ~7~ between the County and the University. The Board is looking at something after the fact, and the whole process is comPletely backwards. Mr. Bowie said it seems there is disagreement over whether the Agreement was followed. He said having a joint committee look at the plan in the beginning is one thing, but having the Board look at the plan after the plans are completed is something else. Mr. Bowie wanted to know if the Board can really do anything about what it doesn't like on the project. For example, can the building be lowered seven feet. Mr. Covey responded that the building has already been lowered. He said this project had been before the Pianning Commission in accordance with State law to advise that this project was proposed. Mr. Lindstrom interrupted and said that plan was on a different site. Mr. Covey said he would like to finish his statement. He said the site was on Route 53 with the same acreage. At the Planning Commission meeting, the representatives of Monticello asked for time to study the project and make their Opinions known. They were not comfortable with the project on Route 53 and asked for a postponement. Subsequently, a number of meetings occurred. He said the next meeting before the Planning Commission was deferred because ;other sites were being consid- ered. Mr. Covey said 30 different sites were~considered. Now everyone has said that Plan B is comfortable as the direction they recommend. Mr. Covey said the comments the Board iSlmaking today are confusing to him because this project is being viewed in accordance with Mr. Lindstrom's request to get leverage. Mr. Lindstrom interrupted to say that this meeting was not to get leverage. He said the Board has been asked to endorse Plan B. Mr. Covey said the concept of Plan B wasilpresented and generally con- curred with. The idea today was to make it available to the Board for information. He said this project is on the .Planning Commission schedule in accordance with State law for State property.~i Mr. Bowie interjected that he finds it hard to believe that State law means.~.a State agency can do anything it wants. ' Mr. Covey repeated that due to concerns ~f the Monticello Memorial Foundation, the site had been moved. He saidiilhe met with Mr. Cilimberg and again with Mr. Keeler to go over the plans. ~hey made comments about the visibility from Route 20. Ail this input has~?been reflected in this concept, including easements between Monticello, building set back, and a lower build- ing. He said the architects, planner and engineers on this project have moved as responsively to the comments as possible to this point. Further, the information is provided today at the request of Mr. Lindstrom. There has already been a meeting with the joint committee at which this project was presented. From the architect's point of view., they are prepared to move forward. He said the comments staff has made ..iwill be considered. In fact, there is not an issue that has been raised that was not addressed or is in the process of being addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board s~ould consider making a list of recommendations about this project and submit~!ing those. He said there is a public interest which the Board should address!.. He resents the notion that this plan has been agreed upon. He said staff~:i addressed the site plan, but those comments should not be taken as a sanction. Between two proposals, staff selected one. Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion would be the same as side- stepping the Planning Commission's review of t~e project. Mr. Bain said the Planning Commission can take its own perspective, and the Board can have input as well. ~ Mr. Agnor said he did not think the Board!needed to get in front of the Planning Commission review. Since they are scheduled to meet on November 28, the Board could then consider their recommendation and either add to or subtract from it. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said if this is going to be~deferred to the Planning Commission, the Board should let them know tha~ it wants a recommendation from them. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) Mr. Way said the reason the plan got to this point is a separate issue. That has to do with the Agreement, and it needs to be reviewed and worked out and better understood. However, he looks at this as an opportunity for the County to have input into what the project will be. He said he did not want to throw away the opportunity. Mr. Haas said his perception is that the County has been an actiVe participant throughout this project. He said the PACC and the Planning Commission have had input as well, and the Board may want to make more sugges- tions. Mr. Lindstrom disagreed. However, he felt a decision has to be made as to how to deal with the project now. At 1:27 P.M., the Board returned to Room 7. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to ask the Planning Commission to give a recommendation to the Board after the Planning Commission meeting on November 28 and to place this item on the Board's agenda for December 6, at which time-the Board could make a recommen- dation in writing regarding this project. Mr. Bowie said he would support the motion. However, there was some debate over the intent and meaning of State iaw, and he would like the County Attorney to check that law sometime before the December 6 meeting. Mr. Bain said he thinks that if Board members have specific questions between now and next week's meeting, those questions could b~i!submitted to the County Execu- t ive. :i ~ Mrs. Cooke clarified her earlier statem~ht in the lobby regarding the Agreement between the City and County. Perhaps she has a misconception of what the Agreement provides for. She understands that the University and other State agencies have a perfect right to !~o ahead with a project the way they choose. However, her understanding was ~hat the Agreement provided that those projects located in Albemarle County wo~ld follow the same process which any other project follows in Albemarle CountYil To get the first project under the Agreement presented completely backward f~om the process, causes a great deal of confusion. She said the staff backup.ilwhich the Board usually has is not available in that case. It has nothing t~ dQ with the work the architects have done. It has to do with the process of ~eview, not whether the Board agrees with the project. She said that has n~t been done here, and that is what makes it difficult to address this project. Too many steps have either been left out or not been addressed at all ini~the review process. She said she would support the motion. She added that ithe Agreement should be reviewed and a determination made as to whether it is going to be followed or whether to "throw it out the window". Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Resolution: Coalition for Mentally Disabled Citi- zens of Virginia. This item will be taken up at the November 15, 1989, afternoon meeting. Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriations: Robf Replacement for Stony Point School. Mr. Agnor said it was discovered during a renovation project that the roof of Stony Point Elementary School would require replacement. The bid for roof replacement is $97,000. The request is that this amount be added to the Stony Point total project which will be paid f~r from last month's bond issue. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bai~ and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve an appropriation by adopting the following resolution. 23 November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 89-90 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT OF ROOF ON STONY POINT SCHOOL. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900060211800902 STONY POINT SCHOOL ROOF $97~000.00 TOTAL $97,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900051000510100 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND BAL TOTAL $97~000.00 $97,000.00 Agenda Item No. 13b. FY 1988-89 Year-Ehd Adjustments, Fund Balances.. This item will be taken up at the November 15, 1989, afternoon meeting. Agenda Item No. 14. Request for extensfon of time limit on SP-87-96 - Dunlora Development. ~ Mr. Cilimberg said the request is from ~he developers of the Dunlora property for a one year extension of the special use permit allowing the installation of fill and a culvert in the floodway fringe of the Rivanna River. The Board approved the special use permit on January 6, 1988, and it expires on January 6, 1990, if construction does not commence prior to that date. He said staff can determine no change'lin circumstances which would preclude granting this request. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the plat for Phase I-A be recorded prio~ to its expiration on January 16, 1990, in accordance with the Virginia Code. iShould the plat expire, then the extension of the special use permit would als!o become void. He said to this point there has been no recordation of any o~ithe lots in Dunlora Phase I. Phase I-A has received final approval, but h~ not been recorded. Without recordation there is no guarantee of the enti~e final plat approval for the Dunlora Development, and without that assurance, the actual development of the lots may not take place. The County would no~ want to grant a permit for fill in the flood plain without assurance that thel. subdivision will take place. Roads are being cut in the development at th~ time in all of the Phase I-A areas. Staff expects that Phase I-A will be i%ecorded by January 16, but wants to be sure that this special use permit is tiAd to that recordation. Mr. Bain asked if there is any reason wh~ this plat could not be recorded by January 16. Mr. Cilimberg said there is n~ practical reason that staff has knowledge of. He said even though the roads ~re being cut, until the plats are recorded, bonding for the roads cannot happen. He said all permits and County requirements have been met. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and Seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the request for extension of SP-87-96:,!i!for one year with the condition that the plat for Phase I-A be recorded prior~i~to its expiration on January 16, 1990, in accordance with Section 15.1-466(h) 6~f the Code of Virginia. Roll was called and the motion carried bM the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrJ. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Agenda Item No. 18. Certificates of Appr.~ciation. Mr. Way said the Transportation Safety C~ittee (formerly Highway Safety Commission) was in operation for a number of y~ars and it obtained a consider- able amount of money for the County for many p~ojects. A total of $94,273.00 November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) has been received for various safety-related items. The committee has been disbanded because this type of grant is no longer available. Therefore, the following members of the Transportation Safety Committee are being awarded certificates for their service on that committee: Robert Thraves November 10, 1982 June 14, 1989 Calvin Moyer - July 18, 1984 - June 14, 1989 Patricia H. Cooke - January 6, 1982 - June 14, 1989 Mr. Moyer thanked Mrs. Cooke for her patience and said that more citizens should be involved in County government. Mrs. Cooke said the members of the committee were faithful, and she thanked each one for their service. She said much good was accomplished while the funds were available. Members of that committee receiving certificates but not present were: Hugh Lanahan - October 17, 1968 - June 14, 1989 Michael Demetsky - January 28, 1976 - J0ne 14, 1989 Frank Johnstone - June 11, 1984 - June 14, 1989 Mr. Way said that letters of appreciation and certificates would also be forwarded to the following citizens for theiC~ service to the County: Dr. Richard W. Lindsay served on the Jefferson Area Board for Aging from June 8, 1983 to March 31, 1989. Dr. James R~ Batten served on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board from June 141, 1978 to June 30, 1989; Mr. E. N. Garnett, Jr. served on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board from July 18, 1984 to August 1, 1989; Mr. Stanley!B. ¥oth served on the Joint Airport Commission from April 6, 1983 to December 1, 1988. Mrs. Kathleen M. Kennedy served on the Community Services Boafd from September 3, 1986 to June 30, 1989. None of these citizen members were able to be present at this meeting. Agenda Item No. 17a. Executive Session:< Land Acquisition. At 1:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mr..Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session f~r discussion of specific person- nel and land acquisition in accordance with Oode Sections 2.1-344.A.1 and 2.1-344.A.3. Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messr,i. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session a~ 2:51 P.M. Agenda Item No. 19. Adoption of ZTA-89-153, Rural Areas Amendment. (Deferred from November 1, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg said that Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, would discuss the changes suggested by the Board at its public hearing last week. Mr. Keeler pointed out the new language in Section 10.3.3.3.a. He then suggested that No. 44, Farmer's market, and N~. 45, Fairgrounds, Exposition grounds, under Section 10.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE ~ERMIT be deleted from this amendment until staff prepares definitions for those terms. He also suggested that staff be authorized to process applications already in hand under current provisions, that staff be authorized to dismiss special use permit requests which have been submitted and are not in compliance with this ordinance, and that the effective date of the ordinance be t~day. Mr. Lindstrom asked ' '~ ' ' · f staff would normally ~nform an applzcant for a rural subdivision of the options that are available. Mr. Keeler said staff November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) 241 does that as a standard procedure. Mr. Lindstrom said it would be to the advantage of an applicant and to the County for staff to inform applicants of these provisions. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstro~ and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve ZTA-89-13 as amended in the staff report dated November 1, 1989, including the removal of Nos. 44 and 45 on Page 7 and the addition of language on Page 10, Section 10.3.3.3.a, and by adopting the following ordinance and incorporating staff's recommendation for proqessing applications and the effective date. Roll was called and the motion carried bY the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO AbfEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 10, RURAL AREAS!iDISTRICT, RA OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 10, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted and repealed in certain sections as follows: 10.0 RURAL ARFAS DISTRICT~ RA 10.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED This district (hereafter referlred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be ~Stablished by amendment of the zoning map for the following purposes: -Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; -Water supply protection; -Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and -Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. Residential development not related to bona fide agricul- tural/forestal use shall be encouraged to locate in the urban area, communities and vi%lages as designated in the comprehensive plan where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestali~or other rural objective. Where development does occur, ~ural residents should except to receive a lower leve~ of service delivery than will be provided to residential developments in designated growth areas. In relation to residential development, agricultural/forestal activities shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to pro~ect public health and safety. ~ In regard to agricultural preservation, this district is intended to preserve the county's active farms and best agricultural and forestal lands by providing lot areas designed to insure the continued availability of such i . lands for preferential land us~ tax assessment ~n order to enhance the economy, and maintZin employment and lifestyle opportunities. In addition, t~e continuation and estab- lishment of agriculture and agriculturally-related uses will be encouraged, and landown!ers will be encouraged to employ Virginia State Water Con~trol Board best management practices. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) 242 It is intended that permitted development be restricted to land which is of marginal utility for agricultural/ forestal purposes, provided that such development be carried out in a manner which is compatible with other purposes of this district. Roadside strip development is to be discouraged through the various design requirements contained herein. 10.2 PERMITTED USES 10.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any RA district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and rental of the same; provided that yard, area and other requiremeqts of section 10.4, conven- tional development by ri§ht, shall be met for each such use whether or not ~uch use is on an individual lot subject to section 10~.3. Side-by-side duplexes subject to the provisions of section 10.4; provided t~at density is maintained and provided that buildings ~re located so that each unit could be provided with a.itot meeting all other requirements for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards ati~the common wall. Other two-family dwellings sha%t be permitted provided density is maintained. .~ Agriculture, forestry, a~d fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided. 10. Game preserves, wildlife !~anctuaries and fishery uses. Wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (reference 5.1.19). Electric, gas, oil and co~mmunication facilities excluding multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a p~blic utility. Water distribution and sewerage!icollection lines, pumping stations and appurtenance{ owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service %uthority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage syst~s in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code ofi~iAlbemarle and all other applicable law. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupa- tion, Class A (reference ~.2) and storage buildings. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). Public uses and buildings~including temporary or mobile facilities such as:!schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads fun~ed, owned or operated by local, state or federal a~encies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer trgnsmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (referenc~ 31.2.5; 5.1.12). Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in ~.14). November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 29) 243 11. Veterinary services off-site treatment only. 12. Agricultural service occupation (subject to perform- ance standards in 4.14). 13. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3. 14. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). 15. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6): A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. 16. b. Due to the destruct~°n of a permanent home an emergency exists. ~ipermit can be issued in this event not to e~ceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in ac6~rdance with the intent of this ordinance and s!hall be authorized to require or seek any i~information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and " " ~i. . b o~;the aforementioned uses. Temporary mobile home in ~ccordance with section 5.7. 17. Farm winery (reference 5.~.25). 10.2.2 18. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards includ- ing all borrow pits and b~rrow areas on any one parcel of record on the adoption date of this pro- vision (reference 5.1.28)~ BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 9. 10. 12. Community center (reference 5.1.4). Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.2). Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 519). Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). Private schools. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oi~~ transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned tele- phone exchange centers; m!icro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay to,ers, substations and appurtenances. Day care, child care or nqrsery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Repealed 3-5-86) Mobile home subdivisions (~eference 5.5). Mobile homes on individuaZilots (reference 5.6). Hog farms. Horse show grounds, permanent. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) 244 13. Custom slaughterhouse. 14. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1-486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.7). 16. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3). 17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.1). 20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.5). 21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14). 22. Country store. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 11-8-89) 27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic land- mark as designated in the:comprehensive plan provided such structure has been u~ed as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the Mtructure shall be restored as faithfully as possible~:.to the architectural character of the period ahd shall be maintained consistent therewith. 28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5. 29. Boat landings and canoe l~very. 30. Permitted residential use~ as provided in section 10.5. 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery. ~ 33. Crematorium. 34. Multi-crypt mausoleum. 35. Church building and adjunct cemetery. 36. Gift, craft and antique shops. 37. Public garage. 38. Exploratory drilling. 39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). 40. Borrow area, borrow pit nat permitted under section 10.2.1.18. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) 245 41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). 42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organi- zations which are related to, and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). 43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). 10.3 APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record at 5:15 p.m., the tenth day of December, 1980 (reference 6.5). 10.3.1 CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Amended 11-8-89) 10.3.2 Regulations in section 10.5 governing development by right shall apply to the division of a parcel into five (5) or fewer lots of less than twenty-one (21) acres in area and to the location of five (5) o~ fewer dwelling units on any parcel in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance; provided that the aggregate acreage devoted to such lots or development shall~not exceed thirty-one (31) acres, except in such case where this aggregate acreage limitation is precluded by other provisions of this ordi- nance. Nor shall such aggrega{e acreage limitation preclude exercise of division ~ights in such case where division rights have been allocated by division of land since adoption of this ordinance but prior to the effec- tive date of this provision in~'such manner as to preclude compliance with this provision~ provided that, where possible, the residue acreage i~ollowing exhaustion of division rights shall be twenty-one (21) acres or more. In addition to the foregoing, ~here shall be permitted by right any division of land int0 parcels each of which shall be twenty-one (21) acres~or more in area. No such parcel shall be included in determining the number of parcels which may be created by right pursuant to section 10.3.1; provided that (a) no s~ch division shall affect the number of parcels which ma~ be divided pursuant to section 10.3.1; (b) there may ~e located not more than one (1) dwelling unit on any parce~ created pursuant to this section; (c) at the time of an~ such division, the owner of the parcel so divided shall!!idesignate the number of parcels into which each parcel!~so divided may be further divided pursuant to section 10~'3.1; and (d) no such division shall increase the nudiber of parcels which may be created pursuant to section 10i~3.1. 10.3.3 10.3.3.1 RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT DEFINITIONS The following definitions shal~ apply to any rural preser- vation development created under the provision of section 10.0, rural areas district, RA:: a. Development Lot: A lot w~thin a rural preservation development, other than a ~rural preservation tract, created for the purpose o~ residential or other per- mitted usage. : b. Rural Preservation Development: A subdivision of land consisting of development lots together with a rural preservation tract, i Rural Preservation Tract: A lot, the usage and diminishment of which is restricted and protected by November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 32) 246 legal arrangements to insure its maintenance and preservation for the purpose of: preservation of agricultural and forestal land and activity; water supply protection; and/or conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources. 10.3.3.2 INTENT; DESIGN STANDARDS The rural preservation development option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the comprehensive plan than can be achieved under conventional development. To this end, application for rural preserva- tion development shall be reviewed for: a. Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; b. Water supply protection;land/or c. Conservation of natural, iscenic or historic resources. More specifically, in accordance with design standards of the comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably prac- tical by the commission: go Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal soils as the same shall be shown ~n the most recent published maps of the United StateM Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability b~ the Soil Conservation Service; Development lots shall ndt encroach into areas of critical slope or flood ~lain and shall be situated as far as possible from ~ublic drinking water supply tributaries and public d~inking water supply impound- ments; ~ Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and!scenic settings deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such features are on the parcel to be developed o~adjacent to such parcel; Development lots shall b~ confined to one area of the parcel and shall be situated so that no portion of the rural preservation t~act shall intrude between any development lots; All development lots shal~i have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle; Nothing stated herein shail be deemed to obligate the commission to approve a r~ral preservation develop- ment upon finding in a particular case that such proposal does not forwardilthe purposes of rural preservation development as set forth hereinabove and that the public purpose t~ be served would be equally or better served by conve~tional development. 10.3.3.3 SPECIAL PROVISIONS In addition to design standard~ as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 and other regulation, ;the following special provisions shall apply to any ~ural preservation develop- ment: November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 33) 247 be The maximum number of lots within a rural preser- vation development shall be the same as may be achievable pursuant to section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 and other applicable law. Each rural preser- vation tract shall count as one (1) lot. In the case of any parcel of land which, prior to application for rural preservation development, has been made subject to a conservation, open space or other similar easement which restricts.development on the parcel, the total number of lots available for rural preser- vation development shall not exceed the number available for conventional development as limited by any such previously imposed easement or easements; Section 10.3.3.3.a notwithstanding, no rural preser- vation development shall'contain more than twenty (20) development lots; e~cept that the board of supervisors may authoriz~ more than twenty (20) development lots by issuance of a special use permit pursuant to section 10.532; Provisions of section 10.i3.3, rural preservation development, shall be applied to the entire parcel. Combination of conventional and rural preservation development within the p~rcel shall not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and"section 10.3.2 shall be permitted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract. Not~ing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the. commission from approving a rural preservation devel9pment for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of this provi- sion; provided that, in ~ither case, the provisions of section 10.3.3 shall ~e applicable; so The area devoted to development lots together with the area of roadway necessary to provide access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six (6) expressed in acres; No rural preservation development shall contain less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The commis- sion may authorize more t~an one (1) rural preserva- tion tract in a particula~ case pursuant to the various purposes of ruralli'preservation development as set forth in section 10.3~3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3.c, as th~ case may be; No rural preservation tract shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically permitted by the commission at time of establishment, not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural preservationltract or development lot. No rural preservation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions~!ilshall be guaranteed by perpetual easement accrua61e to the County of Albemarle and the public ~ecreational facility authority of Albemarle CoUnty in a form acceptable to the board. In accordanceli~ith Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle, the director' of planning and con~nunity development shall serve a~ agent for the board of supervisors to accept suc~ easement. Thereafter, such easement may be modified or abandoned only by mutual agreement of the g~antees to the original agreement. ~ November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 34) 10.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS 248 REQUIREMENTS DIVISIONS BY RIGHT (Amended 8-14-85) DIVISIONS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Gross Density 0.5 du/ac 0.5 du/ac Minimum lot size 2.0 acres 2.0 acres Minimum frontage existing public roads Minimum frontage internal public or private roads 250 feet 150 feet 250 feet 150 feet Yards, minimum: Front 75 feet 75 feet Side 25 feet 25 feet Rear 35 feet 35 feet Maximum structure height 35 feet 35 feet 10.5 10.5.1 10.5.2 10.5.2.1 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MULTIPLE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS LIMITATIONS ON DIVISIONS PERMITTED BY RIGHT Divisions of land shall be permitted as provided herein- above; except that no parcel Of land of record on the date of the adoption of this ordinance may be divided into an aggregate of more than five (5) parcels except as provided in section 10.3.2 and section 10.5.2 hereof nor shall there be constructed on any sUch parcel an aggregate of more than five (5) units. WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The board of supervisors may aathorize the issuance of a special use permit for: a. More lots than the total ~umber permitted under section 10.3.1 and sectioh 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment;!?and/or b. More development lots tha~ permitted under section 10.3.3.3.b. The board of supervisors shalll determine that such divi- sion is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this ordinance, with reference to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type,.of division proposed and specifically, as to this secti6n only, with reference to the following: The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal ~roduction as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 35) 249 The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shal~ be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal~iarea if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has bee~ in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area ~hall be considered. The relationship of the ~roperty in regard to devel- oped rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a devel- oped rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) milelof the boundary of such property was in parcels ~f record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption ~ate of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of ~n area shall be considered. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed po~'~lation centers, services and employment centers. ~ property within areas described below shall be '~eemed in proximity to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; b. Within one-half mile'roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the compre- hensive plan; c. Within one-half mile'iroadway distance of a village as describediin the comprehensive plan. The probable effect of the proposed development on 1 capital improvements programming in regard to in- creased provision of services. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: Occasion the need fo~ road improvement; Cause a tolerable ro~d to become a nontolerable road; Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 36) 250 boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the con- struction phase of any development; The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; ge The proximity of any paved (pervious or imper- vious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; ~ The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; The percentage and Length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, pave~ area (pervious or imper- vious) or active reqreational area shall exist after development; i; The estimated duration and timing of the con- struction phase of ~ny proposed development and extent to which suc~'duration and timing are unpredictable; The degree to which'ioriginal topography or vege- tative cover have b~sn altered in anticipation of filing for any p~rmit hereunder; The extent to which The standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require periodic inspection and/or mainten- ance; 2. Are susceptiblglto failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one hundred year or more i~ense storm. 10.5.2.2 MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT The commission and the board of supervisors may require the applicant to submit such i!Rformation as deemed neces- sary for the adequate review of such application provided that such information shall be i directly related to items 1, 2, 3 and 9 of section 10.5.:2.1. Agenda Item No. 19a. Discussion: Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance. Mr. St. John said this matter was deferred from the October 11 meeting for further discussion. He sa~d representatives from the Charlottesville/- Albemarle Clean Community Commission are present to discuss how this program of removal of inoperable vehicles will work. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 37) 251 Mr. Roger Flint, Acting President of CAC3, said his organization has been the anti-littering and recycling arm of the County for the past 11 years. He said the two recycling centers currently remove 1.5 million pounds of goods from the solid waste stream. He said this organization is funded solely by private funds. The organization is volunteer intense, with about 4000 to 5000 people involved a year. He said CAC3 feels that abandoned vehicles can be turned into a recycling project. A $50 bounty on vehicles will be used for further anti-litter and recycling programs. He said the State mandate is to recycle 25 percent of waste material by 1995~ That will require a real education effort toward citizens, which Mr. Flint said has already started. He said a Speakers Bureau and several citizen groups are working on informing citizens on what is ahead, and this is exhausting all of CAC3's supplies and funds. With the help of Mr. St. John and the Department of Motor Vehicles, Ms. Rosemary Sheuchenko has prepared a program for the Board's review and adoption to assist in the removal of inoperable vehicles. Ms. Rosemary Sheuchenko, from CAC3, said the ordinance will give the locality the authority to make the keeping o~ inoperable vehicles unlawful if not shielded from public view. The ordinanc~ does not make the keeping of an inoperable vehicle unlawful provided it is i~ an enclosed structure or other- wise out of public view. She said that is an important point because there are people who have emotional attachments to~llold cars which they mean to fix up eventually, and they do not want them taken away. Another important item is that the ordinance is not aimed to removeicitizens rights, but to make the community safer and more attractive. She sa~d CAC3 wants to assist the community, not alienate anyone. Ms. Sheuchenko said that consideration $!hould be given to enforcement of the ordinance. There are many people who ha~e an inoperable vehicle who would like to have it removed free of charge. At the beginning of the program, there will probably be many people who request to have their vehicles removed. Later on, people who are stubborn and are no~'!planning to comply with the law will have to be dealt with. When that happeBs, CAC3 feels that a County employee could check to be sure that a vehicle or vehicles was actually inoperable. The owner would be communicated ~With by letter and given so many days to have the vehicle(s) removed. Mrs. SheUchenko said she has talked with the Chief Field Investigator for the Department of Motor Vehicles in Richmond. She said DMVhas recently done an entire task~force study on this program. Their findings will be printed and published ~y December 1. Ms. Sheuchenko said CAC3 is willing to direct this program and has received two offers from companies in Albemarle County to collect and dispose of inoperable vehicles. Two gentlemen, Mr. T~erry Tate and Mr. Dennis Brown, are present and are already in the business oY removing inoperable vehicles. She said they make sure these cars go to the final stage of crushing and recycling. These gentlemen are willing to ge.t these vehicles free of charge. Therefore, CAC3 requests that consideration b~ made that it receive in full or in part the $50 bounty payable from DMV for e~ch vehicle correctly disposed of. If CAC3 is going to direct the program, ~hey would like to receive the bounty to help in its recycling work. Finally, Mrs. Sheuchenko proposed initia~ing this program for people who wish to have inoperable vehicles removed even!ilbefore the zoning ordinance comes into effect if the Board should agree. '!~She said she would be happy to begin that removal. She said that Appomattox~County uses a form which CAC3 would consider reproducing to promote the program. The form is very clear and precise. Mr. St. John asked what action CAC3 needed from the Board in order to proceed with the voluntary program. Mrs. Sh~uchenko said if the Board agreed to begin the program, she would like some ass{stance in producing a paper form for Albemarle County. She said she is operating on a very small grant from the Department of Waste Management, and needs 'some help with printing the forms and the postage to mail them. She said she did not need any official resolution unless the Board felt that would b~ necessary. Mr. St. John pointed out that the proposed ordinance has a provision for owners to keep cars as long as they are covered or screened from view. However, the enabling legislation says that in~ addition to prohibiting the keeping of inoperable vehicles, the Board may ialso limit the number of cars November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 38) 252 that can be kept outside a fully enclosed structure, even though-they are covered. When the proposed ordinance comes before the Board, there will be a limit to the number of inoperable vehicles that can be kept outdoors, whether they are screened or not. If that is not done, people with 250 cars sitting in the woods will say the woods serve as a screen from the public, and the whole purpose will be defeated. The idea is to protect the environment as well as the visual impact. Mr. St. John said the significance of this ordinance is that the County has never been able to enforce such an ordinance because there was no means to provide for compliance. This program will provide a means of compliance by telling a citizen not only that a vehicle has to be removed, but how it can be done. CAC3 has established a chain of compliance from an inoperable vehicle in the woods to the railroad car taking it to a melting center. Mr. Perkins asked the definition of "public view". Mr. St. John said it means view from a road or from a public plac~ or property. Mr. St. John said the question is whether the Board wants to set a public hearing for enactment of this ordinance. Mr. Way said the Board needs to decide if it wants to authorize flyers being.sent out and assisting with the printing. Mr. Bowie said he supports going ahead with the program immediately on a voluntary basis, and that the County help with printing or lay-out with the understanding that the County will be reimbur, sed for those costs when bounties are collected. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set a public hearing on this ordinance for December. 20, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Way said a motion is necessary for t~e Board to officially return to open session from the executive session at lunch. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie certifying the executive session as set out below. Roll was~called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board:of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative record- ed vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Cgde of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in confoCmity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that~the Albemarle COunty Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to ithe best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia la~ 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 w~re heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Boardi~of Supervisors. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 39) 253 Agenda Item No. 20. Report: Proposed Urban Area Elementary School. Mr. Cilimberg said in response to questions raised at the last Board meeting, staff has prepared information regarding the Urban Area Elmmentary School. He said staff addressed the general socio-economic data for the Rio Road/Hydraulic Road/Route 29 loop; the alternative park and recreation facili- ties to serve this area; and the school impacts and options identified in the Long Range Plan for Albemarle County Schools. Mr. Cilimberg said the area is fairly dense with residential development compared to other urban neighborhoods. There is a much larger concentration of duplex/townhouse/multi-family units, with a slightly lower median family income than is found in the remainder of the~County. The area is also heavily commercial with a small amount of industrial~: The total population is about 5600. Of that, the number of school children is estimated to be about 680. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this area is built out. Mr. Cilimberg said there are some high density residential areas which are still developable in the Rio Road/Hydraulic Road area going around to Whitewood Road, Mr. Cilimberg said the SPCA Road was not included in this estimate. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. David Papenfuse, iEducation Department, could address any questions the Board may have regarding the districting of schools. Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan recommended that the Whitewood Road site, which has been proposed for the urban school be "permanent public recreational uses on a parcel of County-owned land on Whitewood Road presently the jogging park site." In addition to that,l Mr. Cilimberg said the Board made a specific statement in the ComprehensiVe Plan to include the area along the Rivanna Reservoir, west of Woodburn Roadf~~ north of Rio Road and east of Route 743 in the Rivanna River Greenway Corridor. The school facilities do provide an important part of the recreationai provisions called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Elementary schools have '.been identified in the Comprehen- sive' Plan as community park sites. In secondary schools, they are identified as district park sites. Mr. Cilimberg said Chere also seems to be some opportunity at the Albemarle High School complex for a jogging trail as much as three to four miles long. Currently therei!~ is a one mile rough trail there. Regarding the Whitewood Road site witho~ the school, the Director of Parks and Recreation has comme~nted that the p~tential recreational facilities could include an upgraded jogging trail, basketball courts and a playing field. In addition there would be the oppor~6nity to retain significant greenspace. Mr. Cilimberg said some preliminary conceptual plans were done about a year ago on that site which Mr. Mulla~ey could address. With the construction of a school, the same basic recrlgational facilities could be placed in addition to the gymnasium for public use. Of course, there would be the loss of the greenspace in that event. Staff also addressed the impact of the ekpansion of the Woodbrook Elemen- tary School on recreational facilities. Mr. Mullaney felt that expansion would potentially eliminate the ball field space currently available at that school. Mr. Perkins asked the size of the Woodbr6ok School site. Mr. Cilimberg said the total acreage is about 11 acres. MrS. Cooke asked why it is neces- sary to have so much open, unused land in fro~t of the Woodbrook School. In her opinion, if the circle driveway could be ~edesigned, an addition could be made to the front of the building without disturbing the ballfields in the back. Mr. Cilimberg said the front was intended to provide an area for the school buses to circulate. He said expansionl~might be a possibility. In most cases schools are expanded from the academic Areas, rather than the adminis- trative areas. ~, Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Cooke's comments~raise another point. An elemen- tary school, called the Whitewood Road Schoolf is part of the Long Range Plan, which is a very big plan and involves a lot o~ money and which this Board has never addressed. The questions directly relaCed to the Whitewood Road site, such as the feasibility of other sites, the d~stricting and redistricting needs of the school-aged population, where ne~ buildings are needed, and how many more buildings will be built in the next,five years, are all part of the whole Plan. Dealing with this one project separately from the entire Long Range Plan may impair the Board's ability to make these decisions. He November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 40) 254 wondered if he has not been somewhat responsible for getting "the cart before the horse" by asking specifically for information about this site out of the context of the whole Long Range Plan. He said apparently there is some urgency about the Whitewood Road site in order to commence the building. However, the Board has never studied the plan which indicates the necessity for this new school. Mr. Bowie said that is correct. The Board has never really discussed any other views on these items. He said questions such as Mrs. Cooke had raised about adding to the front of the Woodbrook School should be answered. Mr. Bowie said he thinks it would be appropriate for the Board to discuss the Long Range Plan in conjunction with the Capital Improvements Program because it boils down to dollars. Mr. Bain said these projects are in the fCapital Improvements Program and have been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie said they have been approved by everyone who has no responsibility for funding any of the items. Mr. Lindstrom said it is difficult for ~im to get into a long discussion of the options onWhitewood Road without loo~ing at the whole plan, even though he requested the information staff is presenting. Mr. Lindstrom said this site is on the very edge of the growth asea. If it is well built out, maybe it makes sense to look at the possibility of putting a school in another part of the growth area like Dunlora, for example. That is all part of looking at the Long Range Plan. Mr. Bain ag=~ed. Mrs. Cooke said the expansion of Woodbro~k School and utilization of that site to its maximum would eliminate having t~!build a whole new school at this time. The situation could be evaluated taking into account new housing developments in the area. Mr. Bain said according to the staff reP~Prt, a 250 student addition to Woodbrook would still not eliminate the need ~for a new school, unless at the same time a 250 student addition is done at Hollymead Elementary School. That would mean Hollymead would be an 850-student ~apacity elementary school. Mrs.' Cooke said the expansion addresses the immediate need without having to build a new school, possibly in the wrong place. Mr. Bain agreed that the possibil- ity should be studied, but he felt that 250 more students at Woodbrook would not solve the need of the next two years. Mr.~ Lindstrom said that is his point about looking at the whole plan; no one on this Board knows those answers. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not 100 percent.i~opposed to using the Whitewood Road site for a school; however, he strongly 9mphasized that the Board needs to consider the total impact. That can only be done through studying the Long Range Plan. It may be found that this is not,the optimum site, although the Long Range Planning Committee worked hard to Come to this conclusion. He said the Long Range Plan contains valuable information with a lot of good recommen- dations, but the Board has to decide whether all of these recommendations should be capital projects, and if this is actually the way the Board wants to allocate capital resources. Mr. Bain suggested that at the next work,session on the CIP, School Board members and staff be present to discuss this issue. Mr. Lindstrom said when he prepared his analysis of the proposed Univer- sity Research Park, he deliberately did not adcept any of the recommendations in the Long Range Plan, not because he did no~ agree with them, but because the Board had never acted on them. They could not be considered to be a part of an approved capital projects plan for the ~ounty until the Board makes that decision. ~ Mr. Agnor said the Long Range Plan was pjesented and passed to the Planning Commission, and they are forwarding~ it to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is coming to the Board as part of]the CIP. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Board should l~ok at it as it was originally presented. Mr. Cilimberg said there was the game type of dilemma before the Planning Commission when they received the lis~ of projects frOm the School Board. The Planning Commission has never acted on the full plan, just as the Board has not. They have only acted on the current CIP portion. Mr. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 41) 255 Lindstrom pointed out that some of the projects may end up differently if the school districts are changed. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Long Range Plan is going to provide the basis for capital projects for the County, the entire Plan will have to be looked at as something more than a set of recommendations, and it will need to be officially adopted. Mr. Bain said he thinks~that would be difficult to do because it covers a ten year span. He said it would mean voting now on building a high school in 1996. Mr. Bain said there's no way he would vote on that. Mr. Lindstrom said parts of the Long Range Plan are already being discussed for building without having studied the entire Plan. He said that should not be done either. Mr. Bain said he has no problem studying the Plan, and he felt that should be done. But to adopt it as part of the CIP is crazy. He said there is no way he is going to vote to spend $26 million for a new high school. Mr. Lindstrom said the Whitewood Road Sdhool is one of the projects in the first five years of the Plan. If the Board is going to accept one or two projects, it should look at the entire Plan and decide whether or not it makes sense. Mr. Bowie said he would not approve the.!Long Range Plan as a capital commitment. His understanding is that it has to be reviewed annually after student projections are verified. His opinion is that annual review should be as part of the CIP. He said he would be glad~ to look at it. Mr. Lindstrom said he was trying to make the point that the~ Whitewood Road school project came out of the Long Range Plan. The Board as not officially studied or accepted any part of that Plan. To accept p~iece meal any projects in the Plan without an understanding of the whole thmng, .,ms a mmstake. Mr. Bowie said he understands Mr. Lindstrom's point, but he has a differ- ent view. The question is not whether therei!is a need for a new school, it is whether the site is to be at Whitewood Road or whether it should be reserved for a park. That is a separate issue from s~'~dying the entire Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the Long Range Plan has a lot ~to do with whether a school should go on that site or not. If the White~6od Road site is eliminated, and there are not any other good sites in that a{ea, then the eastern area will have to be studied. That means a different ~kpe of school district boundary. Mr. Bowie said that is assuming no schools should be more than 600 students and assuming staffing levels remain the same,!!!etc. Mr. Lindstrom said those are assumptions the County has operated on fo¥ 20 years. Maybe that should be further food for thought. ~ Mr. Way said he felt the Board should diAcuss the Long Range Plan in conjunction with the CIP. That does not mean~ however, the approval of or a commitment to building all the projects in the Plan. At least it will give the Board some indication of what might be ahead. Certainly, it would be reviewed every year. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that people will assume that the Plan has been approved and accepted and when the next project comes up, everyone will say "it's in the Plan~. Mr. Bowie said in that light,. the Board should only review it. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows he mentioned something about adopting the Plan, but he really wants the Board to just look at it so that when the Whitewood Road school discussion comes up, iti!is done in the context of whether the Plan makes sense insofar as it affects that school. He is not asking for the Board to approve the whole ten iYears of projects. Mr. Bain suggested that some of the School Board staff and someone from the Long Range Planning Committee be present to answer questions. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that staff cannot respond to ~questions regarding the effect of various sites on the school districts. ~ The consensus of the Board was that Mr. Cilimberg's report should be discussed in the context of the entire Long Rahge Plan, and this item should be carried forward until the CIP work sessions begin. Agenda Item No. 10~ Status Report: Camilla Gardens, Stormwater Deten- tion Basin. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 42) 256 Mr. St. John reported that the applicant is in compliance with the provisions of site plan review. He noted that Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, had submitted a report dated November 8, 1989, to the Board to that effect as well. The Board accepted Mr. St. John's report of the applicant's compliance and noted that no further information is needed on this matter. Agenda Item No. 17. Audit Cox~ittee Report. Mr. Bowie said this report contains recommended budget guidance for Fiscal Year 1990-91 from the Audit Committee in a memorandum dated November 2, 1989. As background, Mr. Bowie reported that through a series of Board actions in 1987 and 1988, the Audit Committee had been given the task of developing initial budget guidance for the Board's consideration in giving such guidance to the County Executive. Again, this year the Audit Committee has worked continually and closely with the County Executive in developing this report. He said the Audit Committee addressed two changes in methodology. The first is that this report is based on unaudited figures. The audit will not be complete, as in prior years, until around ithe first of December which is far too late for initial budget guidance. During the past six years, however, the final audit figures have varied very little from the staff's end-year account, and any such changes should not be Significant in developing initial guidance. Mr. Bowie reported that the second chang~ is in the form of the "guid- ance''. Prior reports recommended guidance ba~ed on a Real Property tax rate to be used in developing the budget. This was satisfactory for prior years and perhaps prior decades when the Capital I~provements Program (CIP) was level funded at $1.0 million per year plus a~::ititional monies as might be available from fund balances. Presently, however, the growth in the County (particularly in the projected requirements fbr new schools) coupled with change in the timing of approval of the CIP f~om Spring to Fall, requires the change in the method of guidance. In order ~ recommend a "tax rate" as budget guidance, both operating and capital ~quirements must be known. This year capital requirements will not be approv~ until December at least. After consultation with the County Executive, the ~?mmittee decided to recommend a fixed dolla= amount for initial operating bud'~et guidance inStead. After development of the CIP, these two separate do~lar amounts will be used to determine funding plans and a recommended taxi~.rate. Mr. Bowie said the balance of the report'i!deals with an analysis of certain financial information used in the development of initial budget guidance. Again last year, actual revenues e~ceeded budget estimates and actual expenditures were less than budgeted, i~For operations only, the breakeven tax rate, including debt service, w~s 65.4 cents. Deleting the $1 million for the CIP, the breakeven tax rate f~r operations was 62 cents. Mr. Bowie then summarized the fund balance status. In previous reports, it has been pointed out that approximately $8~0 million in year-end fund balances is required to provide cash flow progection for the period of July through December. With balances of $7.9 million shown in the General Fund and $14,000 shown in Schools, these fund balances!can provide NO funds for either operations or the CIP. The County does have §ufficient res-~rves to fund its cash needs until the next tax receipt cycle. Regarding the estimated 1990-1991 revenues provided by staff, Mr. Bowie said total revenues for the next fiscal year ~re shown to be $53,978,200, an increase of only $1,683,706 or 3.22 percent, lit should be stressed that these are local funds and known State reimbursement~ only and do not consider other State and Federal revenues. Given the facts stated above, the County ~will be faced with the require- ment for increased funding from some source w~en both operating and capital requirements are determined. The objective of this report is to recommend operating budget guidance only so that the County Executive may proceed with November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 43) 257 preparation of the operating budget. The Audit Committee took the 1989-90 actual budget as approved for this year, which shows $17.5 million for the operating budget for general government. Debt service, revenue sharing, refunds and contingencies for this year were added for a total of $23.5 million. Add to that the school budget, and'the total non-capital budget for the current year is $50.5 million. He said four percent was added for an inflation factor, giving $52.521 million as the initial budget guidance. Mr. Bowie pointed out that the total local revenue projected for next year is $53.9 million. This budget guidance allocates $52.5 million of that, leaving about $1.5 million. It should be pointed out that this figure does not include contributions to the CIP or the Debt Service on new school con- struction and renovations which have been funded through VPSA bonds (approxi- mately $1.4 million in 1990-91). Taking into account the operating budget and the Debt Service already incurred, all the 16cal revenues for next year have been allocated. He said this requires the B6ard to come up with funding for next year's capital requests. : Mr. Bowie pointed out two areas of concern to the Audit Committee. During development of the operating budget, ~ncluding Board work sessions, the Committee felt that particular attention mus~ be paid to the following two areas. Additional analysis and/or recommendations may be made as numbers are developed. A. Personnel costs: Approximately 65~percent of the entire operating budget involves personnel costs, i~cluding fringes. For the past several years the County has annually increased salaries by more than the inflation rate, while the!iprivate sector has not. B. School costs: While the enrollmen~ during the years 1984 to 1990 has increased by just over 1000 students or 12.9 percent, the per pupil cost has risen from $3475 to ,$5148, or 48.15 percent. While much of this may have been driven hY state-mandated but largely unfunded teacher pay raises, an increase in population normally results in a reduction in the per pupil costs of administration and other fixed cost areas. It is significant to point out that these figures show that it costs more to,educate a child in Albemarle County schools than in local priva~i~ schools. Mr. Bowie concluded that the Committee ~ecommends this report be accepted as guidance for development of the County's qperating budget for Fiscal Year Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bo~i~ and seconded by Mr. Perkins to accept the Audit Committee's recommendations for budget guidance. Mr. Agnor said this is the beginning of i~he budget process, and this is a reasonable approach. He said the budget requests are not known at this point. It is obvious that the capital program will r~equire additional resources. As Mr. Bowie reported, if everything is allocated to operations and $1.4 million is left for both capital contribution and deb~ service, the capital contribu- tion is obviously erased. He said the Board ~as been budgeting $1 million for capital needs, and last year agreed to increase that amount to nearly $3 million over the next few years. From an ope~ating budget point of view, this is a reasonable start. From a capital point ~f view, some difficult decisions will have to be made. Mr. Bowie said everything in the budget i~s not driven by inflation. However, including a four percent inflation f~ctor is a way to start. Secondly, the $1.2 million contingency which Occurred for the first time last year, carries forward, although it will not b~ used as a contingency. That money is also then available for distribution~for the operational budget. Mr. Bain said he opposed this committee ~ecommendation last year, and he does again this year. He feels that making bqdget recommendations is the job of the County Executive. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Bain, but ~aid he would abstain from voting so that his successor could be involved in th~s whole process without Mr. Lindstrom's influence. He said he did not feel comfortable with two members November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 44) 258 of the Board coming UP with budget guidance without the rest of the Board having any input. Mrs. Cooke said she would abstain from the vote for the same reasons given by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 21e. STA-89-02. Private Roads. To amend Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report as follows: "On April 18, 1989 the Planning Commission recommended amendments to the private road provisions of the subdivision ordinance to clarify and quantify the term significant degradation' of the environment as to road construction. No public comment was received at the Commission hearing. Subsequently, and p~ior to Board review, written comment was received from the public as well as verbal comment from the County Attorney. The B~ard referred the amendment back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The remainder of this memorandum will attempt to address issues raised since the Commission's prior review, staff also suggests a dis- cussion of whether or not private roads:~hould be automatically available under the proposed rural preservation development' option. ~ Continued Provision For Private Roads In!Rural Areas On repeated occasions, the County Engineer, Virginia'!Department of Transporta- tion, and Planning staff have stated that private roads to serve rural subdivisions are problematic for various reasons. Attached is correspondence from homeowners in priva!e road subdivisions express- ing concern about continuing to permit p~ivate roads or seeking to bring their private roads into the State~!Secondary Sy~em. On the other hand, the development community not only favors the continua- tion of private roads but proposes expanding cases under which private roads would be permitted and red,Icing/ increasing construc- tion standards. In 1983, the Planning Commission impaneled a committee to review private road provisions. That committee':~reported eight problems associated with private roads. These concerns and problems may need to once again be evaluated. Staff recon~ends that the Planning Commission appoint an ad hoc committee to review private roads. Minimum Lot Size On Private Roads Amendments as drafted by staff and recommended, by the Planning Commissiqn would require demonstra- tion of significant degradation' to make~ subdivisions of five acre lot size eligible for private road usageS, The County Attorney's opinion is that this is a round-about wa~! of forcing a lower density development through the subdivision ordinance than is permitted under the zoning ordinance. If 'signifi~'ant degradation' can be proven, lot size should be irrelevant. Staff would remind the Planning Commission that private roads we're originally proposed not by the County but by development interests to: serve large-lot rural development;i in areas of environmental sensitiyity, where construction of public roads woul~ be comparatively detrimental. In the most recent staff report on priva~ roads, staff stated that: In 1978 when private road provisions~iwere adopted, there were two public purposes to be served environmental protection and November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 45) 259 encouragement of lower density development. While environ- mental concerns remain valid, the density issue is no longer of concern due to the RA, Rural Areas, zoning restriction. Staff agrees with the County Attorney that if 'environmental degra- dation' exists, lot size becomes irrelevant. However, this argument can also be made in growth areas where staff recommends that private roads to serve single family detached development would be inappropriate. Expanded Provisions for Private Roads - Three representatives of law firms have submitted written comment/proposals for expanded circum- stances under which private roads would be permitted. The gist of the comments appears to be that private roads should be permitted in any case to allow controlled access (prpposals as to road construc- tion standards vary). Staff offers the following comments: At Planning Commission request, the staff has deyeloped amend- ments intended to quantify and clarify the term significant degradation' to the environment sol!the Commission may more consistently review private road requests and applicants can better judge outcomes. To 'piggyback' these requests from law firms may confuse the issue beforeilthe Board. These requests could be separately addressed by the ad hoc Committee recom- mended earlier. The five specific cases under which private roads are permis- sible are intended to serve specific public purposes. Staff can determine no specific public p~rpose to be served by these current proposals. To the contrary, it would appear that these proposals, if enacted, would broad~ the available types of development in the Rural Areas whidh is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. ~gain, the proposals appear to cen~er on a desire to provide gated' roadways where access can ~e controlled and suggest that the roads could be constructe~i to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. (Note: One proposal suggests that developments of more than twenty lots not be served by state standard roads, but offered ~0 alternative standard). As has been stated repeatedly by the C.~unty Engineer, VDOT and Planning staff, lot purchasers simply do not realize the various problems involved with private roads. Section 15.1-478.2 of the Code of Virginia i~rovides that: 'Petition to restrict access to certain public ~reets. Notwiths~~e provisions of Section 15.1-478, wh~h the streets in a subdivi- sion have not be accepted into the i~ighway· system and serve only or are primarily for the general welfare of the inhabi- tants of such subdivision and do no~ serve as a connector to other public right-of-way, then upo~ petition to the governing body of the county, city or town, signed by the owners of two thirds of the lots including the subdivider, if he has an interest in said subdivision, in s~h subdivision requesting that they be allowed to restrict ini~ress and egress to the subdivision, the governing body may?permit such restriction subject to the following conditionsii 1. The restriction may be abolished at any time in the sole discretion of the governing bo~y; 2. Such restriction shall not be ~sserted in opposition to the public ownership; 3. The streets shall not be blocked to ingress and egress of government or public service company vehicles; 4. Necessary maintenance of such ~treets will be paid for by such owners; 5. Such other conditions as may b~ imposed by the governing body.' November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 46) 260 Staff opinion is that this provision could adequately address the concerns outlined by the law firms. This approach would place the determination of public versus private road more directly in the hands of the homeowner and not the devel- oper who may be operating on the assumption that private roads are desired. Rural/Preservation Development would be an optional approach to subdivision intended to better serve Comprehensive Plan objectives than. conventional development. The RPD would offer many advantages of cluster' development which proved very popular under prior zoning although such development required rezoning. It may prove that the RPD will exhibit enough advantages that no additional incentives are necessary. Staff recommends that no action be taken at this time, and that the Planning Commission review the RPD after a couple of years experience to determine if additional incentives are necessary. Summary: Staff recommends that a commif%ee be formed to review private road provisions and in particular to determine the nagure and extent of problems. In the interim, staff recommends that provisions for private roads not be expanded. Staff agrees that lot size in the Rural Areas is no longer of ~particular concern and recommends the following amendment: 1. Amend 18-36(b)(1) as follows: For property zoned RA~ Rural Areas~' the subdivider~ in accord- ance with Section 18-36(h) of this i~hapter~ demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission that: Approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation tO the environment of the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads in the~smme alignments. For the purposes of this provision,~.iin addition to such other factors as the commission may consider, "significant de,reda- ti " ' '"- on shall mean an increase of thl.r~ty per_cent in the total volume of grading for construction :.~f a publicroad as compared to a private road; and No alternative public road ali~nmen~ would alleviate signifi- cant degradation of the environment~i and No more lots are proposed on such p~ivate road than could be realized on a public road due to ri~ht-of-way dedication. Repeal Section 18-36(c)(1). ATTACHMENT A: STA-89-02: To amend Section 18-36 PRIVATE ROADS of the Subdivision Ordinance (County Code) to specify circumstances under which private roads may be permitted in rural developments. Origin: Requested by Planning Commission. Public Purpose: To provide quantifiable icriteria for consideration as to whether public or private roads are;warranted in a particular rural development. Private road provisions were first adopte~ in 1978. Since that time the ordinance has been subjected to repea~ed revision in attempts to limit private road usage in the rural areas to the original stated purposes for large lot subdivisions in areas of steep terrain. These current amendments are yet another effort to limit usage of private roads in the rural areas. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 47) Before providing discussion of the proposed amendments, it may be appropriate, after ten years of experience, to discuss whether or not private roads should continue to be available for rural sub- divisions. Staff offers the following comments: An enduring concern with private roads is that at some future date homeowners may demand that the roads be upgraded and taken into the state system. As the rural voting constituency grows, the likelihood of public funding involvement becomes more pronounced. Homeowners continue to assume some public involvement in private roads as evidenced by comment from several County Engineers (i.e. snow plowing, et~). Also homeowners tend to underestimate the burden private roads represent (i.e. liability; maintenance costs, etc), In 1978 when private road provisions were adopted, there were two public purposes to be served -iienvironmental protection and encouragement of lower density development. While environ- mental concerns remain valid, the density issue is no longer of concern due to the RA, Rural Areas zoning restrictions. As to environmental concerns, the private roads provisions may actually work against environmental, protection in a given case. Simply stated, private roads result in development of proper- ties which may not be feasible to develop if public roads were required. 5. Recently, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has agreed in limited cases to apply "~ountainous" road standards to subdivision streets where previously VDOT limited maximum grade/curvature to its "rolling terrain" standards. 6. If Section 18-36(b)(1) and Section?!18-36(c)(1) were repealed, private roads would still be available for two lot divisions and family divisions in the rural ~ireas. Private roads for "commercial" subdivisions would be!!~available only under Section 18-36(c)(2). (See Attachment A loC! current private road provisions). :~ 7. Rural development continues at a rJ~te much higher than desir- able in terms of achieving Comprehensive Plan objectives. Private roads make property cheape~' to develop and in some cases feasible to develop. TherefQre, private roads tend to encourage development in areas whe=e County policy recommends discouraging development. 8. Given this background the Planning !Commission should determine if there is a public purpose to be served by continuing to make private roads available to rural de]velopments. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS ~I The Planning Commission requested staff to develop language intended to further clarify when private roads are appropriate and to re- strict private road usage in the rural areas. Staff recommends that additional criteria be added to Section 18-36(b)(1) and that Section 18-36(c)(1) be deleted. In the past, Section 18-36(c)(1) has been employed to justify private roads in rural developments where lot sizes were less than five acres. 261 Mr. Lindstrom asked what the maximum grade is on which the Department of Transportation will allow a public road. Mr. Keeler said historically, rolling terrain standards have been used in A~bemarle County which is up to a ten percent slope. Mr. Keeler said under the new subdivisio~ manual due out in 3anuary, the road classification will be up to the VDoT District Officer or the Resident November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 48) 262 Engineer. He said the County lobbied for VDoT to authorize mountainous standards in Albemarle where the site is obviously a mountain. Currently, this area gets rolling standards. He said he believes there will be relaxa- tion of the grade standards for public roads. Mr. Bain asked if the Planning Commission is recommending no action until the ad hoc committee has finished their study. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission is recommending that the Board addpt the original amendment made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said ithe two basic parts of the recommendation are the quantification of environmental degradation and the elimination of the five-acre minimum lot size for private roads. Mr. Keeler added that all other proposals are being recommended to be referred to the ad hoc committee. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. James Skove indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that there are three concerns, two of which this amendment and the Code of Virginia address. The third concern lis in a case where access is over an easement for which a fee cannot be obtained. There is no provision for that here. Mr. Jim Skove, a private citizen, said be liked the idea of reducing the size of the lots below five acres so that two-acre lots can be served by private roads. He felt that would encourage ~lustering. The idea that a road can be built to State standards but does not have to be taken into the State system, is covered under State legislation. The best way to handle the third situation would be to set up a committee to 16ok at the whole private road question. He asked that the words, "no reasonable alternative public road alignment available to the subdivider would a~leviate significant degradation to the environment" be considered. Mr. Lindstrom asked what difference that~would make. Mr. Skove said it would be a question of what is reasonably available. Someone could argue that a possible public road alignment is there. It would also have to be reason- ably available--not on someone else's property. Mr. Keeler said that is actually what the ordinance says now as he reads it. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that it may be read and argued that it is not reasonable to expect a property owner to lose a lot. The consensus of the Board was that staf$ would consider the language suggested by Mr. Skove and present a draft tolthe Board at its November 15, afternoon meeting. ~ Agenda Item No. 2la. Work Session: Capital Improvements Program. Because of the lateness of the hour, the~Board agreed to begin the work session on the CIP on November 15, 1989, at 1:i30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 2lb. ZTA-89-08. Expandi~existing uses in other districts into RA district. No work session was held. '!The public hearing is scheduled for November 15, 1989. Agenda Item No. 21c. ZTA-89-09. Add veterinary office and hospital as a use by-right in the PD-SC. No work session was held. The public hearing is scheduled for November 15, 1989. i Agenda Item No. 21d. ZTA-89-16. Height Regulations. No work session was held on this item. The public hearing is scheduled for November 15, 1989. Agenda Item No. 21f. Discussion: Upgrading Private Roads for Acceptance into the State Secondary Road System. No discussion was held on this item. It will be taken up at the November 15, 1989, 'afternoon work session. November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 49) 263 Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: An Analysis of the Fiscal Impact of The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation's Proposed Research Park, prepared by Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Piedmont Environmental Council. No discussion took place at this time. Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. At this time the Board discussed whether to schedule additional work sessions. A work session was scheduled for November 29, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. on the CIP. A work session was tentatively scheduled for December 6, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. if it should be necessary. Mr. Lindstrom advised staff that he would be inquiring about the size of the water line to serve the Stone Robinson School at the next work session. The consensus of the Board was that a work session on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would not be necessary for a Rivanna Village prior to the public hearing on December 6, 1989. Mr. Bowie noted the letter of November 6~ 1989, from the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Nottoway County. Helsaid he supports an attempt to convince members of the General Assembly to return a portion of lottery profits to the localities. He suggested that the Board take a position to be presented at the Virginia Association of Counties annual meeting. Mr. Bain said he does not want this effort to interfere with possible efforts to obtain legislation relating to eqU~l borrowing powers for counties. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and sec6hded by Mrs. Cooke to support the position of the Nottoway Board of Supervisors~ias the Board's policy to VACO. Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Mr. Keeler handed out copies of a lettemidated November 6, 1989, from Mr. Keeler to Mr. William D. Almond, regarding the Westminster/Canterbury screen- ing issue. The letter contained the Board's ~equest that the approved land- scape plan for the Westminster-Canterbury pr~ject be modified with regard to landscape screening and the change from brick!ilfacade to white vinyl siding on the cottages. Mr. Keeler also gave the Board~.copies of Mr. Almond's response in a letter dated November 7, 1989, indicatin~ agreement with Mr. Keeler's letter of November 6, 1989, with one clarification that the brick rendering was a marketing effort, and that the building~iwill actually be siding. There was no further discussion of this matter by the Board. Mr. St. John informed the Board of a sui~ pending by Ann Sanford, et al, to challenge the County's definition of one parcel as opposed to two parcels for development right purposes. He said the ~uit would be heard on December 8, and he would need one or more members of the Board present as witnesses who had an understanding of the intent of the Zoning Ordinance language in 1980. Mr. Lindstrom was thought to be the most likeiy Board member because of his length of time on the Board. Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn to NovemberlilS, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. At 4:57 P.M., with no further business t~ come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by.Mr. ~ain to adjourn to November 15, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. ~ November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 50) 264 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. CHAIRMAN