Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-14June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 38 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 14, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (9:02 A.M.), Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (9:02 A.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (9:45 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning. 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 Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. County Executive's FinanciallReport for July 1, 1988 to April 30, 1989, set out below was received as information: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1948 TO APRIL 30, 1989 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1988/89 ~ECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE ~ YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 42,043,289 3~,986,511 3,723,158 ~,645,744 109,440 ~ 47,423 2,492~428 2,464~818 48,368,315 45,144,496 88/89 P/OBLIG APPROP . YTD 3,176,385 2!,374,258 1,103,980 4,383,193 1,795,751 2,907,438 25,367,126 1,696,508 1,314,778 4,153,596 2,469,560 48,368,315 1088/89 EST. REVENUE EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH AND WELFARE EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL TOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUES 5,056,778 - 87.97% 1,077,414 - 71.06% 62,017 - 43.33% 27,610 - 98.89% 6,223,819 - 87.13% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD 802,127 + 74.75% 934,678 169,302 + 84.66% 3!,822,175 561,018 + 87.20% · 998,371 797,380 + 55.60% 2~,310,645 596,793 + 79.47% 21~,115,504 4,251,622 + 83.24% 1~420,541 275,967 + 83.73% 1,081,049 233,729 + 82.22% 3~832,339 321,257 + 92.27% 2~301,007 168,553 + 93.17% 40i190,567 8,177,748 + 83.09% RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED !YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 426,493 ~:251,987 16,420,426 12{952,399 362,987 [154,134 25,330,705 21 079,153 42,540,611 34~437,673 174,506 - 59.08% 3,468,027 78.88% 208,853 - 42.46% 4~251,552 - 83.22% 8,102,938 - 80.95% June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 39 EXPENDITURES 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT FIXED CHARGES ADULT EDUCATION TRANSFER TOTAL 749,288 642,263 107,025 + 85.72% 26,575,974 19,367,382 7,208,592 + 72.88% 341,016 304,510 36,506 + 89.29% 3,037,002 2,541,424 495,578 + 83.68% 4,553,452 4,192,125 361,327 + 92.06% 7,273,251 5,549,487 1,723,764 + 76.30% 10,628 8,011 2,617 + 75.38% 0 0 0 + O.OO% 42,540,611 32,605,202 9,935,409 + 76.64% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVF2FOE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 418,500 392,718 25,782 - 93.84% 527,040 0 527,040 - 0.00% 2,886,902 738,768 2,148,134 - 25.59% 4,665,810 4,654,910 10,900 - 99.77% 2,102,795 2,047,000 55,795 - 97.35% 10,601,047 7,833,396 2,767,651 - 73.89% EXPENDITURES 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 239 PUBLIC SAFETY 1,297 PUBLIC WORKS 1,396 EDUCATION 5,385 PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 1,336 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 812 TRANSFERS 132 TOTAL 10,601 ,571 ~ 107,388 132,183 + 44.83% ,745 ~ 113,231 1,184,514 + 8.73% ,532 77,580 1,318,952 + 5.56% ,542 J,166,499 1,219,043 + 77.36% ,263 ! 390,354 945,909 + 29.21% ,609 524,944 287,665 + 64.60% ~785 132,785 0 - 100.00% ,047 4,512,781 5,088,266 + 52.00% OTHER FUNDS REVENUES METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 1988/89 EST. REVENUE 45,344 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED '~ YTD YTD YTD ~ 3,656 41,688 - 8.06% SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP T J HEALTH EDUCATION GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT TIPS E. D. PROGRAM CBIP SEVERE FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 28,540 1,015,000 0 0 0 401,130 110,900 1,669 440,463 377,550 33,731 16,771 28,786 113,579 263,636 5,937 474,354 63,423 45,991 1,394,845 1,941,259 1,177,638 658,462 195,066 218,500 10,000 0 463,037 143,140 67,734 2,043~666 11,780,151 28,540 688,310 184,488 ii 15,323 ! 20,721 i506,573 100,892 ~ 1,669 : 135,215 247,222 8,771 0 6,286 69,067 302,426 2,788 217,477 9,256 . 22,772 1,040,917 1:,342,966 : 39,859 !612,079 '~ 57,120 11208,102 i 6,343 307 510,145 .143,140 i 56,445 1,778,204 8,367,079 0 + 100.00% 326,690 - 67.81% (184,488)+ 0.00% (15,323)+ 0.00% (20,721)+ 0.00Z (105,443)+ 126.29% 10,008 - 90.98% 0 + 100.00% 305,248 - 30.70% 130,328 - 65.48% 24,960 - 26.00% 16,771 - 0.00% 22,500 - 21.84% 44,512 - 60.81% (38,790)+ 114.71% 3,149 - 46.96% 256,877 - 45.85% 54,167 - 14.59% 23,219 - 49.51% 353,928 - 74.63% 598,293 - 69.18% 1,137,779 - 3.38% 46,383 - 92.96% 137,946 - 29.28% 10,398 - 95.24% 3,657 - 63.43% (307)+ 0.00% (47,108)+ 110.17% 0 + 100.00% 11,289 - 83.33% 265~462 - 87.01% 3,413,072 - 71.03% June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 43_ Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: July 6(N), July 13, July 20, July 27, August 10, August 17, September 7, September 21, October 5 and October 19, 1988~ April 17 and April 27, 1989. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for August 10, 1988, and September 21, 1988, and found some typographical errors. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for July 27, 1988, and made the following minute book corrections: on Page 2, paragraph four, the last sentence should have the word "member" inserted after the word "Board"; and on Page 7, para- graph three, the first sentence should have the name "Mr. Layton McCann" inserted in place of the words "a person who did not identify himself". Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for July 6 (N), 1988, Pages 31-End; August 17, 1988; April 17, 1989; and July 13~ 1988, Pages 1-15 and found them to be in order. Mr. Way had read the minutes for April 27, 1989, and found them to be in order. ~ Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for October 5, 1988, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion of a request to abandon a portion of Route 841. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Donald Mawyer has made a request to abandon a portion of Route 841 as a public right of way. At the present time, it seems there is a public purpose to maintaining this portion of Route 841 as a public road because it serves the Covesville Country Store owned by Mr. Mawyer, the Covesville Post Office and one other parcel owned by Mrs. M. Massie. He added that a map is included in the information that was given to the Board, but he is not sure if it accurately shows the portion of the road that Mr. Mawyer would like to vacate. He said there is not ~.igood map available of the road. Mr. Mawyer came forward to speak and noted that he had written a letter which Mrs. Massie, who is a resident on this~portion of Route 841, had also signed. He commented that this letter is not a legal document, but it ex- presses Mrs. Massie's intent to agree with t~e abandonment. He mentioned that the letter also states that Mr. Mawyer will give Mrs. Massie a road mainte- nance agreement and right-of-way. Mr. Way asked for a copy of the letter, and Mr. Mawyer gave him the original. ~ Mr. Bain asked the length of that segment of Route 841. Mr. Mawyer replied that this portion of the road is approximately 50 to 55 yards. He said the problem developed when he was trying to put in new gas pumping equipment at the Store to bring it up to Stat~ Code requirements. He said the present location of the right-of-way does notli!allow him to put in new gas lines or pumps. Mr. Way pointed out that the letter thatlMr. Mawyer gave to the Board is from Mr. Mawyer to Mrs. Massie. Mr. Mawyer agreed, but he said that her signature is on the bottom of the letter. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Mawyer's primar~ purpose is to extend the right-of-way so that he will have room to put~'in the gas lines. Mr. Mawyer answered, "yes." He said that currently his gas pumps are on the 25-foot setback. He went on to say that an easement had been obtained to put in new gas tanks. The gas tanks had been purchased and the holes had been dug when it was discovered that the gas line had to come through the 25-foot right- of-way to get to the pumps. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Way asked Mr. Roosevelt to address the issue. Mr. Roosevelt said he had talked with Mr. Mawyer about the problem with the gas pumps and this abandonment had been discussed as one way to solve the problem. He does not see why the Department of Transportation will object. He pointed out that there are other property owners along that portion of the road south of the connection back to Route 29. From the sketch, he said, it looked as though the whole roadway would be abandoned, but he!does not believe that is what is desired. Mr. Way replied that Mr. Mawyer wahts to abandon only that part of the roadway in front of his store. Mr. Bain asked if the Highway Department could grant Mr. Mawyer an easement. Mr. Roosevelt replied that granting an easement to Mr. Mawyer would cause a liability problem for the Department~as long as the public has a right to use the roadway. Once the public's rightito use this right-of-way as a public way has been resolved, which is what the abandonment would do, an easement could be considered. He said the Department would have to decide if an easement could be granted across property~that belongs to the Commonwealth or whether it would have to be sold first. Mr. Bain then asked if the proposed gas lines and pumps will lie where people now travel. Mr. Mawyer answered, "no~" Mr. Bain said he would rather that Mr. Mawyer go through the easement process with the Highway Department, if that is possible, rather than abandon the roadway. He said he does not know if it would make any difference that the gas lines and pumps would be in the right-of-way, but not in the path that cars would be traveling. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Roosevelt why the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation could not deed Mr. Mawyer a small piece of land for the pumps and gas lines. Mr. Roosevelt explained that the Highway Department's policy concern- ing gas pumps is that they need to be 12 fee~ from the right-of-way line. Mr. St. John pointed out that the gas pumps are ~lready located on the property and have been there a long time. Mr. Roosevelt said that Mr. Mawyer wants to install new gas pumps and a new gas line. Mr. St. John argued that these new gas pumps and gas line would be located in the same place as the old pumps and line. Mr. Roosevelt agreed that the gas pumps and line would be in the ~ame place, but he repeated that they would be new pumps and a new line. He ~aid Mr. Mawyer needs a permit, and he thinks that it would be a violation o~ the Highway Department's policy to handle the matter any differently. Mr. R~osevelt said this is a good policy because the gas pumps and line shouldi'~Ibe located away from the right-of-way. He went on to say that the ga~ pumps and line would have to be at least 12 feet away from the Highway Depar~iment's property before it would be acceptable. Mr. St. John stated that he does not see~ why the installation of the new tank has anything to do with the problem. MrI. Roosevelt replied that the new tank is not causing the problem; his concern ~iis with the supply of the gas going to the pumps, ll ~ Mr. St. John asked if one of the gas put, ps wore out or malfunctioned, would it trigger the same action with the Highway Department? Mr. Roosevelt answered that he believes the location of thai pumps has been moved, and they are not physically at the same place where t~y have been for the last 25 to 30 years. He added that the piping needs to ~!be run to the different location Mr. Mawyer said the gas pumps are in th~' same location, but the gas line would be coming from a different direction. ~r. Roosevelt said this is an additional line that is being run to the PumPi~ and is not a replacement line. Mr. Bain said he appreciates the HighwayS!Department's policy, but he would like for the Department, in this situation, to say that there is no change, because the pumps are where they were!ialways located, and there is nothing involved except a new location of a ~ine. Mr. Bowie commented that it seems the Highway Department's concern is with the pumps, not the line, and the pumps h~ve not been moved. He does not understand why there is a problem. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 43 If abandonment of the roadway is the only way to handle this matter, Mr. Way said, then a public hearing needs to be Scheduled. Mr. Bain said he does not disagree with~setting a public hearing, but he would like to follow up on Mr. St. John's suggestion. He said he does not want to abandon a roadway when other people are using it. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that this section of roadway is a dead end, and the only reason that it is in the State system is to serve these two proper- ties. Mr. St. John asked if the piece of property in front of the store could be abandoned. This abandonment would amountlto only 12 feet from the lines and pump, and it could be done on the condition that Mr. Mawyer maintain the piece of property that is abandoned. Mr. Ropsevelt said he does not believe that a portion of a section of roadway can be abandoned. He believes that if Mr. Mawyer conforms with the Department of TCansportation's policy, it will put the right-of-way line into the middle of!the travel area, but he said the Department will look into all aspects of thelmatter to see what is feasible. Mr. St. John said he will help, in any way he can, to resolve the issue. Mr. Bain repeated that he is not concerned about setting a p~blic hear- ing, but he hopes that, in the meantime, some of these issues can be examined. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and~seconded by Mr. Bowie to set a public hearing on July 12, 1989, to consider!this request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Bain said that if a private maintenance agreement could be worked out, he would like for someone in the County Attorney's office to review it before the public hearing. Mr. St. John replied that a private maintenance agreement might be a good idea, but the authority for the maintenance agreement is triggered by subdivi- sion of land. He pointed out that there is not any subdivision of land occurring there. Mr. Bain stated that Mr. Mawyer is offering such an agree- ment to Mrs. Massie. Mr. Bowie remarked tha~! he does not believe that Mrs. Massie's signature on the bottom of Mr. Mawy~r's letter means anything except that she has seen the letter. He added that he thinks Mrs. Massie would have to say that she agrees with Mr. Mawyer, eithe~r in the presence of the Board, or in writing. He went on to say that this i~ssue is more confusing than he thought it would be, and he would like to lo~k at the property before the public hearing. Agenda Item No. 6b. Request from the N~ison County Board of Supervisors to renumber Route 6 and Route 151 between Avo~ in Nelson County and their intersections with Route 250 in Albemarle and~,'!Nelson County. A letter dated May 23, 1989, was receive~ from Mr. Roosevelt stating that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors has requested the Department to renum- ber Route 6 and Route 151 between Avon in Nelson County. He said it appeared that the request was made because people visiting the Wintergreen Community have experienced problems finding the community from Interstate 64 and Route 250. Renumbering Route 6 from Avon to Route 150 as Route 151, and renumbering existing Route 151 as Route 6 from Avon to Roate 250 would improve traffic access. The Department supports the request, but needs the concurrence of the Albemarle Board of Supervisors. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to set a public hearing on July 19, 1989, to consider renumbe~ing Routes 6 and 151 and re- questing staff to notify all property owners Along these sections of roadways. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins an~ Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6c. Six-Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan - discus- sion of Planning Commission's recommendations #4 and #5 (continued from April 12). Mr. Cilimberg referred the Board to his memo of April 3, 1989. He then summarized Items 4 and 5 from that memo which had been deferred from the April 12 meeting. Regarding #40, Road Project Implementation (acceleration of actual construction), he said the Board had requested staff and the Virginia Department of Transportation to consider recommendations of techniques to accelerate the actual construction of road projects since the process is now very slow. He said that YDoT's lack of design staff and heavy work load account for the length of the process at thelDistrict level. Mr. Cilimberg said that using VDoT consultants and County consultants had not resulted in any significant time savings. He said staff'~feels that using County consul- tants on minor projects may be more efficient. He said that discussions with Mr. Roosevelt had indicated that whenever VDOT funds are used on any project, administrative procedures can become complex~and time consuming. The time frame for totally County-funded projects should be shorter. Mr. Cilimberg said staff and YDoT would continue to look for solutions to speed up the process. ~ (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:45 A.M.) Mr. Bain asked if there was any news about the improvements on Route 678. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he had discussed Route 678 with Mr. Richard Moring, the County Engineer, who said there were some final rights-of-way acquisitions that needed to be made. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks there is also some final design and engineering that needs to be complete in order to get the plans approved by YDoT and on to construction. Mr. Bain asked if construction would beg~in next spring. Mr. Roosevelt said that since VDoT has to obtain rights-of-way, there will have to be notice of willingness to hold a public hearing poste~. Unless there is a quick response on the plans, and VDoT can post the hotice for a willingness to hold a public hearing, he thinks that going to co~struction next spring is unreal- istic. He pointed out that holding a public ~'.hearing would also delay the review process from four to six months. Mr. Bain remarked that he would like fof~i the person in the County who is holding up the plans to speed them along. Mri,~. Roosevelt said that, to his knowledge, the plans have not been returned ~? VDoT from County Engineering. Mrs. Cooke asked what the time frame is for the construction that is to be done on Berkmar Extended. Mr. Cilimberg s~id the Berkmar project has been contracted for final engineering work. He sa~d the staff has no~ seen the final results, and the Engineering Department is also handling that particular project. Mr. Agnor added that the contract for the Berkmar project was signed last week. Mrs. Cooke then commented that the new road behind the Rio Hills Shopping Center is not complete and ends at the trailer park and at Lowe's. She asked when the Lowe's section of the road will be complete. She thought that the property owners were to be responsible for their portion of the road. She mentioned that Kegler's and Better Living arc,next to Lowe's, and asked if these businesses were obligated to do a portion of the roadway. Mr. Cilimberg answered that these businesses are not obligated to construct portions of the roadway. He said it is his understanding that developments that have property included in the proposed right-of-way would donate or construct the section of the road that is on their property. He is no{ sure that the Lowe's project goes back as far as the anticipated right-of-Way for Berkmar Extended, and he does not believe that the Berkmar Extended line passes through the Kegler property. Mrs. Cooke asked if it was feasible to b~lieve that this road would be completed all of the way to the Sheraton Hotel sometime in the near future. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Cilimberg replied that this Berkmar Extended project is not in any time frame at this particular time. Mr. Agnor said the Berkmar Extended project is intended to be designed and priced for the fall review of the CIP. Mr. Cilimberg said there will be some opportunity in the development of the properties north of Rio Hills to have some sections donated and possibly built. He said there will be a time factor, because the County will need to be able to work with the developers to build another logical section of road so that it will not be piecemeal, but a full connection. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is anything that the Board can do to facili- tate the Route 678 project, or anything that VDoT can do to move things along. He said if the County Engineering staff is overloaded, and this is what is holding up the project, then maybe this overloading should be addressed first. He added that clearly there is a backlog of projects, and he wondered if it is because YDoT's regulations are cumbersome and the bureaucracy takes this much time to do a State project. He said that if there are other things that the County can do to speed up the project, then he thinks these things should be pinpointed. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the County does not have a Public Works Department, which means that the Engineering>Department has to be relied upon to handle contract work, and anything else that can be done in-house, so accomplishing in-house work on road projects'~is a slow process. Mr. Lindstrom asked what role the Engineering Department has in road approvals and reviews. He mentioned that projects are placed on different levels, and concern should be shown to all l~vels. He is more concerned, however, with the major secondary road projects that are not being constructed because the engineering is not complete. He~also wanted to know what role the Engineering Department has in these major prpjects. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Engineeri~ng Department handles the con- tracting for planning and engineering work, 5~ut, other than that, VDoT handles the design, engineering and planning as part~!of its in-house process. He said that even when Engineering is involved with the consultant on the contract, once that contract is underway and prelimina~Y plans are ready, the plans will have to be sent to ¥DoT for its input. He said this is the situation with Route 678, and final plans for this project ~ill be taken to ¥DoT. He said the County will be involved with some of thel-process and approval, but since this road is part of the State system, VDoT ~as to have this mechanism for approval at the end of all of the plan work. !i Mr. Lindstrom asked what circumstances ~.'ould allow the Engineering staff to be involved in approving a secondary road~!project, other than an addition to the system of a subdivision road, and wha61 circumstances would allow for the Engineering staff to be involved in the dontracting process. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the two projects that !he is aware of where the County has a specific interest are Routes 678 and 81~0. He said these are very limited projects, and they are related to th~ construction of a school. Mr. Agnor said VDoT does not ask the CoUnty to get involved with the design of roadways. He said if the County c~ooses to do the design of the road, it can be done in-house, but generally putside help is used. He added that the County functions primarily as a coorklinator to get the plans finished and submitted to the State for its approval. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked how frequently the ~ounty gets involved with the design of roadways. Mr. Agnor replied that the County does not get involved very often. He said the Engineering Department just recently put out engi- neering proposals for the Route 20 Avon ConneCtor and the Berkmar Extended roadway from Rio Road to the Rio Hills Shopping Center. He explained that the Engineering staff, in those instances, develops the request for the proposal, gets it to the Purchasing Department, which s~licits proposals and then recommends the awarding of the contract. Onc~ the contract is awarded, the consulting firms do the actual design work. ~e said that VDoT never asks the County to do the design work. Mr. Lindstrom said this kind of act~vmty{will probably increase as the County spends more money on road projects tha~ the County originates. He said June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 46 it may be that this coordination function will put extra pressure on the County staff, but it is difficult for him to.determine how much time this would take. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt to describe the general process from the. beginning to the actual construction on the other projects which do not originate with the County but are in the Six Year Plan and are the com- plete responsibility of VDoT. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the project first has to get into the Six Year Plan. He said the financial portion of the Six year Plan determines when the money will be available for that project~, and then VDoT determines when the various steps in the preliminary engineering process should start. Financing was set for a number of projects when the big influx of funds was last received, but the preliminary engineering was postponed, and it should have been started several months ago. He added that, through a combination of increased staffing and the use of consultants for everything from the design of the plans to the survey, and to obtaining rights-of-way, VDoT has tried to compress the schedules and to get more people available to work on the projects. He believes that the Highway Department is at the point now where, through a combination of personnel, there are enough people to work on the plans as rapidly as the process will allow. He went on to say that one of the things that affects the process is when a public hearing has to be held. He said there are certain time limits that are involved that cannot be com- pressed. He remarked that rights-of-way is another area where there are certain requirements that have time limits. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the public hearing and acquisition of rights-of- way occur after the final design has been do~e. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the public hearing occurs during the design process, and acquisition of rights-of-way occurs after the plans have be~n approved for construction. Mr. Lindstrom said the public hearing could disturb the design process to the extent that the hearing intervenes befor~ a complete design is done and then in response to comments made at the public hearing, changes will need to be made before the final design. The rights~iof-way acquisition, however, does not interfere with the designs. Mr. Roosevelt agreed and gave as an exa~.ple the spot improvements that are being done on Route 631, Rio Road. He s~id one improvement is underway at the entrance to Pen Park. He stated that a Willingness to hold a public hearing had been posted, and he thought that !lit would solve the problem. However, someone requested a public hearing, iDnd this caused a two month delay. The public hearing was held, and comn~ents were received at that hearing that needed consideration. He remind!ed the Board members that he had come to them to get some additional data afte? that public hearing. Because of all of these things, the project was delayed a year, from the time that the willingness to hold a public hearing was post~d, to the point where a plan was approved by the State Transportation Board. He pointed out that it could be said that there was an error in judgment to POst a willingness to hold a public hearing at the end of the process. He! said two months could have possibly been saved if a public hearing had been held instead, but he does not see any way that the ten month period of time could have been compressed. He added that any time that the State is involve~, there will be a public hearing process, and the Transportation Board's process under the law, will not allow a decision to be made as quickly as a decisio~ can be made by the County Board of Supervisors. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked how much of the money allocated to Albemarle County for construction is being held up because there are no plans. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the only project still in the planned development stage that has some money allocated for construction is the Mr. Lindstrom asked if that is the only not ready. Mr. Roosevelt replied that this i middle of the preliminary engineering process an approximate $5,000,000 balance. He correc Fifth Street Extended project. ~roject held up because plans are the only one still in the He said that overall, there is ed the information that he had just given the Board by saying that another l~rge project that has had quite a bit of money allocated to it is the Meadow Crgek Parkway. He added that there is an allocation of $1,300,000 for the Rio Ro~d project from Route 29 to the Vo-Tech Center, and he expects to go to bid o~ this project this fall. He June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) said easements and rights-of-way are being purchased at this time, and there is an approved set of plans on that project. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Keeler if he had any perception as to whether there is a problem besides the waiting periods for the public involvement. He said the Board has heard that there is a problem with the plans, and if it is because of the hearings and other statutorily mandated time sequences then there is nothing that anybody can do. However, if something else is causing the problem, then maybe something can be done. Mr. Keeler responded that he does not know what the Highway Department's staffing situation is at this time, but a couple of years ago it was taking a year to two years to get projects to the drawing boards for design work. He said that Mr. Roosevelt has sought to improve the pre-hearing process by involving the County more than in the past. He mentioned that last fall there were 14 projects that the County was involved with in the field. He added that on Route 250 East, during the preliminary design, the County was involved in field inspections, but they were done in the office. He mentioned that the County was involved on this project for three full day meetings, and the County staff discussed various design issues with the Highway Departanent. He said the Highway Department, to his knowledge, made all of th~ changes that the County staff requested on the Route 250 East plans. He h~pes the design issues that the Planning Commission was concerned with were represented. He thinks this is a substantial improvement over the situation width Route 29 North where the County was unaware that the Highway Department was planning for eight lanes of traffic. He believes that the Highway Department has sought to involve the County extensively in the pre-hearing process in order to avoid any problems incurred with design changes that may be desk.red by the Planning Commission or Board. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is still alproblem, other than the statutes, with the process of projects. Mr. Roosevelt ireplied that there is a problem, but part of the frustration is that he does not know what to do about it. He said plans have been developed in every way 6hat is available. He said the County has taken on the burden of developing ~Ithe plans for Route 678 because the County staff indicated to the Highway Del~artment that construction on Route 678 needed to be done before the new M~riwether Lewis school opened. He stated that the Highway Department replied t~at there was not any way that construction on the road could be worked int~~ the Department's process, or that plans could be developed in that period tof time and rights-of-way ac- quired. He said the County staff members th~n responded that they would develop the plans. He added that a consultant was hired, but he pointed out ! that the County s staff and consultant are nat doing any better job of getting the plans developed than the Highway Department could have done. Mr. Roosevelt said the County is also d~veloping the plans for the Route 810 project and the process is moving along v~'ery rapidly. He said the Highway Department is doing partial reviews of agreements as well as road plans and proposals for advertisement at the same time ~that the County's work is being done in hopes that the County and the DepartMent can put it all together at one time. He said that in one situation it a~pears that the project is moving as rapidly as it can go, but in the other sithation, the project is not moving at all. He stated that anytime Department fihancing of a project is involved, there must be an agreement about the financin~ and approval of the plans, and approval of the bid proposal. If it is decided that the County will do the project, all that the Department of Highways ~as to do is review the plans. If the plans are sent to the Department of Highways for review, and they are approved, and if the County builds the roads ~ccording to the plans, then the State will take the roads into the system. H~ said there is no money involved and the construction is not even inspected, ~ Mr. Bain commented that when outside people are hired, they should be monitored in order to determine what they are. doing and what they are not doing. Mr. Roosevelt agreed. Mr. Bain remarked that the road at Crozet (Route 810) will be finished in time for the ~pening of school, but the road near Meriwether Lewis School (Route 678) willi~be three years behind schedule. Mr. Perkins pointed out that work on the project near Crozet School has already been going on for two and a half to t~ree years. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not know what~.lelse he can do as far as VDoT's process is concerned. He does not know if there is anything else that the June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 48 Board can do to make the Department's system work better. He commented that the County could take more projects on, but then the County would have the problem of administration of the projects. He believes that the situation with Route 678 is an example of what will happen if the County takes over more projects, unless the County's staff is increased in order to monitor the projects. (Mr. St. John left at 10:20 a.m.) Regarding #50, Other Road Planning Activities Criteria Based Rating System, Mr. Cilimberg said, the draft Comprehensive Plan recommends the development of a standardized rating system for prioritizing road improvement projects. He said staff used this approach last year in a general fashion in developing the priorities for the Six Year Secondary Road Plan review. He said staff developed a set of criteria used in rating projects within the six road improvement categories. He said staff is currently developing a system for rating road projects using those criteria. He said it is anticipated that a standardized system will be ready for the next full review of the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Staff recommends that ~ subcommittee of the Planning Commission be established to provide input i~to the development and applica- tion of this system. Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matt~irs. Mr. Agnor referred to a June 12, 1989, ~ietter from Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., Assistant District Engineer with YDoT, ~hich addressed the new residen- tial cut-through traffic policy. The Board h~d previously requested staff to determine whether truck traffic could be lime,ted through the new residential cut-through traffic policy. The letter stated that truck traffic restrictions cannot be incorporated into the residential ~t-through traffic policy. It must be addressed as a separate issue. Mr. Agnor said the Resident Highway Engineer would be happy to assist the County~in invoking either policy. Mrs. Cooke said she had received letter~ from constituents regarding the traffic light and speed of traffic at the intersection of Woodbrook and Rio Hills on Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said ithat speed studies have been made in that area, and it was found that cars are !still traveling at 55 miles per hour. He said that this information, as wel~ as the fact that this area is adjacent to a 45 mile per hour zone, is bein~*~ reviewed by the District Engi- neer, but no final decision on the speed limit has been made at this time. He is hopeful that by next month's Transportation Board meeting, a decision will be made on this matter. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. I~oosevelt to inform her of the decision when it is made. Mr. Bain asked if the area at Woodbrook i~nd Rio Hills Shopping Centers is being considered specifically for a 45 mile per hour speed limit or if VDoT is also considering traffic lights and such. Mr!i Roosevelt replied that the existing lights are synchronized, and he does~not feel that they will be changed. He added that consideration is being given as to whether to drop the speed limit to 45 miles per hour in that area~ and how far north the 45 hour speed limit should go. He repeated that the speed data shows that traffic is still traveling at 55 miles per hour in that area. Mrs. Cooke pointed out that there will b~ a new shopping center con- structed below the Sheraton Hotel and very close to the South Fork Rivanna River Bridge. She said the property adjacent~to the north lanes in that area is also under commercial development. Her request is that consideration be given to a 45 mile per hour speed limit at least as far as that Bridge. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he would pass Mrs. Cdoke's request on to the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said VDoT delivered a presentation at the County Office Building on Thursday and Friday, June 8 and 9~ 1989, regarding the Route 29 North Study. He said he believes that VDoT h~s complied with the request of the Joint Transportation Committee to provide!information that could be kept by the County. He said it is anticipated tha~ the draft environmental impact June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 49 statements will be ready to go to the Highway Department by September. He added that most of the data has been completed, but the subcontractor who is doing the traffic analysis has yet to do a level of service analysis on various intersections. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the most critical bit of information that has come forth is the link node traffic maps, which is a schematic map of the study area that shows, in an abstract fashion, the roads that are in the Route 29 corridor study area. He said this map has assigned projected traffic volumes to each segment and there are different loadings for each alternative. This data is valuable in determining locally what each alternative will do. It seemed to him that it would be valuable if the County staff could compile a list of sections, or what VDoT refers to as "screen lines". A screen line will show, for each alternative, the traffic on all of the roads that inter- sect a straight line that is drawn across the map. This screen line gives a picture of how an alternative will affect local traffic. He believes that if the staff can develop what it expects to be critical screen line segments and then draws screen lines on the maps, it would be of valuable assistance in becoming acclimated to what the study is all'about and what the consequences of the various alternatives will be locally. While the local Transportation Committee has been involved with the alternatives for some time, Mr. Lindstrom continued, he feels that this Board must learn how these alternatives will actual~ly affect traffic in the year 2010. He said one thing that has been brought out is that the traffic in the Route 29 area will be terrible regardless of the alternative, and that no matter what is done, there will be roads wher'e the level of service is going to be unacceptable. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the problems h~ thinks the Board should be aware of is that these traffic studies do nok!i take into full account the growth anticipated from the increase in enro!~lment at the University of Virginia and the construction of the Univers~ity Real Estate Foundation's Research Park at the Airport. He explained ~hat~ the State would consider only a ten percent deviation from the VEC prediction. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the number projected by VEC was far short from what the City, County and University staffs had determined the population to be. He hopes that the staff will first develop the screen lines andl tables that show a comparison of traffic volumes on the intersecting routes of the screen lines and then have them available for the Board in August. He knows that the City Council is expecting to be actively involved in this issue, and he knows that the City staff is preparing the Council for this purpose. Mr. Lindstrom added that the County may be approached to support some compromise proposals that could be attempted by the City, County and the UniverSity, and he wants the County to be well prepared. He said it is known that ghe rights-of-way acquisitions for all of the bypasses will be 300 feet, and the rights-of-way on any Expressway would vary from section to section. He belfeves that having the staff prepare an analysis of what the rights-of-wa~!would be and what businesses would be taken would be helpful, as well as aa analysis with respect to how many structures would be involved with the bYPass routes. He understands that this information will be ~n the draft Env~ro :nmental Impact Statement and the County will have 30 days to respond, but he i~g not sure that this will be enough time. He added that if the Board mem~rs are agreeable, he would like to ask staff members to prepare this information. Mr. Agnor stated that a work session co~ld be scheduled in August or early September so that the Board can become ~familiar with the data. Mr. Bowie commented that he is not too sure that ~ work session will accomplish what is intended. He would like to have some~way for the Board to get the information so that Board members could individually get a briefing. He added that this information is extremely complex. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was an area in the County Building where all of this information could be displayed. Mr. Cilimberg said the part of the display featured in the Lobby is on display near the Planning Offices. He went on to say that all of the aerial information and maps are available, and they could be displayed in the halls. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 50 Mr. Bowie said it is going to be difficult to narrow the routes to two or three viable roadways, so he does not see any reason to waste time on a lot of maps and information that do not pertain to routes that will be constructed. Mrs. Cooke asked how seriously VDoT is considering the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Lindstrom responded that none of the alternatives will work without the Meadow Creek Parkway. He believes this is very apparent to everyone who has looked at the plans. He mentioned that VDoT has stated that the base case being designed will not have any grade-separated interchanges so the traffic at Rio and Hydraulic Roads would pass independently of the traffic on Route 29. He said the consultant has said that this situation will not work, and the interchanges will have to be constructed, unless an expressway is built that will incorporate these interchanges. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that YDoT has developed a computer program with a function called the Vehicle Capacity Ratio. He said it is a crude way of analyzing the routes, but he thinks that it is extremely valuable. He said this analysis will allow a route to be studied and the capacity to be figured and then it will give a projected traffic load for the year 2010. Mr. Lindstrom said that by studying this functiom, it is easy to get a rough idea of what the level of service will be for a particular roadway. If certain critical sections are considered, except for the base case, the alternatives are basically the same. He said the base case does not function without the Meadow Creek Parkway, but once that is in place, there is not a tremendous difference between any of the alternatives, iIf the Meadow Creek Parkway is not built, he said, there will be a tremendous amount of traffic on Rio Road, and if the Meadow Creek Parkway is built, th~n traffic will be divided between Rio Road and the Meadow Creek Parkway. If a western bypass is built, he continued, there will be more traffic on the~Meadow Creek Parkway than if an expressway is built. If an expressway is built, it will take a fair amount of traffic off of the Parkway. Mrs. Cooke asked if the Meadow Creek Pa=kway would have to be built before any of the other roadways. ~ (Mr. St. John came back at 10:42 a.m.) Mr. Lindstrom said there is not very much money available for any of the routes. He believes that the phasing~would allow for the Route 29 improve- ments to be done first, and then the Meadow Creek Parkway be built. He said that how the base case improvements are donee!is critical, because it is going to be a problem if the grade separated interchanges are not constructed. Mrs. Cooke asked if existing Route 29 NOrth, would function better if the Meadow Creek Parkway were in place now. Mr.~Lindstrom answered "yes". Mrs. Cooke said it would seem to her that the Meadow Creek Parkway should be built first. Mr. Lindstrom answered that the Boar~ needs to try to absorb all of the available data before the alternatives a~e actually discussed. Mrs. Cooke remarked that it would be th~ least disruptive to the commun- ity, if the Meadow Creek Parkway were built f~rst, since it would not inter- fere with any current traffic patterns that exist in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said he expects that consb~ucting the Meadow Creek Parkway is dependent upon the Parkway being part of a plan that is agreeable to the City. He said that every one of the western ~bypasses, as they intersect with Route 29 North, intersect with a three level 'interchange. Mr. Lindstrom said that no matter what is done, there will be ailot of change, construction and disruption, if any of the plans are carried through. If the base case is constructed, a lot of people are under the impression that this will be very quick, because utilities won't have to be mo~ed. He said it is his under- standing, that the southbound lane will be regraded, and if this is done, it will affect the utilities. Mr. Roosevelt said he has a set of plans for the base case that the Transportation Department used for a public hearing three years ago that have been modified to delete the interchange. He Said these plans show the south- bound lane being rebuilt to match the grade and alignment of the northbound lane. Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT has not said that interchanges are not needed at the intersections such as Rio and Hydrauli6 Roads. Instead, the Department June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 51 is saying that eight lanes will be built now, and the interchanges constructed at some time in the future. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that the major proposal for an interchange at Rio Road was dropped after the public hearing. He thinks this was more of a political decision than a transportation decision. Mr. Roosevelt replied that, from an engineer's point of view, it would be easier and a better alternative to build the interchange at the same time the road is built because all of the disruption would happen at one time. Even if the inter- change is not needed at the time the road is built, it would make the traffic move better at this location, and as years gp by, the traffic will fully warrant the interchange. He believes, however, that the interchange is warranted now. Mr. Roosevelt commented that with an at-grade concept with eight lanes, there will be problems at Rio Road and Route 29. He said that, over the years, these problems will increase~ until it is finally agreed upon that an interchange is needed. Mrs. Cooke asked for Mr. Roosevelt's comments on the Meadow Creek Park- way. Mr. Roosevelt replied that there are two different funds involved. He said anything involved with the Route 29 study directly is paid from Primary Funds and allocated to the Culpeper District~ The part of the Meadow Creek Parkway that is located in the City would be funded by urban allocations, but the part in the County would involve secondary funds. He reminded the Super- visors that they have considerable control over secondary funds. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the Countyls control over the secondary road funds is not part of the solution to the problem. Mr. Roosevelt agreed, but he said that when the term, "Meadow Creek Parkway," is used, he thinks of it as a secondary project. Mr. Lindstrom said the road that was studied by the consultant would involve primary funds, if the Transportation Board decided that it could be part of the Route 29 solution. Mrs. Cooke mentioned a meeting that was~held at Woodbrook School several months ago when the matter of the Meadow Creek Parkway was discussed. She said that the Department's representatives who were present at that meeting indicated to her that they were now studying the Meadow Creek Parkway with funds in mind. Mr. Roosevelt said the part ~f the roadway from Rio Road toward the City has always been a State project and is viewed as a project to take traffic off of Rio Road. The section north from Rio Road toward Hollymead was put initially into the Comprehensive Plan and the CATS Study and was viewed as a road that would be built totally with County funds. Recently, he said, the Commissioner and the Secondary Roads Engineer have written to the County and said that under certain condition~ the road would be eligible for State funding. He said those certain conditions relate to the designing of the road so that it would give preference toi?through traffic. His definition of through traffic, in this situation, is traffic that is trying to get from the Airport Road area to the City, not local-iresidential traffic. He said that intersections would be spaced widely ap~rt, and if the roadway is de- signed to act as a connection between the Airport Road area and the City, he thinks that it would be eligible for State f~nding. He mentioned that he confirmed this in writing to the County and ~as talked with the County's Planning staff and has indicated that this r~adway would be eligible for secondary funding. He said his impression iq that the County wanted to move with the planning for this road at a faster ~ace than YDoT could do it as a secondary project. He remarked that, at the'Imoment, alignments and locations are being developed for this project and he ~elieves that it is intended that detailed construction plans for the section ~orth of Rio Road using the County's own funds will be developed. At a later time, the Highway Department will be asked to fund the construction. He ~epeated that he thinks the section north of Rio Road could be built wit~ secondary funds as the Meadow Creek Parkway. There was no further discussion of this item. Agenda Item No. 7. Equalization Board: official deadline for hearing real estate reassessment appeals. request to adopt by ordinance an June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 52 Mr. Agnor said the Board of Equalization has requested the Board to adopt an ordinance setting an official deadline for hearing real estate reassessment appeals. He said the Board of Equalization could see no basis for waiting all year to hear the few appeals they hear. Members of the Board of Equalization believe their time and that of the County Real Estate office would be better served if a deadline for appeal is adopted. Therefore, the Board of Equaliza- tion had submitted a draft ordinance recommending that appeals to the Asses- sor's office be made no later than March 31, and appeals to the Board of Equalization be made no later than April 30. Mr. Agnor recommended that the County Attorney further define the suggested language if the Board approved the request. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to set a public hearing for July 12, 1989 to consider an ordinance setting a deadline for hearing real estate reassessment appeals. 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. 8. Public Hearing: To amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority in Crozet to establish a limited service area including certain properties for sewer to existing structures only, or water and sewer to existing structures only. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 30 and June 6, 1989.) Mr. Keeler referred to a memo dated MarCh 21, 1989, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, former Director of Planning and Community Development. The Board had previously asked staff to address the issue 0f the potential impact to other properties in this area would be affected by ~he proposed changes. The memo indicated that the County Attorney had been donsulted on the question, and he said the Board has relatively broad discretionary authority to set service areas for public utilities. The Board generally has the ability to provide utilities to some areas and to decide not to..provide those utilities to others based on differences among service areas and~parcels. The Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, MX. Bill Brent, had also been consulted by staff regarding this issue. As a result of those discussions, the following distinctions were pointed out: The Crozet Interceptor is a force main i~n some areas where connections are not possible. The pumping stations and force mains alQng the Crozet Interceptor are sized to accommodate design flows from {he Crozet Cox~nunity only. The design and configuration of service :areas in most areas of the County are dictated by general land use policies. These policies at the time of installation of the Interceptor and todj~ would not provide for public sewer except within designated growth a~as. The parcels recommended for addition as :~Limited Service in the Crozet area front on sewer mains that are part 0f the collection system which by design anticipates connections to the lilies, as opposed to the Intercep- tor which does not anticipate these connections. For these reasons, staff recommended tha~ the Board approve the extension of limited service to the parcels referenced in the January 30, 1989, memoran- dum. Mr. Keeler said staff does not feel that these connections could be used as justification for providing similar servic~ to other parcels along the Crozet Interceptor. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if these areas are outside of the growth areas of Crozet and if they can still be served by the~e utilities. He asked if drainage from these areas goes to the proposed Lickinghole Creek Basin. Mr. Keeler replied that none of the properties drains toward the proposed Lickinghole Creek Basin. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 53 Mr. Bain stated that it has been explained to the Board that the sewer lines run through these properties, and he said it is clear that the service will be extended to existing structures only. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that some of the lots do not have existing structures, but it seems as though they willlhave the service. He directed the Board's attention to the list of Service Authority Service Areas and asked if service would be given to every parcel on the list. Mr. Brent responded, "no." He said only the parcels that are listed as already in the service areas will get the service, and he explainedlthe differences as they appeared on the list of the Service Authority Areas. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the service would be just to existing structures, and Mr. Bain commented that Mr. Horne's earlier presentation had been clear that the service would only go to existing structures. Mr. Keeler said the one exception to Mr. Bain's comment would belthe new Crozet Elementary School. Mr. Way asked Mr. Brent if he would like to make any comments. Mr. Brent remarked that several of the property owners!affected are anxious to connect to the sewer lines, and they are already conhected to public water. He said the Service Authority offers an incentive toi~the property owners to connect within the first year, and most of them are anxious to connect within that length of time. Mr..Way opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing andlplaced the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area boundaries to establish a limited service area including certain properties for sewer to existing structures only or water and sewer to existing structures as follows: Tax map 40B, parcels 03-68 and 03-69; and Tax map 56, parcels 1, 3, 5, 5B, 5E, 5E(1), 64, 64B;!64D (part), 66 (part), 66C, 66D and 66E. 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. 10a. Appropriation: Drug asset proceeds. Mr. Agnor said this appropriation would authorize the expenditure of Albemarle County's share of the proceeds from the drug investigation of the "Kaufman Case" and is required to be used for law enforcement activities. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve an appropriation in the amount of $3,312.24 by adopting the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by thefollowing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR 88/89 FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND ADDITIONAL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM SEIZURE OF DRUG ASSETS. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100031010555010 DRUG ASSETS $3,312.24 TOTAL $3,312.24 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100033000330205 DRUG ASSETS ~ $3,312.24 TOTAL $3,312.24 June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Agenda Item No. 10b. Appropriation: Sheriff's Department. Mr. Agnor said recently Mr. Way and a member of City Council had accompa- nied Sheriff Hawkins to a meeting in Richmond to appeal the State Compensation Board's decision to discontinue funding the deputy position approved for a second bailiff in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The appeal was denied, and State funding of the position will cease on June 30, 1989. Sheriff Hawkins also was unsuccessful in getting any assistance from Governor Baliles. Sheriff Hawkins is requesting that the City Council and the Board of Supervisors replace the lost State funds with local funds. Mr. Agnor said the Board has had a long standing policy of not supplementing State-salaried posi- tions, but staff feels that this position is essential to the operations of the Court. He recommends that the position be continued and that the Sheriff continue to exhaust any appeal processes that might be available. The source of funds would be the Juvenile Detention Home budget which has been reduced at a recent meeting from $22,000 to $11,521. Therefore, staff recommends that the savings resulting from that reduction be transferred to the Sheriff's budget. Mr. Way said if the County and City do not authorize this position, the Judge will probably order that the position be filled, anyway. Mr. Bowie mentioned that he and SheriffHawkins are both on the Jail Board. He stated that the Attorney General and the County Attorney have ruled that sheriffs in jurisdictions that have a jail are no longer required to provide prisoner transportation. He said th{s was brought out at a meeting of the Jail Board, and the City Sheriff said he could not provide transportation for prisoners any longer. Mr. Bowie remarked that providing transportation for prisoners is costly. He said Sheriff Hawkins stated that he believed transporting prisoners was his duty, and he Would continue to do it regardless of whether it was contrary to the ruling. M~. Bowie believes that this is the beginning of a trend in which almost all costs will be transferred from the State to the locality. He said he supports Mr. Agnor's request, but he believes that there will have to be a limit to what a small Sheriff's Department can do if all State support stops, Mr. Way asked if Sheriff Hawkins would ~ike to make a comment. Sheriff Hawkins told the Board members that he has exhausted all appeals for this year's budget. He said he has gone through ~he Appeal Board process and has even spoken to the Governor personally. He a~tated that the position will be put into next year's budget, and the State wiill again be requested to fund the position, but he will go through the appeal ~!tocess next year, if necessary. He wished to emphasize, in reference to an e~rlier comment made by Mr. Bain, that the appeal process has been exhausted f .~? this year, and there is no other recourse left. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstro~ and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to authorize the transfer of funds as recommend~ by the County Executive and set out below. Roll was called and the motion ca.tried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrg. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 55 FISCAL YEAR: 89/90 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Local funding of bailiff position in Juvenile Court not funded by State Compensation Board. EXPENDITURE COST/CENTER CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100039000563400 REVENUE Juvenile Detention Home DESCRIPTION (10,479.00) AMOUNT 210001900019202 2100023000230201 2100051000510100 Juvenile Ct. Bailiff - City Share $9,850.00 Sheriff-Compensation Board (20,050.00) APP from General Fund Balance (279.00) ~ Total ($10,479.00) Agenda Item No. 12. Blake Hurt: Follow-up report on LURC recommenda- tions. Mr. Blake Hurt distributed a report titled, "Implementation of the Land Use Regulation Committee Recommendations: A Follow-up Study", dated May 18, 1989, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office. Li ...... ~ .~._. ~-~ Mr. Hurt gave the following recommendations: Maintain a stable, experienced professional staff in the County development agencies by providing ~ppropriate levels of compen- sation and favorable working conditions to encourage consistent treatment of projects. ~ Implement the recommendation of th~ original LURC report for an Engineering Design Manual which sh~ll include all engineering specifications and performance standards which can be required by the County. Implement the recommendation of th~ original LURC report for a Key Word Index for the County zoning ordinance. Implement the recommendation of th~ original LURC report for a Policy Notebook for land use and d~velopment. This Notebook shall include all policies and interpretations (including opinions of the County Attorney) w~ich govern the actions of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and the staffs of the development agencies.~ County staff shall be directed to adhere to the policiesi~and interpretations in the Notebook at all times .... Consider consolidation of all Count~ development agencies in one department, or alternatively g~ving the Development Infor- mation Office the authority and responsibility to act as an interagency coordinator and ombudsman; Install an interagency computer syJtem for tracking the status of all development-related applications, and use it to monitor approval times. ~ Mr. Bain asked why it took 34 weeks from preliminary approval to final approval for the Bailey Office Center plan mentioned in the report and won- dered who was responsible for the holdup. Mr~ Hurt responded that each project is a different case. The report is s!imply looking at when the project was submitted and finally approved. Mr. Bain said he did not want to go into~each case that is listed in the report. He wondered if it took 34 weeks from~ the time that the plan was given to the staff until it was finally approved. Mr. Hurt answered that it took 34 weeks for the plan to be signed. ~ Mr. Bowie said that the report implies that something is wrong with the staff, and this may or may not be the case. He pointed out that 22 of those weeks could have been spent waiting for the applicant to turn in his plans. Mr. Hurt replied that he does not think that ~t usually takes the applicant very long to turn in his plans. ~i June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 56 Mr. Lindstrom said he believes that the best way to avoid taking each case separately is to use the LURC information as a base. He added that if the Committee studied all of the approvals, and if they were all done the same way, and it took 34 weeks to get final approval, then something is wrong. He suggested that a comparison be done, taking !LURC's 1985 analysis and applying it to 1988 to see what the difference would ibe. Mr. Hurt said all that was considered was how long it took to get the Planning Commission's approval. Mr. Tucker explained that the process has changed. Now sketch plans, or preliminary plans, can be brought in, and they do not require as much engi- neering. More time is now required after the plan is given to the staff, for staff to work with the developer or engineer to implement the regulations. He agreed that the process needs to be examined if it has created an additional length of time for plan approvals. ' Mr. Hurt said the process in the County takes longer now, and he pointed out that his engineer responds to his needs quicker than does the County. He added that a seven week time span for the preliminary plan approval may not seem like much time, but the same criteria was used in examining that project. Mr. Lindstrom said since he had some responsibility for getting LURC started, he has been interested in how it de~eloped, and he is pleased with the report. He thinks the recommendations i~ the report are good, and he agrees with all of them, on the surface. He asked if, in a reasonable length of time,, the staff could make comments on th~ recommendations. He thinks the index is needed, as well as an Engineering Dgsign Manual. He is concerned abOut Number Four of the recommendations which deals with creating a Policy Notebook for land use and development. If t~e Policy Notebook can be done, he thinks it should be done, and he believes that if there are routine policies that are not part of the regulations, but ar~ matters of a normal administra- tive practice that could be identified and w~ltten down, then it would be helpful to have them in one place. However, :he said, a problem could result if an expectation is built in that rigidifie~ a system that should be more flexible. Mr. Hurt said he thoUght a Policy NotebOok could be done rather simply. He said he does not necessarily mean going b~yond what the County Engineering or Planning staff is doing now, but they cou~'d make a habit of putting the policies together in one place. If this wer~ the situation, people could gO to that place and could even purchase the in~ormation, if necessary. He said even if a later policy contradicts an earlie~ one, at least the history of the policy would be evident. Mr. Lindstrom called the Board's attention to Number FiVe of the recom- mendations of the report dealing with consol%dation of all County development agencies into one department. He said that ~e has for years thought that this should be considered. He said Mr. John Horn~, former Director of Planning and Community Development, is now employed by a ~/~ounty that has its development agencies consolidated, but that county is un~,ergoing a lot of pressure at this time and it is much smaller than Albemarle.~lHe suggested that Mr. Home be contacted for information on how well this t~Pe of situation works, after he has had some time to get acclimated to his new position. Mr. Tucker said the staff has already asked Mr. Home for this i~formation. · 1 Mr Hurt asked the Board to ook at Pag9 Five of the report under the section entitled, "Better Public Information'S. This section suggested that "mailings to adjacent property owners includ~ a brief statement of intention and a sketch furnished by the applicant plus ithe applicant's phone number." He thought this is a good idea because usually the notice that is sent to i. . adjoing property owners is very brief. He t~lnks it would be easier if the applicant could provide the County a stack o~ one-page explanations showing what is expected to be built. This would mean that the property owners would be getting information that is not covered b~i the County Zoning Department's mailings. Mr. Lindstrom wondered if the LURC repor~t is a complete statement or just a report on key portions. Mr. Hurt replied ~hat LURC tried to look at signif- icant aspects of land use regulations, and t~is is a report on those aspects. Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff to review :~he LURC report in general and in context before responding to these recommendations, and if there are other June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) significant things that the staff sees in the LURC report that should be considered, then they should also be brought to the Board. Mr. Agnor informed Mr. Lindstrom that the Planning Commission completed a review of the LURC report in March. He said! a copy of the Commission's report is available, but he did not give it to the Board for today's meeting because he was not sure what Mr. Hurt's report would entail. He said he would dis- tribute the report at a later time, and it summarizes what the recommendations are, and the actions that have been taken. Mr. Bowie next discussed Number Six of the recommendations relating to installing an interagency computer system for tracking the status of all development-related applications, and using it to monitor approval times. He said this was one of the areas that was examined by the ad hoc committee set up by the Board, and one of its recommendations was that this system be installed. He added that the staff members could inform the Board as to where they are in this process. He went on to say that a person should be able to go into any agency in the building and find out the status of a project by using the computer in that agency office. He thinks this is important. Mr. Bain then commented on Number One of the LURC report recommendations which related to the County "providing appropriate levels of compensation and favorable working conditions to encourage consistent treatment of projects." He remarked that private companies seem more!~able to attract good people by paying them more than the County. He said he believes that the appropriate levels of compensation should be met by the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he was sorry that Mr~ Hurt was not present earlier in the meeting during the conversation with Mr. ~iRoosevelt about the reasons for road plans being delayed. He said it would be helpful if the LURC could give the County some input on what this process i~ and what can be done to shorten the length of time that it takes to have roa~ plans developed. Mr. Hurt replied that LURC has already ~et with VDoT regarding subdivi- sion street requirements, and made some reco~imendations. He said these recommendations were sent to Mr. Gerald Fish~r, but as far as the Committee knows, the street requirements have not been!irevised. He said the LURC focused on issues such as why the process fo~ roadways takes so long, how the process can be monitored and improved. ~! Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it would als~ be helpful if those people in the development industry, who are using the A~ame sort of talents as those in the public sector, could give the County some reaction to the private sector's salary schedule in comparison to the County's salary scale. Mr. Bain agreed and said the salaries would not have to be d~sclosed, but it would be helpful to know what local people are paying for comparable jobs. He knows of several competent people who are working in local job's who once worked for the County. [ · Mr. Lindstrom next asked the staff to conszder speeding up the process for approvals of moderate and low cost housing to be built by the private sector. He asked if speeding up approvals fir moderate and low cost housing would be legal, and could it be done without ~idelaying other projects. Mr. Hurt said he advocates scattering low cost housing throughout the County rather than building a big project. He said if the County's processing time could be shortened, the cost of development could be cut considerably, and simultaneously there would be more affordable housing because people could get the houses built quicker and keep their ~mployees busy. Secondly, he said that low cost housing would be done in smaller sections, because it would be worth it to have smaller developments. With ~he current process, Mr. Hurt said that a developer would have to develop a~lot more housing to make it worthwhile. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board would be receiving the Planning Commis- sion's recommendations, and Mr. Agnor said their recommendations will be forwarded to the Board, at a later time, with~a cover memo attached. Mr. Tucker added that the Planning Commission had~addressed only four of the recommendations, and the staff would address the remainder of them. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Agenda Item No. 13. Annual Report: Department of Forestry activities. Mr. Michael Griffin gave the Board an UPdated economic survey concerning the forestry resources in Virginia. He said this survey addresses theState as a whole, but he thought the Board might appreciate some of the information in this publication. He called the Board's attention to Page 32, which provides a summary, and noted that forests in Virginia bring in more than $5.0 billion per year When all amenities and revenues are taken into consideration. He said the County has eight sawmills and one pulpwood concentration yard, and numerous logging operations. Each of the loggers is a part of the forest resource employment within the Thomas JefferSon Planning District. He next directed the Board's attention to Page 14 of!ithe publication and noted that the Planning Districts are outlined as far as employment is concerned. He said that in Virginia it is believed that one in seven jobs in the manufactur- ing field is associated with forestry resources. In the Thomas Jefferson Planning District in 1987, approximately 13 to 14 percent of the jobs in the manufacturing field were assoCiated with the!forestry resources, which is a part of the $5.0 billion annual figure. Mr. Griffin said the Chesapeake Bay PreServation Act is becoming more and more an issue with the Department of Forestry. Several water quality manage- ment programs have been developed in Virginia, and the Department of Forestry is very involved with the logging industriesi!~ activities as far as trying to help them keep sediment from washing into th~ streams and reaching the Bay. He said the latest legislation concerns the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Force, which he understands will become a pa~t of all of the ordinances in localities east of Interstate 95. He believes that the ordinance is written so that, should it be acceptable to county a~'~dministration, a Local Assistance Board can be created in the county. These b~ards are to be established to alleviate some of the problems in suggesting~land use changes and modifica- tions to keep sediment from occurring in thei?Bay. He hopes that if a Local Assistance Board is considered in Albemarle ~Ounty that the Department of Forestry will be made a part of that group..iHe said he appreciated all of the assistance that the Forestry Department gets!~ifrom the County. He reminded the Board that the Forestry State Headquarters a~e here in the County as well as the Regional Office. He said the Forestry Department has recently worked with the County regarding a new park near Red Hill and it looks forward to other activities with the County. Mr. Perkins pointed out that Mr. Mike G~iffin is the Regional Forester, and works in all of the Piedmont counties fr~m Amherst to Washington, D.C. He added that Nelson Shaw is the Albemarle County Forester. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he appreciated the report and asked if the Forestry Department's Regional Office is going to be moved away from this area. ~r. Griffin answered that the Regiona~ Office will not be moved but the Headquarters Office is planning to move from ithe campus at UVA to another location. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a location has be.en settled upon for the Headquar- ters Office. Mr. Griffin replied that, to his knowledge, no location for the Headquarters Office has been settled upon at ~his time. He said various options are being considered. Mr. Bowie noted that Planning District 10 is sixth on the 1987 list relating to employment dependence upon the forest industry. Mr. Agnor then pointed out that on Pages 30 and 31, Albemarle County's revenues and expenditures for 1983-84 are illustrated. He said the informa- tion for this publication came from the Piedmont Environmental Council and Ms. Tamara Vance. Mr. Griffin said that Tamara Vance has done numerous studies concerning the taxation situation. ; Agenda Item No. 14. Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, status report. Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, said the General Assembly had passed the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in 1988, which estab- lished a nine member board charged with developing criteria for designating Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas to protect the quality of state waters. During the past year, the Chesapeake Bay Loca~ Assistance Department has also helped develop a proposed set of regulations Which are to take effect July 1, June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 59 1989. Public hearings have been held throughout Tidewater Virginia, and the regUlations will be finalized by July 1. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the regulations would flush out the consistency requirements further. Mr. Robertson replied that the requirements are fairly well set. He called attention to the portion of the report that dealt with this issue. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Watershed Management staff could develop an analysis of a comparison of the significant parts of the regulations versus current County regulations, so that it could~be decided whether it would be worthwhile to try to adopt this criteria int6 the County's own ordinances. He asked for this analysis as soon as possible. Mr. Bain stated that the analysis would:irelate not only to the Planning and Zoning concept, but it would relate to the performance criteria, also. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that whatever needs to be done should be done for the County to get the benefit of this consistency provision. Mr. Agnor added that the staff would also need to consider whether some of the regulations dealing with the County's watershed zone need to be expand- ed. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Sale of lot on Fourth Street, N. E., City of Charlottesville. (Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 6 and June 10, 1989.) Mr. Agnor told the Board that the City And County jointly own property on Fourth Street, N. E., in the City limits, which the City is interested in selling because the house is vacant and deteriorating. After this public hearing, if the Board is agreeable, the house, will be assigned to the Building Committee. He said the value would have to 6e determined jointly with the City so that if an appropriate proposal is r~ceived, then authorization could be given for it to be sold. ii Mr. Bain asked Mr. Agnor if the staff f~els that the County will have no use for the house in the future. He said th~ property adjoins the Old Jail building, and he suggested that the County m~ght be interested in buying the house from the City and having an area for e~pansion at the Courthouse Com- plex. He asked if the staff has considered ~his possibility. Mr. Agnor answered that the staff has ldOked at this possibility, but he said that this jointly owned house is not adj!acent to the jail property. The City owns another house which does join the jiail property. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the City is planning to do with the house that adjoins the jail property. Mr. Agnor responded that he has heard that the City will be remodeling the house that it owners for a Juvenile Attention Home for Girls. ~ Mr. Bowie said that after the public he'ring is held, if it is legal, he would like to .suggest that the Board go into Executive Session for disposal of public property. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak, so Mr. Way closed the public hearing and pla~ed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that, since there was another Executive Session scheduled for lunch, that this matter be brought up at that time. Mr. Way agreed. ~ Agenda Item No. 10c. Appropriation: Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association. ~ Mr. Agnor said the Jefferson Country Fir~ and Rescue Association (JCFRA) requested the reallocation of $5,000 of the f~nds appropriated and remaining from the initial consultant's report. Mr. Ag~or said JCFRA plans to employ a June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 6O summer intern for approximately 14 weeks to gather data, continue their research, and make a report on both fire and rescue services as they exist today, and determine future fire and rescue needs of the County. He said staff recommends that the request be approved. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to authorize the transfer of $5,000 as requested for the service of an intern 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. FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: intern in Inspections Dept. Transfer from BOS contingency for JCFRA EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100011010999991 1100034000100100 1100034000200100 1100034000550101 1100034000540100 BOS-Contingency ($5,000.00) Salaries 3,900.00 Fica 295.00 Travel-PoOl Car 205.00 Office Supplies 600.00 Total $ 0.00 REVENUES DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $ 0.00 Total $ 0.00 Agenda Item No. 10d. FY 88-89 Year-end budget adjustments. Mr. Agnor referenced his memorandum of June 8, 1989, and said certain Departments will exceed their FY 88/89 budget appropriations and will require an additional appropriations as follows: Albemarle County Commonwealth Attorney's Office Albemarle County Police Department Soil and Water Conservation Services District Home Tax Refunds ~ Building Permit Refunds Zoning Refunds $ 5,000 35,000 400 6,000 2,000 3,800 100 Mr. Agnor said the overexpenditure of $25,000 in the Albemarle County Police Department is due to underbudgeting of reimbursable overtime. He said revenues are collected for this purpose and Will provide the funds, but it is affecting the Police Department's budget. Therefore, there is a need to make the $35,000 appropriation. He went on to sa~ that the use of police officers in reimbursable overtime is continually growing. He said more money is collected for this purpose than it costs, but the operation has grown tremen- dously. Mr. Lindstrom asked if enough money is being collected and if the rule of supply and demand could be applied to this operation. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes", and some requests have to be turned down. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was any reason there could not be a profit margin. Mr. Agnor responded that to his knowlege the Board could set any pric~!it desires. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is no legal constraint on the price for this service, then he thinks that a rate should be set that will be responsive to the demand level. Mr. Agnor said some of the officers are interested in this activity and receive overtime pay which is peid for by the public and not by the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the situation can be examined, not just for recovering costs, but to put a value, on the service so that it would be responsive to the demand. He thinks if th%s is done, the Police Depart- ment's capacity can be used as fully as possible, and advantage can be taken of the demand, and some money can be made. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 61 Mr. Bain said he does not disagree with Mr. Lindstrom, but he is con- cerned about how much time the County officers are spending on this overtime. The police officers are not spending this time on County business, and he wonders if it could be reducing their effectiveness when they are working on County business. Mr. Agnor responded that some requests are being turned down because the staff is attempting to assess the situation to see if the overtime could have any impact on the County's operation. He said it is a service that is offered and made available, but it should, not affect the County Police Department's function. Mrs. Cooke remarked that she thinks Mr.iLindstrom's suggestion is valid, and she supports the suggestion that this situation be examined. Mr. Agnor said the staff will analyze the rate. He said the rate has not been changed for a couple of years, so the matter needs to be reviewed, anyway. He reminded the Board members that the Board had given the approval for the initial rate when it was originally set. He then went on with his review of the memorandum relating to the 1988-89 year end budget adjustments. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve the appropriation requested in the COunty Executive's memorandum of June 8, 1989, 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. FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Year-end adjustments. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100022010100100 1100031010100207 1100082030100100 1100059000563000 1100092010580301 1100092010580308 1100092010580304 CommAtt-Salaries Police Dept-Reimbursable Salaries Soil & Water-Salaries District Home Tax Refunds Building Permi6' Refunds Zoning Permit Refunds $ 5,200.00 35,000.00 400.00 6,000.00 2,000.00 3,800.00 100.00 Total $52,500.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 Appro from General Fund Balance Total $52,500.00 $52,000.00 Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Bain stated that he had read the minutes for August 10, 1988, and September 21, 1988 and, except for a couple of typographical errors that he will give to the!Clerk, he finds them to be correct. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the minutes as read and corrected. 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. 11. Discussion: Proposed ordinance on general fire protection. The Board did not discuss this item at this date. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: IPersonnel. At 12:14 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded b~ Mr. Bowie to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss personnel matter~ and the sale of property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follqwing recorded vote: June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 62 AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 16. SP-89-29. Robert & Marilyn Brugh (deferred from June 7, 1989). Mr. Keeler said the staff examined the issue of installing some landscap- ing on the Brugh's site. He said in his opinion, landscaping could be in- stalled by removing some parking spaces, and he pointed out the parking areas on the map. He commented that Mr. Brugh had informed him that some of these spaces were for handicapped persons, but Mr. Keeler feels that on-site circu- lation, by making that area an accessway, would be more appropriate. He noted that a prior Special Use Permit authorized certain spaces for the U-Haul rental business to use as display areas, and he does not think this authoriza- tion could be changed for landscaping purposes because that petition is not before the Board. He mentioned that recently some of the parking spaces were being occupied by boats and boat trailers. He believes that the parking schedule that Mr. Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator, has provided should be examined, since this is not permitted in the County's ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many parking spaces would be lost if the land- scaping were added. Mr. Keeler responded that the parking spaces are drawn on the plan, but he does not think all of the parking is laid out on site. He added that within VDoT's right-of-way are approximately four spaces that would be lost. He said a total of 12 spaces wouldi~?e deleted, and he pointed them out on the drawing. Mr. Lindstrom asked if taking these spaces away would affect what could be done with the rest of the property relating to parking spaces. Mr. Keeler answered, "no." He directed the Board's attention to Mr. Evans' memo of May 17, 1989 in which he states that there i~ more than ample parking on-site for the uses in that building. He said the ,ample parking made possible the request for the additional storage spaces fo~:. the motor vehicle rentals and U-Haul rentals, and he mentioned that Mr. Br~'gh has requested that the staff be allowed to increase the number of parking i~{'spaces. Mr. Lindstrom replied that he wants to Wear Mr. St. John's opinion, but he does not have a problem with the staff ha~.ing the flexibility to provide more spaces if the landscaping can still be done. Mr. St. John said he checked to see if the landscaping would impair any vested rights that would have been in the rec!ord due to a previous Special Use Permit or site plan. He said Mr. Keeler had i~lready pointed out the area on the map that is a vested parking right by virtue of a previous Special Use Permit. He said that in the other area where~i the landscaping is proposed, he did not see where any vested right for parking had been specifically assigned to anybody. He said there could be a site ptHn that he is not aware of that had parking on it in that location. His concern is not whether the Board should require this landscaping, but whether iit would impair a vested right, if it is done. He thinks Mr. Keeler has answered this concern. Mr. St. John said his remarks have nothing to do with whether it would be feasible to require the landscaping. He sai~. the staff and Board members have looked at the property and have seen certain circumstances that mitigate either for or against the landscaping. He reminded Board members that an existing parking lot and driveway will be rembved that are already paved. However, he said, he was not asked to look into the matter as to whether or not this is fair or feasible. He said he is ~simply saying that no vested right is impaired. He agreed with Mr Keeler that the parking spaces in the %DoT's right-of-way would not be vested. ?~. Mr. Brugh asked that the Planning CommisSionls recommendation be ap- proved. He said landscaping will be a major .expenditure and a major change to a piece of property that has only 195 feet oni!its front. He thinks the request for more parking spaces is a use for {he property that is far less unsightly than many other uses that could be Placed on it. He said that an unpainted passenger car, with no signs on it, !is one of the cleanest uses that could be presented there. He added that he already has a 30 foot screening June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 63 area at the curve. He said that the Board is requiring approximately 20 more feet of screening there, and he considers this as "screening the screen." He mentioned that he has been to the Planning staff and to the Planning Commis- sion, and the amount of rent that will be received is insignificant when such a significant change is being suggested. He thinks that if this screening is needed, he should have been told by the Planning staff or the Planning Commis- sion and not by the Board. He said he has been through all of the County's pre-planning processes, and believes that the screening requirement should not be placed upon him. He thinks the Board's guidance should be given to the Planning staff and Planning Commission so that it could be applied in the beginning of the process. He asked the Board to look again at the square foot area in relationship to the whole situation. He said there is a sign with a built up area around it that will have to be removed, and the conduit will have to be taken out. He remarked that he believes it is wrong for him to have to dig up the asphalt and change the sign arrangement, and he should not be requested to do it, after he has gone through the County's entire approval process. He said someone should have discovered these things earlier in the process. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that the Board's action is part of the process and that the matter does not finish with the Planning Commission. Mr. Brugh answered that the process should not work in reverse. He said the Board's guidance should not be given to him. He asked what good is the staff or Planning Department if they do not discover ~hese types of things. He com- mented that he has gone through a lot of time and effort over this matter, and the County has invested even more time and e~fort than he has. He said this is a very insignificant amount of square foo[age, and it is a far better usage than many other retail uses such as lawn mowgr repair. He added that he could not think of anything cleaner that could be ~t there. He thinks that he has been wronged. ~ Mr. Bain asked Mr. Brugh to distribute ~e pictures that he had in hand to the Board members. "~'~! Mrs. Cooke asked if the pictures were taken recently. Mr. Brugh an- swered, "yes." He said that he has 195 square feet in the front of his property, and the first picture shows that 3~~' feet have been taken by the adjacent landowner. He ' ' i~ considers this an encroachment on his property, and he believes that the County's site plan and soil erosion plan were not enforced by the County. He pointed out, with the aidiiof the pictures, the two 50-foot entrances, the 30-foot screening area and th~ sign area. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Brugh~i He will support intensifying the landscaping on Route 29 because he thinkS! it is probably needed, but he believes it should have been stipulated beforle this situation that anything located on Route 29 will require landscaping f! When someone has complied with a set of rules in every way, Mr. Bowie said, !!he does not feel that landscaping should be added after the matter reaches thief Board. He said he will support the Planning Commission's recommendation witl~! its conditions. He said some of the members of this Board were already membe~ when the U-Haul request came in, and landscaping ' ~ was not even d~scussed. ~He added that Board members knew those parking spaces were in VDoT's right-ofq~ay, and he feels that this is YDoT's problem. He said that, at that time, Ithe four lots were approved for U-Haul's display without screening, and he cannot support tearing up the parking lots and requiring screening for this?~ one application. He does not think that anything special should be required on this application because it looks as though this one application has been! singled out. He suggested that if the policy needs to be changed, then direc6ions need to be sent to the staff and Planning Commission, but not on an ~d hoc basis. Mr. Lindstrom said there was a similar a~plication at the same meeting when Mr. Brugh's application was presented. Re said this section of Route 29 is unsightly and the problem will not be solvgd, unless the staff and Board start to require improvements at some time. ~e. does not think that, given the value of the property and the nature of the r~quest, the screening requirement is disproportionate. ~ Mr. Bowie said maybe it is time to thinkiabout beautifying Route 29 North. However, he said, it needs to be considered as a separate issue. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has been trying to bgautify Route 29 North, and if June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 64 screening is not required with this application, it would be an exception to the rule. If imposing this requirement is an exception to the rule, he would agree with Mr. Bowie. If it is not an exception, then Mr. Lindstrom thinks landscaping should be required. He said he is asking Mr. Keeler for an answer, and whatever he says will make a difference to him. He said he does not want to single out Mr. Brugh's application, but if there is a general rule, then it should be upheld. Mr. Keeler said there are two ways of looking at the issue. He said that in a review of an individual Special Use Permit there are attached conditions that are peculiar to that particular use. He added that, given the nature of its use and the location of the vehicles, the staff did not see a need for screening on this particular piece of property. He added that everyone was remembering the U-Haul situation. He mentioned that another way to look at the matter is that this property, by virtue 6f repeated Special Use Permits, is being rezoned. He said there have been Special Use Permits issued for a wholesaling business, truck rentals and automobile sales. He does not think that uses can continue to be added to this p~operty with everything remaining status quo, because the problem would be intensified. Mr. Lindstrom asked if, as a general proposition, the County is trying to require screening on Route 29 North for businesses. Mr. Keeler replied, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that this is the type of property that will probably be wiped out and will become part of a bigger project, but it is unlikely that a major change will be made fo~ some time, and the Board may not have another opportunity to require screening on this property, if the Special Use Permit is not taken as the opportunity .... Mr. Bowie commented that if the application here was the rule and not the exception, he believes that either the staff'!or the Planning Commission would have noticed it. ~ Mrs. Cooke asked the staff if it would be possible to accelerate the screening already in the designated areas so'that Mr. Brugh would not be required to dig up the pavement and disrupt 9verything. She said what is already in the screening area is just shrubbgry, and she thought it might be possible for Mr. Brugh to enhance the areas ~round the entrance. She asked if the Board has the power to request that this :be done. Mr. Keeler replied, "no." He said a permit would have to be acquired from VDoT. Mr. St. John agreed with Mr. Keeler and said the County w~uld.., also have to agree to bond the maintenance of the landscaping. He went~'on to say that the area that Mrs. Cooke pointed out on the north end of the property is the inlet to a ravine. Mrs. Cooke said then she would like the record to show that the Board is trying to beautify Route 29 North with every opportunity that it gets. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and secdnded by Mr. Bain to approve SP-89-29 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as set out below: ~ Parking of vehicles in accordance With plan marked "SP-89-29 Robert D. & Marilyn C. Brugh" signe~d "A. M. Patterson, May 9, 1989"; Not more than twenty-two rental passenger vehicles shall be located on site. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if the Boar~idoes not want to require land- scaping, there are other things that can be d~ne that would not require any pavement to be removed. He said parking in f~ont of the building could be eliminated and the ordinance enforced so that boats are not parked there. Mr. Keeler agreed with Mr. Lindstrom and'said he believes that there is also a portable sign in the right-of-way that the ordinance does not allow. Mr. Bowie said if there is a zoning violation-then the Zoning Administrator should cite it. He said his motion stands as it was presented. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 65 Mr. Lindstrom asked if the parking could be reduced and put behind the building. He said that he is not talking about moving the vested spaces. He said that he would support the motion, if this condition were included. Mrs. Cooke said she would support the motion if the applicant will agree to bring the front of the building into compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to find out what the screening policy is for Route 29 and see if a consistent policy can be develoPed. Mr. Keeler remarked that he thinks all that is needed is for the Board to subscribe to the notion that any time a special use permit is issued, one more use is added to the property and the use of the property is being intensified, which justifies bringing it under the County's ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said anytime that there is a legitimate opportunity to provide screening on Route 29, it should be done. He said if the problem is that this was not started in the proper sequence on this application, then he thinks that the regulation for screening should be examined at the beginning of the process and applicants should be informed what to expect. Mr. Bowie agreed and said that LURC has~istated many times that the rules need to be made known up front. He said he noes not know what the rules are, nor does Mr. Brugh, the Planning staff, nor ~he Planning Commission. He said the staff will need to examine the options a~d take them to the Planning Commission, and when the matter comes to the.i!Board, a policy can be set. He said he would like to have a clear idea of w~at the policy means and what it will accomplish. Mr. Bain commented that it has been brought out that there have been eight or ten different businesses on this prqperty, and he wonders what it takes to trigger this. He thinks this issue !needs to be examined to find out what is causing the problem. He added that if amendments are needed to the ordinance, then the Board should approve them. Mr. Bowie said he is not sure that this lis an intensified use situation. He said this business and parking area have ~en there a long time, and it is just a different use for the parking. He ad~d that the Board needs some advice on the matter. Roll was called and the motion carried 6~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 17. STA-89-02. To amend Section 18-36 Private Roads of the Subdivision Ordinance to specify circumsCances under which private roads may be permitted in rural developments (deferred from June 7, 1989). Mr. Keeler gave the staff's report as fo!ilows: "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. Foreword: Private road provisions were first adopted in 1978. Since that time the ordinance has been subjected to repeated revision in attempts to limit private road usage in the rural areas to the origi- nal stated purposes for large lot subdivisions in areas of steep terrain. These current amendments are y~t another effort to limit usage of private roads in the rural area~. Before providing discussion of the proposed amendments, it may be appropriate, after ten years of experienee, to discuss whether or not private roads should continue to be available for rural subdivisions. Staff offers the following comments: ~ June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 66 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 pro- nounced. Homeowners continue to assume some public involvement in private roads as evidenced by comment from several county engineers (i.e. - snow plowing, etc). 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 - environmental protection and encouragement of lower density development. While environmental 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 resul~ in development of properties which may not be feasible to develop if public roads were re- quired. o Recently, Virginia Department of T~ansportation (VDoT) has agreed in limited cases to apply 'mountainous' road standards to subdi- vision streets where previously VD6T limited maximum grade/curva- ture to its 'rolling terrain' standards. If Section 18-36(b)(1) and Sectioni~/18-36(c)(1) were repealed, private roads would still be available., for two lot divisions and ' commer- family divisions in the rural areas~. Private roads for cial' subdivisions would be availa~!le only under Section 18-36(c)(2) ."~ Rural development continues at a r~te much higher than desirable in terms of achieving Comprehensive Plan objectives· Private roads make property cheaper to develop and, in some cases, feasible to develop. Therefore, p~%vate roads tend to encourage development in areas where County policy recommends discouraging development. 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 developments. Recommended Amentments: The Planning Commission requested staff to develop language intended to further cl~Yify when private roads are appropriate and to restrict 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 t6~justify private roads in rural developments where lot sizes were iiess than five acres. 1. Amend 18-36(b)(1) as follows: No lot of such subdivision to i:be served by such road shall be less than five acres in la~ area; provided that the subdivider,in accordance with iSection 18-36(h) of this chapter, demonstrates to the r~asonable 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 same alignments. For the .~urposes of this provision, in addition to such other factors~as the commission may consid- er, significant degradation" '.~hall mean an increase of thirty (30%) percent in the to,al volume of gradin8 for construction of a public road as compared to a private road; and June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 67 No alternative public road alignment would alleviate signif- icant deqradation to the environment; and No more lots are proposed on such private road than could be realized on a public road due to right-of-way dedication. Repeal Section 18-36(c)(1)." Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Keeler to explain the rationale for the five acre minimum lot size. Mr. Keeler said that at the time provisions for private road were adopted, the minimum lot size was two acres. There was concern over the size of the subdivisions occurring in the rural areas. He said the amended Zoning Ordinance as proposed in 1976i recommended two or three differ- ent rural districts, but most of the County was to have a minimum lot size of five acres. Developers asked the County staff to put private road provisions into the County's ordinance. It was believed that this would be an incentive to the developers to develop larger lots andinot as much countryside would be bothered. However, when the ordinance was adopted, there was no language included relative to larger lots or any demonstration that smaller lots used up the countryside. Immediately, subdivisions were built where there was no physical difference in terms of the environmental degradation if a public or private road was built, with two acre lots. .He said the Planning Commission has been trying to get back to the original intent since that time. Mr. Lindstrom then inquired if the Plan~ing Commission had made any recent independent finding that there is some advantage with a five acre lot and that this should be encouraged in the ru~ial areas. Mr. Keeler answered, "no." He added that a revised ComprehensiveiPlan will be adopted soon, and that may cause some amendments to be made toithe rural areas district that will provide more options to subdivision of land, and it may be desirable to examine private road provision in context wi~h those options. Mr. Way asked Mr. Keeler if he was going to recommend that this amendment be deferred. Mr. Keeler replied, "yes." He!said the Blue Ridge Homebuilders want to be able to analyze the amendment. H~ then gave the Board an example of a person who would not qualify for a private road, unless that person could demonstrate that he qualifies for a private ~oad, because he had access through another person's property. He also gave examples of times when the Commission had denied subdivisions because o~ sight distance and easement widths. He advised the Board that the text ~ecommended by the staff states that the construction of a public road wouldii!require~ a 30 percent increase in the volume of grading. He distributed to the Board some figures relative to the grading regulation. Mr. Keeler said the !total width of a private road, under County regulations and with a ditch li~e included, is 28 feet. The total width for a private road built accordingJ to VDoT's standards, is 32 feet for a three-acre mmnmmum lot s~ze, and 34 feet when the lots are less than three acres. He said these regulations have lbeen employed, but YDoT wants a guarantee from the County that these lots will not ever be further divided or reduced to less than three acres. He added that the Planning staff cannot give that guarantee because lot owners can ask for a special use permit and reduce their lots to less than three acres. (Mr. Agnor left at 2:51 p.m. and came back at 2:53 p.m.) Mr. Lindstrom asked what VDoT's rationale is for the private road width and the three acre lot stipulation. Mr. Keel~er replied that he cannot answer Mr. Lindstrom's question. He said that VDoT i~ould have no interest in reduc- ing its road width for larger lots. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that the roads VD'~T requires unnecessarily are large. He asked if there was a difference ~n.,~ the horizontal and vertical curvature requirements. Mr. Keeler answered,! "yes." Mr. Bain asked if the basic intent of the amendment is to define signifi- cant degradation. Mr. Keeler answered, "yes..~' He added that five acre lot divisions would have to demonstrate that ther~ would be significant degrada- tion in order to qualify. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 68 Mr. Blake Hurt spoke first and said he was representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association. He said he has received a number of calls from people who do not have a clear idea of what the recommendation is trying to accomplish. He asked the Board to delay making a decision so that he would have time to talk to these concerned people. These people could then decide if they think that it is good planning and a fair recommendation, or whether the regulation will be burdensome. Mr. Fred Landess spoke next. He said the Board is in receipt of a letter from his partner, Mr. John Bates, which raises some points. He agreed with Mr. Bowie that the main thing that people want when they are dealing with the government is to know what the rules are. In this particular instance, he thinks the rules should not be so mandatory, because he thinks that flexibili- ty is needed when dealing with the question Of when a private road is better for all parties concerned than a public road. He added that one of his concerns is how the 30 percent grading requirement is determined, relative to how much engineering will have to be done before it is known whether a person will be dealing with a public or private road. He likes the idea of having a standard, but how precise does the engineering have to be to determine the 30 percent grading? He mentioned that in some instances people prefer private roads even if they are built to State road standards. Will this be allowed? Mr. Lindstrom said this ordinance, as it is now written, will encourage two-acre lots in the rural areas as opposed ~o five-acre lots. He mentioned that if he had a piece of land under currentilzoning that has five divisional rights that he wants to subdivide, he is going to divide it into two acre-lots and minimize the amount of road that he has to build as opposed to five-acre lots which will create much more expense. Hp called attention to the fact that, even if he has five-acre lots, if he i~ not exceeding the 30 percent grading requirement, he will have to build p~blic roads. Mr. Landess answered that this is a pol{cy decision for the Board to make. He said he has been told by engineers!]ithat VDoT is currently reviewing its own standards for subdivision roads. He~isaid that perhaps the County should know VDoT's standards before discussing its own standards. Mr. Katurah Roell addressed the Board a~d said that he and his partner, Mr. Ron Langman, have done various developments around the County. He remind- ed the Board members that they had approved ~ special use permit approximately a year ago for their Emerald Ridge development, which included some private and public roads within that development. He added that he wanted to speak on behalf of private roads, but he also wanted Ko recognize the need for State- maintained roads. He said part of the concern is trying to determine the viability of State roads versus private roads in determining the 30 percent grading differential. He finds that when limits such as this are set, regula- tions begin to get more and more specific on ~ow these types of things can be determined. He said this causes engineering work to be done on a development twice in order to show a couple of ways that ~hings can be done. He went on to .1 say that engineering costs are already exorbitant. Mr. Roell said he thinks it is importan~ not to overburden the County or the people who are trying to buy these lots. 'The cost of lots and property in this County has increased and fewer and fewer!' people are able to buy homes. He said it is important for his business, this Board and the Planning Commis- sion to be able to provide adequate housing fDr the people in the community. Mr. Roell remarked that in many other counties when there is a presentation for a given parcel, with consideration being given to the terrain and condi- tions of the land, there could be a two-acre ~inimum lot regulation, or if there is to be a private road with a limited ~ccess, then there may be a five-acre lot minimum. He mentioned that at Emerald Ridge it was stated that there would be a five-acre minimum. He said it costs more to make a longer road, but the product is more desirable. When 20 or 40 acre parcels are involved, however, lots have to be produced, and more properties are divided in the rural areas. He pointed out that the ~rowth areas around the County are very limited and few lots are available i~ the areas designated for growth. He added that the search then begins,ifor farm properties that do become available, with open fields, low terrain and a State road which is most appropriate for these areas. He believes that some consideration needs to be given to sites on an individual basis. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 69 Since no one else wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems the impression has been given that the only basis for a waiver of the State road standard is the 30 percent criteria. This is not the case. He read from the ordinance the words, "in addition to such other factors, that the Commission may consider", and pointed out that it does not restrict the environmental factors the Commission can take into account. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not sure he can support the five-acre lot regulation. He thinks rural development is trying to be discouraged in this County, and he believes this is one of the purposes behind the ordinance. He added that when a private County road standard is allowed to be applied instead of the State standard, sometimes property is opened up that otherwise could not be developed. He believes this is contrary to most of the Board's efforts in terms of trying to preserve rural!areas, as the five-acre lot is contrary to that effort. ~ Mr. Bain believes that Mr. Keeler asked for a deferral of action on this ordinance because some of the language is inappropriate. Mr. Bain thinks the public and the developers believe that this ordinance is very restrictive in terms of what the County is trying to accomplish. He does not believe that this is the case, and he thinks that the new!ordinance more clearly defines what has already been taking place in the County. He asked Mr. Keeler what he feels to be inappropriate about the ordinance. Mr. Keeler said he believes that Mr. St. John's concerns deal with attaching the environmental degradation in relation to the five acre minimum lot size. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have a p~oblem with eliminating the five acre lot minimum, because he thinks that it ~s counterproductive, in some instances, to what the County is trying to d~ in rural areas. Mr. Bain said he does not think the Board should make a decision on anything at today's meeting, since the Comprehensive Plan will be approved soon and then the Board could adopt an ordinance in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said one word could ~ossibly be changed in the ordi- nance that would eliminate Mr. St. John's co~cern.~ He said he understands Mr. St. John's concern because land use is being~involved in a subdivision in a way that it should not be. j~ Mr. Keeler said if the five lot minimumi~as taken out of the ordinance and the "significant degradation" portion wasi left where it appears in the ordinance, a private road could be built any~ihere if significant degradation could be demonstrated. He said the Board mas want to give some consideration to this, but he mentioned that one of the stalff's concerns is the number of requests for private roads. He called attention to the speakers' remarks and said they were speaking as though private ro~ds were a "right." He then read from the ordinance that, "private roads are intended to be permitted as the exception to construction and dedication of p~blic roads in the approval process. Granting a private road usage shal~!~ be discretionary by the Commis- sion.'' He pointed out that nothing so far has reduced the number of private road requests. He suggested that he give thai Board the mileage of private and public roads that have been built in the rur~t areas in the last five to ten years so that the Board will have an idea of ~hat is really occurring there. Mr. Bain said he understands why the deVelopment of private roads should be discouraged, but one of the reasons that private roads have been built is the tremendous difference in the requirements~between VDoT's public roads and the County's private roads. Mr. Keeler said not only does a private road cost the developers less money, but it enhances the value of the development. He recalled a situation where a developer built five, five-acre lots ~ith a 14-foot gravel road and sold the first lot for $232,000. He said the~gravel road did not increase the development costs to that extent, but he pointed out that someone else had spoken to the point that a private road is a~ood selling point. He added that he does not disagree with any of these s~atements, but the original intent was to have larger lot developments in,areas of steep terrain. He said that the report stated that the RA zone will ~asically take care of the issue of two-acre lots in this type of development ~n the rural area, so the five June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 7O acres may not have validity any longer. He said the staff tried to look at the whole issue as to the public purpose to be served, rather than the desires of the property owners because desires today could possibly be complaints tomorrow. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if a State standard road is required, mainte- nance is never going to be a local issue. He said this means that there will be no complaints coming to the County about the road and the property owners will not have periodical expenses that sometimes they cannot afford. Having this problem eliminated seems to be one major reason of having a State stan- dard road, and Mr. Lindstrom believes that it is a legitimate reason. He went on to say that this conflicts from time to time with sound environment prac- tices because State roads are unnecessarily large. That is why the private road standard exists. He added that if the County wants to avoid creating an incentive to development in the rural areas with private roads, the County could have a regulation stating that all of the roads in the urban area will meet private road standards, and all of the roads in the rural areas will meet State standards. He said the regulation could be such that it would not matter whether the area is rural or urban, t~e same arguments could be used for each area. If this is the case, Mr. LinSstrom commented that the ordi- nance would have to be administered very conscien- tiously because of the number of requests. He added that just because an area is urban, it does not mean that a road cannot..:, be an environmental problem. Mr. Bain commented that mountain land im... rural areas has been developed that could not have been if the State road s~andard had been applied. Devel- opment occurs in these areas regardless of wt"ether the County desires it there, because of private roads. Mr. Lindstrom asked if, under this ordinance, a private road can be approved where a State road could not be approved. Mr. Keeler answered, "yes." He stated that a public road would require 30 percent more grading. Mr. Way reminded the Board that Mr. Kee~er has asked for a deferral of this ordinance. Mr. Bowie asked how long thai matter will be deferred. Mr. Keeler replied that he would like to have anhindefinite deferral. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Keeler why he wants an indefinite deferral. Mr. Keeler responded that his understanding is that some people w~t to do a comparison of the various road alignments to see exactly what ~e 30 percent grading requirement for public roads involves. Mr. Bowie asked ~ 60 to 90 days would be enough time for the comparison to be made. Mr. Kee~r answered "yes" Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and~!seconded by Mr. Bain to defer STA-89-02 to September 13, 1989, to allow staff time to review language regarding lot size to determine conformity to!the Comprehensive Plan and to gather information regarding the Virginia Dep~rtment of Transportation's standards for road alignment and width. Roll'was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The Board recessed at 3:42 P.M. ~nd reconvened at 3:57 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 18. ZTA-89-03. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 6.0, Non-Conforming Lots, ~o provide for combination and/or redivision of non-conforming lots (deferred fEom June 7, 1989). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report as i'ifollows: "Public Purpose: To provide for improved development; to provide for uniform regulation. Staff Comment: The Subdivision Ordinance- contains a provision which permits combination and/or redivision off'non-conforming lots provided the result is more conforming to the requirements of the ordinance. No such language exists in the Zoning Ordinance, and, therefore, even though a result may be more conforming tq~ zoning regulation, variances June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) are required. Staff opinion is that improvement should be achievable without requirement of a variance in all cases. Staff recommends the addition of section 6.5.4 to 6.0, Nonconformi- ties, of the Zoning Ordinance: 6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS 6.5.4 A subdivision recorded or developed prior to the adoption of and not in conformity with this ordinance may be resub- divided and redeveloped, in whole or part, at the option of the owner of any group of contiguous lots therein; but every such resubdivision shall conf6rm to this ordinance and all other county ordinances currehtly applicable; provided~ however, that no such resubdivision which in the opinion of the zoning administrator, shall be substantially more conforming to the requirement~ of 4.0~ General Regulations, and the area and bulk regulations of the district in which such subdivision is situated Shall be denied for failure to comply with the provisions oflthis ordinance. The zoning administrator may~ at his discretion, refer the matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the pro- visions of section 34.0." ~ Mr. Keeler explained that under the Subdivision Ordinance, there have been approvals for combinations of lots and ~dditions of property that make lots conform more to the Subdivision and Zon~.ng Ordinances. He said he has been informed by the Zoning Administrator that unless a lot completely con- forms to the ordinance, a new nonconforming ~ot is being created and variances are required. For example, he said, if Mr. ~mith owned three one-half acre lots in the rural area where the minimum lot Isize is two acres, County regula- tions would permit Mr. Smith to combine thes~ three lots to create a lot that would be one and a half acres in size. Howe~er, the Zoning Administrator's opinion is that this would still require a v~riance in terms of the Zoning Ordinance. He then called attention to a situation currently being examined in which an individual has a half acre lot w~ich does not conform to the area requirements, nor does the frontage conform ~o the area requirements. He said the individual is adding an acre and a half Mo that he will have a two-acre lot, but because the frontage does not confo~m, a strict reading of the ordinance, as it is written, would indicate ~hat this man is creating another nonconforming lot which would require a variance. Mr. Keeler said this amendment seeks to iput language into the Zoning Ordinance that is similar to the language in ~he Subdivision Ordinance. He said Mr St. John has suggested deleting the f, linal sentence of the amendment, · ,! · , · ~' , , · which states: The Zoning Administrator may,~i[ at h~s d~scret~on, refer the matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals in accd~dance with the provisions of Section 34.0." Mr. Keeler said the staff concurs w~th Mr. St. John s sugges- tion since anyone can appeal the decision of ':~he Zoning Administrator to the BZA. '~ Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Keeler if an ownet',! could build on a half-acre lot if the lot was declared a lot before the Zoning Ordinance went into effect. Mr. Keeler answered, "yes", if the lot can meet the health requirements. He said it did not make sense to the staff if someone had a nonconforming lot and was trying to improve the situation, for the ~ounty to require that person to go into a public hearing before the Board of ~oning Appeals. Mr. St. John remarked that the Board of Zoning Appeals has strict crite- ria that it is supposed to consider in makingi its decision. He said sometimes the BZA applies common sense in cases that arm not covered by the ordinance, but it is sometimes criticized for not following the criteria. However, he said, if the BZA followed this criteria exactly, it would have to deny approv- al of the lot that was mentioned by Mr. Keeled. He said the BZA could say that a person could build on a half acre without having to have another acre and a half in order to build, but the BZA couid also indicate that there is no hardship involved and the variance would be dgnied. He said this is a defect in the Zoning Ordinance that has been cured i~ the past with variances that do June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 72 not literally follow the criteria. He said this amendment will cure the problem. Mr. Bain asked if this ordinance is limited only to owners of a group of contiguous lots. Mr. St. John replied, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom said the owner would have to take title to the other piece of land separately before it is added to the original parcel. He does not think that the owner could acquire the lot from someone else to make it more conforming. Mr. Bain disagreed and said that the owner could buy the lot from someone else as long as the lot was of record before the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Lindstrom then gave an example of someone buying an acre and a half of land from someone else to make his lot more conforming. He was concerned that, under the language in the ordinance, the proposal for the variance would not be coming from the owner of the contiguous lots, but instead would come from the other person. He said he does not want to avoid one problem and create others. Mr. St. John responded that ~ contract purchaser would be treated as an owner. He added that this is true in all other cases. Mr. Bowie commented that if the situatiQn is better than it was before, he supports the amendment. ~ Mr. Lindstrom suggested that an "s" be placed after the word "owner" in Section 6.5.4. Mr. St. John agreed that theiordinance should read, "owner or owners of any contiguous lots." Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie an~ seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the ordinance as presented and amended and set out below. Roll was called and the motion carted by the following recorded ~ote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 6, NONCONFO~RMITIES OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 6.5, NONCON~0RMING LOTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 6, of the Albema~le County Zoning Ordinance, be amended and reenacted in Section 6.5, N6nconforming Lots, by the addition of subsection 6.5.4, the entirgl section to now read as follows: ~,~ 6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS 6.5.1 Any lot of record at the time ~lof the adoption of this ordinance which is less in ar~a and/or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permi]~ted for a lot having the minimum area and/or width so rpquired; provided that the rear, side and front yard and ~etback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained;ii~ and provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is determined by the zoning administrator to constii~ute a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. 6.5.2 Except as otherwise provided i~ section 30.5, scenic areas overlay district, in the case ~f any subdivision approved and defined as such pursuant t~ Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle after December 22, 1969, and prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which was of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, sid~ and front yard and setback regulatmons of the Zonmng Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall apply to a~l lots within such subdiv- ision. In all other cases, th~ rear, side and front yard June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) and setback regulations of this ordinance shall apply. 6.5.3 For purposes of this section, any lot shown on a preliminary or final subdivision plat which was approved by the proper authority of the county in accordance with law prior to the adoption of this ordinance, and which plat was subsequently recorded in due course, shall be deemed to be a lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 6.5.4 A subdivision recorded or developed prior to the adoption of and not in conformity with thls ordinance may be resubdi- vided and redeveloped, in whole or part, at the option of the owner(s) of any group of contiguous lots therein; but every such resubdivision shall conform to this ordinance and all other county ordinances currently applicable; provided, however, that no such resubdiVision which in the opinion of the zoning administrator shall be substantially more con- forming to the requirements of section 4.0, general regula- tions, and the area and bulk regulations of the district in which such subdivision is situated shall be denied for failure to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Agenda Item No. 19. ZTA-89-04. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require a special use permit for uses not served by public water for excessive consumption or for uses not served by public sewer for discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes (deferred from June 7, 1989). Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report~"as follows: "Public Purpose To Be Served: To prote~t surface and groundwater supplies from overdraft and pollution, ji Origin: Planning staff. ~ Comment: In 1985, the Board amended th~ industrial zoning districts to require a special use permit for a use, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding 440 gallons per day per site acre or a use, not served by public sewer, involving disposal of other than domestic wastes. Those amendments ~ere prompted by a proposal to develop a biological laboratory in a rural area. These current recommended amendments ha~e also been prompted by a development proposal remote from public ~tilities. A shopping facili- ty at North Garden would be served by a Well and package sewage treatment plant. Initially, water cons~ption would be about 6000 gallongs per day, however, the sewage p~iant would have a treatment capacity of 20,000 gpd. This representsl a withdrawal rate of 1500 5000 gpd/site acre, far in excess of the limitations placed on indus- trial uses. Staff recommends amendments to the commercial zones identical to those made to the industrial zones in 1985. Explanation of the amendments follows: Water Withdrawal Limitation: 1. Health Department regulations empld~ a water usage rate of 150 gpd per bedroom. Therefore, a foum~bedroom dwelling would have a daily consumption of 600 gallons; Minimum lot size for a dwelling noOn, served by public water and public sewer is 60,000 square feet.~ Therefore, per acre consump- tion would be about 400 gpd. (This:!figure assumes that public sewer would not be available if public water were not available); Staff recommends a commercial water withdrawal limitation of 400 gallons per acre of site per day unless special use permit is obtained; ,' June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) Special use permit review would be required for both groundwater and surface water withdrawal: The State Water Control Board has reported that (Ground Water Resources of Albemarle County, Virginia, Sterret & Hinkle, December 1980; p. 44): Overdrafting of groundwater is not a problem in Albemarle County. There have been no documented cases of well interference which can be attributed to pumpage from neighboring wells or well fields. Problems potentially may arise, however, if groundwater develop- ment is pursued without regard to the hydrogeologic factors affecting the occurrence, movement and storage of water in this stage of the hydrogeologic cycle. Special use permit review should address the hydrogeologic factors outlined by the State Water Control Board. The applicant should be required to submit a report addressing these factors, developed by a hydrogeologist or certified engineer. Comment from agencies such as the State Water Control Board and Division of Mineral Resources should be obtained. Commercial uses withdrawing surface water should be required to comply with State Water Control Board regulation and, where applicable, the Rivannai:Water and Sewer Authority Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Sewage Disposal: Many commercial uses may have disposal needs for non-domestic wastes. The Planning Commission has become increasingly concerned over this issue in review of such uses as garages. A special use permit would be required foci discharge of any non-domestic waste into a non-public disposal system!?! Amendments: Add the following words to.i~ections 22.2.2.11, 23.2.2.8, and 24.2.2.14: Uses permitted by right, not servei by public water, involv- ing water consumption exceeding fo(ir hundred (400) gal- lons per site acre per day. Uses ~_rmitted by right, not served by public sewer~ involving . nticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.'~!~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing and a~~ unidentifed spokeswoman for the League of Women Voters addressed the Board. She said the League strongly supports s~aff's recommendation to require a special use permit for a non-public water fadility for commercial zones using more than 400 gallons per day per acre of site. The League also supports the recommendation that a special use permit be ~equired for discharge of any non'domestic waste into a non-public disposaL system. Because commercial zones often use much more water than residential uses, she said, commercial zones should have limitations on water use as industrial zones now have. She said the 1980 groundwater study mentioned in the staff's report noted the potential danger of pursuing groundwater ~evelopment without regard to hydrogeologic factors. She said a hydrogeologist's report would reduce the possibility of overpumping the well-field an~ interfering with neighbors' wells. It would also justify decisions of the Board in cases of judicial scrutiny. She said the League also believes that m~ny commercial uses have disposal needs for non-domestic wastes. She said she assumes that a "non-public disposal system" includes not only package tr:eatment plants but also septic systems. Septic systems are designed to treat domestic wastes only -- not the grease from restuarants or the toxic wastes f~om dry-cleaners. Those kinds of wastes can cause problems in efficient, well-monitored public sewage treatment plants, to say nothing of package treatment plants or septic systems. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) 75 In conclusion, she said, these amendments for special use permits will give the County important tools with which to implement the Comprehensive Plan's goals of protecting our ground and surface waters. She urged the Board to support these amendments. Since no one else wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following ordinance approving ZTA-89-04. 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. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 22, COMMERCIAL, C-1 CHAPTER 23, COMMERCIAL, CO, AND CHAPTER 24, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, HC OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 22, Commercial, C-l, Chapter 23, Commercial, CO, and Chapter 24, Highway Commercial, HC, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, be amended and reenacted by the addition of certain sections reading as follows: 22.0 COMMERCIAL - C-1 22.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement cen~ers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (~ended 1-1-83) 2. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and Cadio-wave transmission and relay towers, substation~ and appurtenances. 3. Hospitals. 4. Fast food restaurant. 5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). I0. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this sec- tion, uses permitted in ~ection 18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with ?egulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. Hotels, motels and inns. i~ Motor vehicle sales and mental in communities and the urban area as designated ~in the comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83) Parking structures locateki wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84) ~ uses otherwisei permitted having Commercial drive-in windows. (Added 11-7-84)I 11. Uses permitted by right, ~ot served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving antici- June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) pared discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 23.0 COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO 23.2.2 24.0 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Hospitals. 2. Funeral homes. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84) Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows. (Added 11-7-849 School of special instruction. (Added 1-1-87) Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). (Added 1-1-87) ~ Uses permitted by right, inot served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site adre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving antici- pated discharge of sewag~ other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Commercial recreation est'ablishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (.Amended 1-1-83) 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). 5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8). 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay ~owers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12~. 7. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13). 8. Contractors' office and equipment storage yard. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) 77 9. Auction houses. 10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this sec- tion, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. 11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1-1-83) 12. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84) 13. Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows. (Added 11-7-84) 14. Uses permitted by right,.not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving antici- pated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) Agenda Item No. 20. ZTA-87-05. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.12 Off-Street Parking a~d Loading Requirements as to design of parking areas (deferred from June 71, 1989). Mr. Keeler gave the staff's report as foillows: "Origin: Planning Commission, Planningi~taff. Public Purpose to be Served- To provid~ for safe and convenient access, circulation, and parking in dev~ilopment. Staff Comment: An enduring concern in SRte plan review has been to ensure design which will result in functional development, particu- larly in regard to access, circulation,!iand parking considerations. As an example, in 1984 the Zoning Ordin~ance was amended tc allow drive-in window uses only by special us~ permit in recogniticn that some sites may be inappropriate to such ~uses in terms of transportaticn considerations. More recently, concern has been with 'overdevelopment' of properties, particularly commercial sites. Staff has informally reviewed these cases in comparison to other plans and offers the following observa- tions: 1. In some cases, site constraints suqh as shape of the property, extensive utility easements or restricted access ccmplicated design. However, plans did not alWays reflect such constraints; 2. Generally speaking, problems arose ',for retail development when more than 10,000 square feet of flOOr area per site acre was proposed, even on sites with no substantial development ccnstraints. This would indicate t~hat a floor area ratio (FAR) approach could be effective. Howev~er there have been cases where for low intensity uses, substantial~ibuilding area has been achieved with no significant designlilproblems. Therefore, staff does not recommend an FAR approach .a.t this time. 3. Most problems were related to acces~s, circulation and parking patterns. As building smze ~ncreases, s~te area to accommodate reasonable design is diminished resulting in constrained and confusing circulation and parking patterns. To attempt to overcome these problems such measures as parking easements on adjoining property, mechanical gate~, extensive directional signage, and one-way circulation pa~terns have been proposed. Such solutions, in staff's opinion are undesirable and may in June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) fact present further frustration to the motorist, complicate emergency access and have other poor results. At this time staff recommends amendment to the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to add more extensive design standards. If this approach does not prove successful in improving site design and function, staff will with some reluctance, recommend an FAR limit for commercial development." Mr. Keeler stated that ZTA-87-05 is an effort by the Planning Commission to provide for safe and convenient access, circulation and parking in develop- ments. He said the Commission's main concern has been overdevelopment, particularly of commercial properties, to the extent that there are odd parking layouts and circulation patterns. Ha said initially the Commission indicated a desire to go to a floor area ratio where the building area on a particular site would be a percentage of the!total site. He said most other localities for commercial zoning have a floor area ratio of .2 or .25 where one-fourth of the site can be covered with b~ildings. The staff recommended that this course of action not be pursued because there are some commercial uses that occupy a large portion of the site~but require very little parking. In lieu of the floor area ratio, an attempt Has made to address the problem through parking lot design. If this approach does not work, Mr. Keeler said, the floor area ratio may be recommended in ai~'couple of years. Mr. Bain asked if parking lot design, rather than the floor area ratio, gives more flexibility in terms of design criteria. Mr. Keeler said it takes a long time to do design standards, and the floor area ratio is a simpler approach; however, the parking lot design approach gives an opportunity to get a larger building on the site, if there is a~.particular type of use that does not require a great deal of parking. He sai~ the parking lot design approach sets some standards for paving specification~ for parking areas. Mr. Keeler said the Commission has had ~roblems with some uses, such as churches, when the parking lot is used only ~nce or twice a week. He remarked that usually the people involved with building a church look only at the building and do not see the other costs thatliwill be incurred, and they often come to the County with a limited budget in germs of what they want to accom- plish. He said this approach would address ~aving specifications based on the actual traffic to use the development, and h~ mentioned that the ordinance is stated in terms of a weekly basis to accommodate uses such as churches and clubs that may meet only once a week. He stated that the designer for the applicant should be able to look at the ordinance and tell whether there has to be a paved parking lot. ~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing. No d~e was present who wished to speak, so Mr. Way closed the public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any consideration has been given to off street parking requirements. He mentioned that if ~hopping centers on Route 29 North and Route 250 East are examined, there are no parkable streets in those areas. He wonders if it is the parking and not the ~Uilding that is causing the problem with commercial development in terms ?~of aesthetics and the environmen- tal impact. He said the parking lots are si~d for peak periods, but he feels that shopping centers will figure out how mu~h parking is needed. He said he realizes that all standards cannot be discarded. He wondered if all of the parking area in shopping centers is necessaryi, and suggested that if there is a peak season then the developer could desig~ for that. He said parking should be designed on a reasonable basis rela~ing to what the normal usage will be with a small allowance for additiona!~.~, parking for peak times. He said that if parking areas are full, the people wfll go elsewhere. Mrs. Cooke mentioned that the parking lo~ at Fashion Square is enormous and under-utilized. She said there are sections of that parking lot that she believes have never had a car parked in them.~i~ Mr. Bain disagreed with Mrs. Cooke and said he has seen the parking lot when there have been no parking spaces available. ~ June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) Mr. Lindstrom said that smaller parking areas appear to be an opportunity to allow for some savings for the developer, and he believes that developers would rather put in landscaping than asphalt. He said this would make the shopping centers look better and would have less of an impact upon the envi- ronment. He added that he does not know how much parking lots could be reduced, but he thinks that there has been "overkill" in parking lot require- ments. Mr. Bain said he does not disagree with all of Mr. Lindstrom's and Mrs. Cooke's statements. The problem that he sees arises from Mr. Lindstrom's comment that the people will go elsewhere if a parking lot is full. He believes that the people will not go somewhere else; instead, they will park where they should not park, and he would rather have ample parking spaces available. Mr. Lindstrom said the two ugliest things ever created, in his opinion, are asphalt and electric and telephone lines. He asked if there is some way that a reduction of the parking requirements could be considered. Mr. Keeler said the whole section on parking has been approached by the staff in three separate segments. The first segment, he feels, is critical because there was some problem with the interpretation and some of the lan- guage needed to be corrected. He said the language in this segment has now been standardized. He added that the second~segment is before the Board at this meeting and deals with the design. The third segment relates to the parking schedule, and this segment would require a lot of time. He said the industry standard building and lot ratio is now approximately four or four and one-half spaces where the County ordinance requires five and one-half. He told the Board members that they would be surprised at the dearth of informa- tion on parking standards and mentioned that the I.T.E. parking standards book is new, but not very helpful. He said the s~aff is now looking at develop- ments in the County and City to try to determine what standards are too high or too low or when some other factor should be involved. He mentioned a real estate firm that occupied a large office building where the parking was based upon square footage, as it is with any other~i~office building. He added that the staff had failed to recognize that the fCrm had approximately 15 or 20 company cars, which means that the firm's pa~king lot is full all of the time. He remarked that there are other places in the County where the office parking is demonstrated to be inadequate. He went oJ~ to say that the staff would like to take a look at some developments in the C~ty where inadequate parking can be observed. He mentioned that, for example~ it is very difficult to find a parking space at the Ivy Road Shopping Cente~ He said there are no parking spaces for some uses such as video stores, aid they need to be included. He stated that this segment of the amendment wo~td be given to the Board at a later date, because it will require a lot mole time to develop standards. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if parking can be reduced, he hopes that more landscaping can be put in at shopping centers and similar sites. Mr. Perkins suggested that the size of P~rking spaces be studied, since he feels they are still being made to accommodate large cars. He said most of the cars on the road today are not very big. =He agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, but he thinks that it would be bad for a busihess not to have enough parking spaces. He also said that people have complained to him about the parking requirements for their businesses, and he has never seen their lots full. He said they were required, however, to have all~of the parking spaces. Mr. Bowie said he would like for some of-~the things mentioned today to be considered at some future time. He thinks that consideration should be given to people who are opening new businesses and ~eel that they need less parking spaces than the ordinance requires. He wondered why large parking lots are built, if they are not needed. He also think~ that landscaping should be required. !ii Mr. Lindstrom said he believes that a business should not be allowed to put in a larger building because the user at ~he moment do not call for parking. Instead, he thinks that the propert~ could be used for things that can be converted to parking if the need arise~. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) 8O Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Hilton Hotel developer informed the County that studies done by a consultant showed that not as much parking was needed as required by the County. He said the Planning Commission allowed the Hilton to put in the number of spaces that the Hilton Hotel developer thought was correct, but for a period of five years, required that an area be reserved for more parking if needed in the future. AYES: NAYS: Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following ordinance approving ZTA-87-05. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. ~ AN ORDINARNCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 4, GENERAL REGULATIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 4.12, OFF-STREET PARKING A19D LOADING REQUIREMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 4, General Regulations, of the Zoning Ordi- nance, Section 4.12, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 4.12 4.12.1 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE The purpose of these regulatians is to set forth off-street parking and loading requirements for permitted uses: (1) in accordance with the intensity of such use; (2) to provide adequate parking for the trav~lling public; and (3) to reduce traffic hazards and conflicts. To these ends, parking and loading area designs shall comply with minimum standards as set forth in sechions 4.12 and 32.7 of this ordinance. It is intended that the purposes of this ordi- nance be served through physiqal design measures as opposed to directional or policing measures such as signage, one-way circulation, and other such d~Vices which rely on vehicle operator compliance for effectiveness. Development propos- als which seek to maximize bu{lding area or otherwise intensify development to the ~xtent that these minimum regulations are not satisfied iBhall be deemed to be contrary to the purpose of this ordinanise. (Amended 6-14-89) 4.12.2 4.12.3 APPLICATION i- Off-street parking and loadin~requirements shall apply to all uses and structures establitshed prior to or after the effective date of this ordinance except as otherwise pro- vided herein. !' Off-street parking and loadingi spaces shall be provided in accordance with the provisions'of this section at the time of erection, alteration, enlargement or change in use of any structure. Any use for which parking and/~r loading space was approved and provided prior to the effedtive date of this ordinance shall be considered in conformance to this ordinance pro- vided the intensity of such use remains unchanged. Where, in the opinion of the zoning administrator, a change in such use and/or structure occasions!ilthe need for additional parking and/or loading space, or such change would physical- ly alter parking and/or loadin~ space available, such use shall comply with these provisions. LOCATION OF PARKING June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) 81 4.12.3.1 For the purpose of determining minimum yard requirements of the various zoning districts, the term "off-street parking space" shall be deemed to include parking space or stall together with adjacent aisle and turnaround. (Amended 6-14-89) 4.12.3.2 Off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same (Amended lot with the use to which it is appurtenant except as 6-14-89) hereinafter provided. 4.12.3.3 Where practical difficulties prevent location as required (Amended in section 4.12.3.2 or where the public safety or the 6-14-89) public convenience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the!land on which is located the use to which such space is apPurtenant or, in the case of cooperative provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination. 4.12.3.4 Whether off-street parking isiprovided on the same lot or (Amended not, the following shall apply: 6-14-89) a. For residential uses, wh~re parking is provided in bays, no parking space shall be located further than one hundred (100) feet from the entrance of the dwell- ing such space serves. For nonresidential uses, no parking space shall be located further than five hundred (500) feet from the entrance of the use such space serves. Distances in (a) and (b)iabove may be increased in such cases where the commissidn shall determine that the public interest or convenience would be equally or better served by such inereased distance; that the allowance of a greater distance would not be a depar- ture from sound engineering and design practice; and that the allowance of a g~eater distance would not otherwise be contrary to ,the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided that i~n no case shall the maximum distance from the entrance of a dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed two hundred (200) feet. 4.12.4 COOPERATIVE PARKING Parking space required under the provisions of this ordi- nance may be provided cooperatively for two or more uses in a development or for two or more individual uses, subject to arrangements that will assure the permanent availability of such space as such arrangements are approved by the commis- sion. . The amount of such combined space shall be equal to the sum of the amounts required for the separate uses; provided, that the commission may reducelthe amount of space required for a church or for a meeting place of a civic, fraternal or similar organization or other Uses under the provisions of a combined parking area by reason of different hours of normal activity than those of other uses participating in the combination. 4.12.5 4.12.5.1 AVAILABILITY - No required off-street parking'i!or loading area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) 82 vehicle, equipment, materials or supplies, or obstructed in any other fashion unless specifically approved by the commission. This provision shall not be applicable to single-family dwelling units. 4.12.5.2 Where off-street parking and loading spaces are required by these regulations, no owner or occupant of any land or building shall discontinue, change or dispense with such facilities without establishing alternative facilities complying equally with the requirements of these regula- tions. 4.12.6 PARKING AREA DESIGN Parking areas shall be designed to minimize on-site and off-site traffic hazards and conflicts in order to provide safe and convenient access to the travelling public; to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; and to facilitate provision of emergency services. (Added 6-14-89) 4.12.6.1 (Amended 6-14-89) SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS Ail off-street parking spaces and off-street loading spaces shall be provided with safe and convenient access to a public street. Vehicular access points shall be designed to encourage unimpeded traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazards to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Distance between street access and on-site points of conflict such as parking spaces and turning and other maneuvers shall be adequate to accommodate unimpeded traffic flow from and to such street.~.~ In addition to access points for general traffic, unobstructed and direct accessways for emergency vehicles shall be p~ovided as specified by the Albemarle County fire official. Ail permitted uses shall have entrances constructed inlaccord with the specifications of the Virginia Department of!:Transportation. One-way ingress and egress shgll not be permitted, except that the commission may approge one-way ingress and egress in such case where the same is necessitated by the peculiar character of the proposed use~.,or site. In such case, the commission shall require inst~llation and maintenance of control devices such as signa~e, pavement markings and physical barriers as deemed re!asonable to provide direction to and policing of vehicular movement. In the event the zoning administrator, after consultation with the Virginia Department df Transportation and county engineer, determines such ingress and/or egress to public roads to be in a state of disrepair which may reasonably result in a hazard to public S!afety, he shall require repair and/or correction of such ingress or egress facility. For purposes of this section, sign'age and other control devices shall be deemed to be a part ~f such ingress and egress facility. (Amended 6-14-89) 4.12.6.2 INTERNAL CIRCULATION Parking areas shall be designed to facilitate unimpeded flow of on-site traffic in circulation patterns readily recogniz- able and predictable to motorists and pedestrians. Parking areas shall be arranged in a fashion to encourage pedestrian access to buildings and to minimize internal automotive movement. Facilities and access routes for deliveries, service and maintenance shall be separated, where practical, from public access routes and parking areas. Direct, unobstructed accessways for emergency vehicles to and around buildings and uses shall be prgvided as specified by the Albemarle County fire official~ Speed bumps, gates and other impediments to emergencylaccess shall be prohibited June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) 83 unless otherwise recommended by the fire official in a particular case. (Added 6-14-89) Except as otherwise permitted in a particular case, interior circulation aisles adjacent to parking spaces shall have a minimum travel width of twenty (20) feet with appropriate turning radii; provided that the commission may increase such width and turning radii upon finding that such increase is necessary to accommodate emergency vehicles together with the largest delivery or service vehicles which may reason- ably be anticipated to occasion the site, whether under proposed or potential usage. One-way circulation aisles shall not be permitted, except that the commission may approve one-way circulation in such case where the same is necessitated by the peculiar character of the site or of the proposed use such as but not limited to uses involving drive-in windows and automobile laundries. In such case, the commission shall require installation and maintenance of control devices such as bypass lanes, signage, pavement markings and physical barriers as deemed reasonable. One-way circulation aisles shall have a minimum travel width of twelve (12) feet exclusiveiiof curb and gutter. (Amended 6-14-89) 4.1.2.6.3 (Amended 6-14-89) MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS The following minimum improve~/ents shall be required for parking areas consisting of f~ur (4) or more parking spaces. In any case where grade exceeas seven (7) percent or where anticipated traffic exceeds three hundred fifty (350) vehicle trips per week based 6n the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Handbook, the following requirements shall apply: 1. Paving specifications fo~ access aisles, parking areas and loading areas shall ~e subject to county engineer approval in accordance with intensity of usage; 2. Such improvement shall not be less than six (6) inches of Virginia Department of Transportation #21 or #2lA aggregate base together With prime and double seal or equilavent approved by the county engineer. The foregoing notwithstandingil the commission may reduce required improvement to a specification recommended by the county engineer in the following cases: (1) for overflow parking, provided in excess of the requirements of section 4.12.6.6 for churches and other assembly uses where usage of such parking area is anticipated to be so infrequent as to not require greater improvement; or (2) for areas of display or storage of vehicles, mobil~ homes, machinery or other inventory requiring motor vehicle access for placement; g~assed or unimproved areas provided, in no case, shall o~ inventory storage, be devoted to overflow parking b. Intersections of vehicular access aisles and public streets shall have an approach grade not exceeding four (4) percent for a distande of not less than forty (40) feet measured from the e~ge of the travelway of the public road being intersected. Maximum grade of access ~isles not abutting parking spaces shall not exceed ~en (10) percent; provided, however, that the maximu~ grade of such access aisles may be increased by the qommission in accordance with section 32.3.11 and upon ~finding that no reasonable design alternative would :reduce or alleviate need for such increase in grade. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) 84 Maximum grade for parking spaces, loading spaces, and access aisles abutting parking or loading spaces shall not exceed five (5) percent and cross slope grade shall not exceed two (2) percent. Handicapped parking spaces shall be situated so as to provide direct unobstructed access to buildings by the shortest practical routing. Crossing of vehicular access aisles shall be discour- aged. (See also 4.12.6.5). Minimum sight distance, determined in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation methodology for stopping sight distance, at internal intersections of access aisles, intersections of access aisles, and pedestrian ways, and for access aisles around buildings shall not be less than one hundred (100) feet; provid- ed, that the commission may increase such requirement where travel speed is anticipated to exceed ten (10) miles per hour to a requirement commensurate with such anticipated travel speed. The commission may require raised traffic islands at ends of parking rows to protect parked vehicles and prohibit parking in unauthorized areas. Traffic islands and other such Control devices may be required where deemed reasonable ~y the commission to satisfy the requirements of sections 4.12 and 32.0. (Amended 6-14-89) 4.12.6.4 LIGHTING iY Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light awaM from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets. Lighting spill- over onto public roads and prqperties zoned residentially or rural areas shall not exceed ~ne-half (1/2) foot candle. (Amended 6-14-89) 4.12.6.5 PARKING SPACE SIZE Each off-street parking spaceli.shall meet the minimum re- quirements as specified Parking Minimum Minimum Aisle Space Width Length Minimum Width a. (option) 10 lB 20 b. (option) 9 118 24 In conjunction with section 4.12.6.5, perpendicular parking shall be favored.' Where practical considera- tions warrant, the commission may authorize other angled, curvilinear and/o~ parallel parking. Parking space and aisle dimension~ for other angled, curvi- linear and parallel parking shall be reviewed and approved by the director ~f planning and community development. (Amended 6-~4-89) Where adequate planting i~lands or other such features other than sidewalks are ~mployed to separate rows of parking spaces, not more ~han two (2) feet may be deducted from the m~nlmum~length requmrements stated above in order to compensate for overhang. Ail parking spaces shall be designed ~o that no part of any vehicle shall extend over any property line, right-of-way line, sidewalk, walkway, driveway or aisle space. The minimum width for handicapped parking spaces shall be eight (8) feet with an:hdjacent five (5) foot wide access aisle to be provid~d on each side of such handicapped parking space.~ Access aisles may be shared June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48) 85 between adjacent handicapped parking spaces. The number, location, signage and other specifications of handicapped parking shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval in accordance with the Statewide Uniform Building Code requirements. (Amended 11-16-83) 4.12.6.6 REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Except as otherwise permitted by the commission pursuant to section 4.12.4, provisions of section 4.12.6.6.1 and section 4.12.6.6.2 shall apply to any determination as to the required number of off-street parking spaces to be provided in a particular case. Where the term "retail sales area" is employed, either: (a) a figure of 0.80 of the gross floor area shall be employed; or (b) the applicant shall submit floor plans which deline- ate the retail sales area, in which case, such floor plans shall be binding as to ultimate usage. (Added 7-20-88) (Note: The remaining sections of 4.12 are to remain as presently worded.) Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion of proposal from League of Women Voters for a Fiscal Resource Committee. Mr. Agnor cited a letter dated May 15, 1989, from the League of Women Voters suggesting that the Board of Supervisprs appoint an ad hoc citizen advisory committee on fiscal resources in order to: 1) assess current reve- nues; 2) identify immediate and long-range fiscal needs; 3) investigate all possible alternative methods of meeting need~, including reduced expenditures as well as. increased revenues, and including!approaches to the General Assem- bly; and 4) advise the Board on a fiscal resdurces plan for Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said he recognizes the advantages of the proposal and the benefits that it would provide, and he concurs with the concept. He said he has talked with Ms. Sally Thomas, President d~f the League of Women Voters, and she hopes to gather ideas from a wide range ~f people to educate the public about the issues as the Committee works and ~akes its reports. Mr. Agnor said he thinks the Committee can be a "lightning ~od" for citizen concerns, but more importantly, it can be a base of citize~ support for decisions that this Board has to make. He said that local governments all over the State would like the League's support for State concerns iin Richmond. He added that, perhaps, the basis for that support could begin in localities such as Albemarle County. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he believes this Con~Jittee is a good idea, and he would like to implement the League's thoughts'~ He said he is not sure how many people the Committee should involve, bu~he thinks the suggested 11 or 13 people would probably be a resource in the f~ture who could be called on for help. ~ Mr. Bowie commented that he supported the idea of the Committee when he first heard about it, and after reading the information relating to it, and having thought about it, he definitely would ~tike to see the Committee pro- ceed. He said he is concerned about the size~,~of the Committee and thinks that 13 people may be too many members. He sugges%ed that there be one appointee from each district, with a couple of people chosen at-large. He said subcom- mittees can be formed separately from the Co~ittee, so any needed expertise could be gained through a subcommittee. HoweYer, he said, he would not want to hold up the forming of this Committee because of the size, and he wants to see it go forward. ~; Mrs. Cooke said she has had similar thoughts about the formation of the Committee, and thinks that an appointee from ~ach magisterial district would be an excellent way to start. She added that it would also give each supervi- sor direct access to the Committee so that feedback could be given to each individual Board member. She thinks appointin~g several at-large members may June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 49) 86 also be a good idea. She thinks that a 13-member Committee would be horren- dous and would create more problems than it would solve. Ms. Lois Rochester responded that the League agrees that each magisterial district should be represented, but she said that a balance of opinion is needed between the urban people, rural people, the newcomers to the area and the longtime residents. She added that this cannot be accomplished with just two members at large, unless there is a good balance among the six appointees. She said it is very important to have all of these different viewpoints represented. Mr. Lindstrom said a larger group may provide a better base for consensus of opinion. Mrs. Cooke said she is not inclined to support a larger group and thinks appointees from each magisterial district will provide a consensus of the various districts and what those districts represent. She said not all of the appointees would be 45-year old businessmen. She said the appointments can be handled by working with the at-large people to fill in the gaps. Mr. Way asked Mr~ Agnor what role the staff would have relative to this Committee. Mr. Agnor responded that the staff would provide the Committee with data and information, but would not be involved in the conclusions or recommendations of the Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and secodded by Mrs. Cooke to establish a Fiscal Resources Advisory Committee, to be composed of six district appoint- ees, two at-large members, and a chairpersoniappointed by the Board. 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. Mr. Bain said it does not matter to himl. iif the Committee appoints the two at large members, however, he would like fori~ithis Board to appoint the six magisterial district members and the ChairmaN. He also asked for a report from the Committee by the Board's first meeting in October. Mr. Way asked Board members to think about appointments to this Committee during the next week, and he asked Ms. RocheSter to get recommendations to him from the League, not only for members of the~ilCommittee, but also for the Chairperson. Agenda Item No. 22. "Brainstorming" semsion on policy matters (continued from June 7, 1989). Due to the constraints oX time, Mr. Agnor suggested that Agenda Item No. 22, relating to the "Brainstdkming" session, be dropped from the Agenda for today's meeting. Agenda Item No. 23. this time. Appointments. Ther.e were no appointments made at Agenda Item No. 24. Other matters not listed on the agenda from the Board and public. Mr. Agnor said he received a request from the School Board for additional funding for the Yancey Elementary School Renovation project. He said bids were received on June 5, 1989, and the low bidder, J. E. Jamerson of Appomattox, Virginia, submitted a base bid of $1,178,000. The total project costs would be $1,381,300, which is $64,015 more than the approved funding. He said the School Board wishes to include two additions to the project: $9,000 to incorporate asphalt paving of the bbs loop and major traffic area, and $20,000 for the replacement of the original fuel oil tank. The School Board is requesting approval of the additional funding as well as a $50,000 contingency to offset unforeseen changes during construction. Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that the Board authorizeilthe project to proceed with the low bid and that this project budget be authorized to be given to the Board at its Public Hearing in July on the Capital Budget, at which time all appropria- tions will be made. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 50) 87 Mr. Bowie asked who will control the contingency account. Mr. Agnor said he assumes the contingency account will be controlled from his office, because the Coordinator of Capital Projects will be working in General Government. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to authorize the staff to continue with the project as outlined by Mr. Agnor. 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. Mr. Way requested an update from staff on exactly what work is being done on both the Stony Point and Yancey Schools. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Andy Evans has resigned as Deputy Zoning Adminis- trator, and he recommends that the Board appoint Mr. John Grady as the Deputy Zoning Administrator. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mr. John Grady as Deputy Zoning Administrator. 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. Mr. Agnor asked the Board to clarify the effective date of the ordinance adopted last week concerning building, zoning and subdivision fees. He asked that these fees be made effective as of July 1, 1989, in order to give the staff time to notify local businesses and agencies of the changing fees. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to clarify the effective date as July 1, 1989, for ordinances affecting fee schedules adopted on June 7, 1989, by the Board of Supervisors. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vot~: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. ~ Mr. Agnor asked the Board members if they object to removing the fence between the parking lot of the County Office Building and McIntire Road and installing this fence at the Vehicle Maintenance Garage to protect the veh±- cles secured there. Mrs. Cooke asked if the parking lot was ~Secured at night. Mr. Agnor replied that the parking lot cannot be secured, because vehicles can come into the area from several other outlets. Mrs. CO~ke said she did not see any need for a fence to be in front of the parking are~, if the area could not be secured. Mr. Way asked if any Board members objected to the removal of the fence, and there were no objections raised. Mr. Agnor informed the Board that he has been asked to serve on a steer- ing committee by the ?res±dent of the VirginLa Association of Counties (¥ACo). He would be involved in several meetings and Will accept the invitation if the Board does not object. There were no objections. Hr. Agnor reminded members of the Board ~hat they need to make reserva- tions early this year for the annual VACo mee~±ng in November. Mr. Agnor said he would give an update o~ the Old Scottsville School project at the next Board meeting. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 51) 88 Mr. Bain asked that staff, after consulting with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, review the bathymetric study and report to the Board on the results of this study. Mr. Lindstrom said the bathymetric study is simple and brief. He stated that he had inquired if further study should be done, and was told that this was really not a study but a survey. He said the study that was done in 1981 was a more accurate measure than the earlier study, and he mentioned that there was also a date of 2010 in the survey as to when the reservoir would be so full that it would not be able to perform its function. Mr. Lindstrom said he has been informed that a study would show where the loading is coming from. This study would be a much bigger undertaking, and probably more expensive. He will not say at this point whether he would support such a study. Mr. Bain said he is not saying that the County needs to spend a lot of money at this time, but he feels there should be a point at which the County can look at alternatives. Mr. Lindstrom said he was told, because of the rate of siltation at the reservoir, that the County would need to decide what it was going to do before any major project is completed. He said he Ss concerned about the difference in the conclusion of this survey and the findings of Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, because the implications are so different. He said Mr. Williams has indicated that the reservoir will be full in the year 2050. He added that somehow the Board has to get the correct information. Mr. Bain agreed that he wants the Board!.to be on top of the situation. Mr. Agnor suggested that the Rivanna Authority would be interested in this survey, since the operation of the reservoirl~is a function of the Authority. He said the Watershed Management Official should also be involved. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Way if the Board would meet with the School Board this month. Mr. Way replied that he has not contacted the School Board Chairman. Mr. Bain said he thinks the regular meeting pattern with the School Board should be followed. Mr. Bowie said that since the County Attorney will not be at the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan tonight, h~ would like to ask him if the Board is in compliance with the Code. He noted a letter he received indicated that the Board's proposal on the ComprehensiVe Plan does not comply with some sections of the Code of Virginia. Mr. St. John stated that this is the first time that he has heard of this letter. Mr. Bowie then asked for an answer from .Mr. St. John immediately. He said that information from the Citizens for Albemarle has also indicated a problem with financial planning. Mr. Way mentioned that the Board had received invitations to the groundbreaking ceremonies at the Crozet SchoOl, which took place at 10:00 A.M. this morning. He said he would have liked to attend, and cannot believe the Department of Education officials do not know the time for the regularly scheduled day meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Cooke recommended that the Transportation Safety Committee be disbanded. The function of the Committee wasl/to review and make recommenda- tions for grant monies, but those grant monies are no longer available, there have been no recent applications, and she sees no need for prolonging this organization. Mrs. Cooke said there are only four meetings required per year, but for the past two years, the Committee has not received any grants at all. She said that for the last year and a half the agencies have not applied for a grant. She indicated that there is nothing fdr the Committee members to do at June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 52) 89 the meetings, and because of this problem, it is difficult to get a quorum. She repeated her recommendation to disband the Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to disband the Transportation Committee until further notice. 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. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to author- ize a five percent merit increase effective July 1, 1989 FY 89/90 for the County Executive, in view of his outstanding service to the County of Albemarle. 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. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board must respond to the University of Virginia concerning the Routes 53/20 project~ a relatively major office complex which would house various State agencies somewhere on the Blue Ridge Hospital,tract. This area is zoned RA, Rural Areas. He said the University had informed the County's Planning Department of this proposal, and believed that the proposal had gone to the Planning Commission and that some action was taken. However, the proposal never reached the Planning Commission. He said there appears to be some question on the part of the University as to exactly what the Three-Party Agreement requires of the University, and he suggested that Mr. Agnor send the University a letter ~rom the Board. He said the Agreement delineates an Area B where joint p~anning is required, and there must be a jointly developed plan to be incorporated in all of the Comprehen- sive Plans. He said this has never happenedliwith~, the Blue Ridge Hospital site, and yet, a proposal for its use has be? submitted. Mr. Lindstrom said he has been informed=i~that the proposal has been withdrawn and that the University is looking'ifor another site. He thinks the Board needs to suggest that where Area B is i~plicated, and no jointly devel- oped plan has been created, that any land us~ proposal that is inconsistent for that area with the County's adopted Comp~hensive Plan and/or the Zoning Ordinance be submitted to the County ExecutiVe, and not submitted as most plans normally are. The County Executive co~d then, as a member of the PACC Committee, consult with the Board as to the P~oper process. Mr. Lindstrom thinks the decision should be dealt with as ~normal zoning request and that it would eventually have to come to this Boa~'~ for review. Mr. Bain asked if this procedure is set lout in the Agreement. Mr. Lindstrom answered that the procedure is not ~xplained specifically in the Agreement. He said the assumption was that n~thing would happen before a jointly developed plan for an area had been d~mpleted. He said representa- tives of the University felt that they had complied with all of the require- ments, and were upset because it was suggeste~ that what they wanted to do was inconsistent with the zoning and planning regulations. He said Mr. Robert O'Neil, President of the University, indicate~ that he thought the Director of Planning was the only one who needed to be cohtacted about the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom thinks that the Board needs to inform the University officials who they should contact in a situation such as th~s one. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks representatives of the University believed that simply submitting the plan to the Directgr of Planning and Community Development was enough, that nothing further ~as required, and they could go ahead with their plans. He thinks this Boardlishould give the University some direction. He asked Mr. Agnor and Mr. Way if~they had suggestions, since they were also at the meeting. Mr. Agnor replied said the plans for thelproject should have come to the County Executive's Office first because it waM not a planning matter at that point. Then the Board could have been made a~are of the plans. He said that he was aware that the plan had been submitted.~to the Planning Director, but he June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 53) 9O did not know the details of exactly what was happening. He learned, since yesterday's meeting, that when Mr. Home, the Director of Planning and Commu- nity Development, received the plan he responded that it was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said no other plan has been developed for this area under the Agreement. He said the only official review the County could give the plan was under the section of the State Code that requires publicly owned facilities to be reviewed by the Planning Commis- sion. He indicated that the plan would have been sent to the Commission, but it was withdrawn before it could be reviewed. Mr. Agnor added that a Univer- sity representative had indicated at the meeting yesterday that there is no current proposal and that the University is still trying to work out differ- ences with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. Ultimately, he said, there will be a proposal, and when this happens, it should start in his office, with a decision being made as to the procedure, after it is submitted. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the University people may want to go one step at a time and work out everything with the Foundation first. Mr. Way said obviously there was confusion over how the Agreement should be followed and interpreted. He believes that it would be helpful to make the procedures under the Agreement clearer. Mr. Bain thinks the land use issues are crucial. He does not believe that even a State agency should be allowed to do certain things, unless they are strictly University related. He underst~ands the State law, but he thinks that if there is going to be any type of agreement, then everybody should have to adhere to it. Mr. Lindstrom said this may be a unique situation under the Agreement. He believes that the spirit of the Agreemen~ was that a proposal such as the University's would be reviewed by the PACC ~Olicy Committee. He could not see how this review could take place until so mulch had already been committed to the project that the Board would be looking ~at the final proposal at a point where the land use would be a controversial issue. He does not believe that the project can proceed until there is a jointly approved plan. Mr. St. John commented that there is no!. assurance that this plan will be jointly approved any time in the near future~ He said the University would not have any restrictions as long as there is no plan. Mr. Lindstrom agreed and said that there would be no reason to have an Agreement if there would only be control ove~ the University real estate projects. Mr. St. John added that unless there isi~a procedure outlined under the Agreement, the University would not have to ~o any more than it is already doing under the statute. Mr. Lindstrom stated that where there is not a jointly approved plan, the plan should be submitted to Mr. Agnor's office rather than pushing it through the normal zoning process, since the normal zoning process does not apply in this situation. Mr. Agnor asked if Mr. Way would like fdr him to draft a letter to President O'Neil for Mr. Way's signature. Board members agreed. Agenda Item No. 25. At 5:30 P.M., the Board recessed and then reconvened at 7:30 P.M. in the Auditorium. Agenda Item No. 26. Public Hearing: T~ receive comments on the 1988-2010 Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised i~ the Daily Progress on June 8 and June 14, 1989.) Mr. Way asked Mr. Cilimberg to provide ~he public with some background information on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the draft of the Comprehensive Plan represents approx- imately three years of effort and 100 work sessions by the Planning Commission June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 54) and the Board of Supervisors. He said the Comprehensive Plan is the County's most important policy document and is a blueprint for future decisions on land use, transportation, public facilities, public utilities, protection of natural and vital resources, housing services, human services and public services. He said that Albemarle County has established an overriding plan- ning policy termed "growth management," and this policy has not changed. When the Planning Commission began its initial review in 1986 of this document, the priority was not to overhaul the plan, but to strengthen the plan to make its goals and objectives more attainable. Mr. Cilimberg said there are four primary elements in this plan that guide the entire growth management approach: the preservation of agricultural and forestal resources, protection of public water supply sources, conserva- tion of other natural resources and efficient delivery of public services and provision of public facilities. These elements have led to the identification of growth areas with development potential and the opportunity to receive services and facilities from the County. Under the draft Comprehensive Plan, the following changes would be made to the County's growth areas: the Villag- es of Stony Point and Ivy have been deleted; the Village of North Garden has been enlarged to about four times its current size; Scottsville has been upgraded from a Village to a Community to allow more varied densities in land use; and the urban area has been enlarged by'the addition of approximately 450 acres on the north side of Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg said the new plan reaffirms the restrictions on rural subdivision activities. In the rural areas,.~the current Comprehensive Plan allows five lots of two acres or greater in size by-right, and unlimited 21 acre residue lots based on the size of the parent parcel. To enhance the opportunity of conserving natural resources %n the rural areas, an option has been added which will allow the same number ~'f total lots on a particular size tract, but will allow those lots to be clustered. This allows the subdivision to be concentrated away from steep slopes, streams, and low areas and to be somewhat hidden from view in wooded areas. Mr. Cilimberg said this is the biggest change in this revision to the Comprehensive Plan. At this time, Mr. Way opened the publicilhearing Mr. Daniel P. Jordan, Executive Directo~i of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, spoke first. He said the Foundation has owned and operated Monticello since 1923, and he introduced Mr. David J. Wood, Jr., a trustee of the Foundation. Mr. Jorden said that the Foundation wishes to commend the County for its planning process and for an impressive document. He said the Foundation warmly supports the objective of preserving the County's historical and cultural resources, including its historical sites, structures and land- scaping features. He added that the Foundation warmly supports the strategies of devising a preservation plan for the County, open space planning and environmental inventories in areas of potential growth. He stated that perhaps for the first time ever, the Foundati~6n had grave concerns about the future integrity of Monticello's setting. T~e Foundation, according to Mr. Jorden, expects to play an active role with ~he County, other governmental bodies and with the private sector to preserv~ and protect Monticello as an international treasure, so that it can be transmitted unimpaired for the edification and enjoyment of generations yet :~nborn. Mr. George Hooper, President of the Southern Albemarle Development Association, addressed the Board and explainer that the Association is com- posed of individuals and small businesses in ~he Scottsville community. He said the Association endorses those elements of the Comprehensive Plan as it affects the greater Scottsville area. He added that the Association strongly endorses the upgrading of the Scottsville are~ to a community growth area and the recognition of Scottsville's present uniqueness in the County and its potential for the future. He said the Association favors strong language in the present draft with respect to the importance of extending the utility lines that now serve only the Town of Scotts~llle proper. He said extending water and sewer service into this new and limited area would promote localized growth on a planned basis for Scottsville. He remarked that the result of this would be to preserve the rural land fromlhelter skelter development and would also serve as protection for the Totier Creek watershed area. He said members of the Association hope that the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan will be adopted as it now stands, and he enco~araged the Board of Supervisors June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 55) 92 to provide the necessary funding in the Capital Improvement Program budget this fall to implement the goals in the Scottsville community growth area. He acknowledged some representatives from Scottsville who had come to support the plan. Mr. Way noticed that Mr. Raymon A. Thacker, Mayor of Scottsville, was present with the Scottsville representatives, and he asked Mr. Thacker if he would like to add anything to Mr. Hooper's comments. Mr. Thacker stated that he is very much in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. William Colony, representative of Citizens for Albemarle, was the next person to speak, and he told the Board members that they had been pro- vided with a rather lengthy statement from that group. He said the Citizens for Albemarle have observed and evaluated the gradual evolution of the Coun- ty's Comprehensive planning process over the i last 18 years. He said the group's membership has monitored its application and reviewed its plans. He commended the Board, Commission and staff for the collective attitude, wisdom and foresight in proceeding to seek for effective ways to manage growth and to control development. From the membership's reviews, Mr. Colony said that the group is satisfied that the growth management section of the plan is the one that needs the most attention. He added that controlling development through the Subdivision Ordinance and other ordinances seems to be working well and serving the purpose that was intended. He said that his organization recog- nizes the County's efforts and asked that time be given, after the plan has been adopted, to look at implementing and initiating comprehensive reviews of the planning process itself, in recognition ~f the fact that other long range plans may be viewed. He added that the long iirange plan prepared by the special committee of the School Board is pro~ably the most outstanding plan that he has seen in preparation for this public hearing. He said the long range plan contains the major thrust that hi~ membership feels should be invited in the planning process of all comprehensive plans and program devel- opment activities in this County. He said i~ needs to be recognized that the costs of growth may not be met by the increased revenues to be expected from some of the growth. He said his membership ~as said, in its prepared state- ment, that there is a rising concern in the ~blic of this County regarding the adequacy and the quality of a significan~i'number of the County's public services, public facilities and other programs. He suggested that if the Board takes its challenge as an earnest, sine, ere, helpful constructive chal- lenge, the Board will try to develop a bette~, more effective, more finely attuned comprehensive planning process which'.~ill put to rest some of these concerns and move forward with the ~mplementat~on of the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvement Program and all othe~ related County programs. Mr. Colony said there are some specific !~uggestions and recommendations for actions which he hopes can be handled by ~irecting the County Executive to undertake an intensive comprehensive review a~d evaluation of the County's financial resources and fiscal conditions. D~ring such a review and evalua- tion, he said, it is hoped that the Board wou~td be informed of the potential future expenditures required of this government to implement a plan for adequate public services, public facilities, ~rowth control and all of the other objectives that are stated in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The 1 membership suggests strongly that the concept~ in the School Board's long range planning document be recognized as a guide. He said the membership suggests that there may be other public service programs that need to be given the same treatment. He stated that the long range planning document developed a basis for understanding that there is no such thingi as a "free lunch" in any govern- mental program. Mr. Colony said there is alwsys a cost associated with the intended actions to control development, but most importantly, to really have effective management of the growth that is going to come regardless of how good the controls over development may be. H~ said that the membership of the Citizens for Albemarle have suggested changes~ito both the priority of those action items and the nomenclature. He stressed that the term, "evaluation," is common in every one of the twelve prioritYlitems in the membership s statement for the Board's consideration. He Added that evaluation is the key element of effective government program development, implementation and planning. Mr. Colon~y~ said there is a cost for rural development, too, and he has cost the County money by living in the rural ~reas. He remarked that the Board must learn to say "yes" to development ~nd growth when it is necessary June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 56) and unavoidable. There must be a basis for the decision to say "yes." He said it must also be understood that the resource evaluations that have been put before the Board for its consideration are to give the Board the basis, data and information to say "no" until the financial, natural and manmade capabilities have been developed for all of the County's programs, utilities and services. He commented that what he is trying to say to the Board is so simple because everybody lives within the constraints of a budget. He asked the Board to have a resource evaluation that would give the basic material for a capabilities budget that describes when certain things can be done and when they cannot be done until corrective action can be taken. Mr. Lindstrom told Mr. Colony that the County will be implementing an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, Mr. Lindstrom explained that the Board, at its afternoon meeting, had created a Fiscal Resources Committee, at the suggestion of the League of Women Voters. Mr. Colony said was glad to hear Mr. Lindstrom's comments and appreciated the information. Mr. Daley Craig addressed the Board and said he had two requests. He referred to Page 40 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan where there was a recommendation to form a Housing Committee, and the purposes for doing so were also listed. Mr. Craig asked that this Housing Committee be formed as quickly as possible when the plan is adopted because~he thinks it can be of great value. Mr. Craig then showed, with the use of a map, a piece of property that he asked the Board to consider including in theiComprehensive Plan for the Crozet community. He said this matter was before t~e Board in March, and the recom- mendation of the staff at that time was that.~it be considered simultaneously with the rezoning request in reference to th~ siltation pond. He understands that the zoning application has been made and will be heard next month. He believes that now is the time to consider that this property be included with the Crozet community rather than to wait a mdnth later, after the Comprehen- sive Plan has been approved. He said the issue of a siltation pond has been studied and proposed for approximately five ~ears. He thinks the staff believes that the part of the property that ~oes not dra~n ~nto the smltat~on pond should either be deferred or not included in the Comprehensive Plan. He remarked that the siltation pond, which willi'~ost approximately $2,000,000, may or may not be built. If it is built, Mr. Craig said, it would not cause problems with the proposed piece of land tha~ would be included with the Crozet community. He said that engineers ha~e told him it will not help either, because the requirements of the runof~ control ordinance can be met on this piece of property with individual device's. He said the Lickinghole Creek siltation basin cannot meet those requiremen~is, which means that even if the siltation pond was put there today, the individual runoff control devices would still have to be used. Mr. Craig said the staff has made the p~!nt that there are problems with maintaining the individual runoff control de~ices around the County. Mr. Craig said he does not believe these individual runoff control devices have been maintained by the County; nor does he be~lieve that there is an adverse effect because they were not maintained by th~ County. If it is desirable that these siltation basins be publicly maint~ained, he said, he thinks the County should consider setting up a mechanism so that if the funds are not taken from the County's General Fund, then the homeowners' association could collect revenues to be turned over to whomever is responsible for maintaining them. He requested the Board to give consideration to including this piece of property in the Comprehensive Plan so that wb~n the rezoning is considered next month, it will be possible to put peopl~.in an area where it is desirable for them to be rather than make more resmdent~al streets out of the rural highways. Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Great EAstern Management Company, said he appreciated the opportunity to address the~.~Board about the suggestion that a large area of land in the northeast quadran~ of the intersection of Route 29 and Proffit Road be included in the Hollymead!i~growth area. He said that representatives from his Company have been diScussing this area with various County officials for over 18 months. He mentioned that the Company had received a letter from Mr. Horne in March concerning the original request and allowing one year from the adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan to June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 57) 94 submit a rezoning application and a current Comprehensive Plan amendment request. During work sessions held on the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the one on January 25, 1989, it was realized that the area of land should be extended considerably beyond the property on the original request. He men- tioned that a rezoning application can normally be submitted only by a land- owner or contract purchaser. Therefore, he feels it is appropriate to pursue the request with the Board now during the period of public input concerning the Comprehensive Plan. He said that there have been suggestions that a change in plans for this quadrant would be appropriate sometime in the future, but are not needed now. He said, too, that this statement has been coupled with the indication that the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis. He said the important thing to remember is that this is still a 20-year plan and the proposed changes will be appropriate for the very early part of the 20-year time frame. He added that the possibilities for good development are enhanced when governing bodies and developers can work with large parcels of land and plan well into theifuture. He said this possibility now exists in the area that is under discussion and it is appropriate to start the planning process now so that when the ne~d for development materializes, the Comprehensive Plan framework will be in place. Otherwise, he said, the demand for services may result in small, inefficient, integrated, piecemeal development similar to what is happening at the Route 29 North and the Route 33 intersection in Ruckersville. Mr. Wagner said that comments by the Board at the January 25 work session concerned housing for the projected six and one-half thousand or more employ- ees in the first phase of the University's proposed research park. Because of this, Mr. Wagner said, the original proposal~iwas expanded from a 60-acre regional service request to, not only the balance of the Company's 200 plus acres, but the entire area naturally bounded!iby Route 29 to the west, the Rivanna River to the north, Route 785 to the!east and Proffit Road to the south. He said staff has indicated that 500~ dwelling units would be needed to accommodate future employees working on only one-third of the growth area's industrially zoned land. ~ Mr. Wagner said his Company proposes an .area of medium density, across Route 29 from the University's proposed research park, with provisions for a crossover that will connect the two areas. J. Ust east of the medium density residential area, the Company proposes an area of low density residential zoning. He added that Route 785 would provi4e the boundary for the first segment of the project, and he said that it ~s an appropriate physical and topographical boundary. He remarked that th~ Board has discussed the coming residential crunch at Hollymead, and the density of existing and currently planned residential developments is far shor~iof the Comprehensive Plan's expected densities. He reminded the Board o2 its January 25 discussion in which it was brought out that Hollymead is c~rrently being developed at less than two units per acre which was identified.~uring that discussion as being far below what is needed to support the proj~c,'ted job growth in the community. He said that additional residential areas wilt clearly be needed to support the areas designated for industrial growth, a~d there are obvious advantages to providing them nearby. He mentioned that ~ust north of the medium density residential area, an office service area is p~oposed. He said the draft of the Comprehensive Plan includes 25 acres of o!:ffice service south of Route 649 between the Airport and Route 29. He stated,iilhowever, that this area is not under common ownership control. The area tha~ he is proposing is not only under common control, but also under common cbntrol with the proposed adjacent regional service area and a good portion of t~e residential area. Mr. Wagner said there should also be a s~all neighborhood service area at the entrance of Route 29 which will serve the~residential areas and the office service area. He said that sufficient regional services in the Hollymead growth area would significantly reduce the future increase in traffic between Hollymead and the Charlottesville improvement~iarea. He said the regional service area, in the northeast quadrant of RoUte 29 and the Proffit Road intersection, should be substantially increased. He called attention to Table 46 on Page 239 of the draft of the Comprehensive Plan which indicates that an area for regional services should be 30 plus ~cres and should contain a minimum of 250,000 square feet of regional uses such as major department stores. In spite of this, the proposed Hollymead map showed small areas of regional service at all four quadrants. He added that these four quadrants total an area of 30 acres. In addition, he c~ntinued, very few of the parcels June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 58) within the other three quadrants are under common control, and many are already developed with uses other than regional uses, including a residential area in Airport Acres that is shown on the Comprehensive Plan map for regional services. He remarked that a regional service area divided into small parcels on separate quadrants at a major intersection would create traffic havoc. He commented that the northeast quadrant that he is speaking to, on the other hand, currently has some regional service uses and has enough undeveloped land under common control to qualify for regional service status as set forth in the draft plan. He added that this northeast quadrant has, to its advantage, proximity to the Airport. Mr. Wagner said he thinks the entire quadrant he has just described should be included in the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional area for both water and sewer. He added that Flat Creek drains the area between Route 29 and Route 785. He said that it also drains a major portion of the growth area shown in the Comprehensiv~ Plan to the west, across Route 29. He added that the location for the sewe~ main to serve this drainage basin is along Flat Creek, which goes through the property that he is request- ing to be added to the Hollymead growth area~ He thinks it is only reasonable to include the entire basin in the sanitary and sewage jurisdictional area. He said that pumping stations will be needed to pump wastewater back to the 18-inch main in Forest Lakes, but this is already in the plan for that area. The easement needed for the gravity main along Flat Creek could also serve for the force main pumping in the other direction. He mentioned another area that is between Route 785 and an unidentified, nameless private road east of that area. He said that this is a different drainage swale, and if a sewer system were installed there, it would require another pumping station, which might be appropriate some time in the future. He wen~ on to say that water is already available. ~ As part of the rezoning of this land, Mr. Wagner continued, there should be further consideration of the Route 29 crossover between Airport Road and the north fork of the Rivanna River, and he noted that there are already suggestions for that in the Comprehensive Plan. He said there should be at least one crossover to allow people to go fr~m the industrial area to the proposed residential area without having to ~et onto Route 29. Mr. Wagner then spoke about the alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway, and mentioned that, in the present ComprehenSive Plan, the Parkway stops short of this area. He thinks the Parkway should ~e extended into his proposed area, thereby helping to alleviate traffic o~ Route 29. He believes the Parkway should have appropriate access from ~his area so that people will not have to go onto Route 29 if they are traveling locally. At some point in the future, Mr. Wagner believes that it would be !appropriate to take Meadow Creek Parkway on across the River to further alleviate Route 29 traffic congestion. Mr. Wagner said the Great Eastern Management Company, Inc., has persisted in its request because it can see no justific~ation for delaying it. He remarked that the request has had no public ~pposition, it is outside the critical watershed area, and the staff has acknowledged that it will ulti- mately be needed to accommodate the area's g~wth. He stated that the area offers, in the staff's words, the most logical place to accommodate future growth needs. He said that all public servid~s are either in place or avail- able, including roads, utilities and schools.ili He then mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan review has been ongoing for almost two years. He stated that this Board has participated in untold hq~rs of work sessions, public hearings and other meetings considering staffi~ and public input, and Mr. Wagner feels that this Board can determine that his ~uggestion is in keeping with the purpose of the 20-year plan to guide growth ~ther than to react to the outside forces. He said it will be expensive~iand unfair for his people and staff to repeat all of these same arguments i~ a few months, particularly since it is likely that such a process will carry on to a new Board who will not have the benefit of this Board's backgrou~d and experience. In conclu- sion, Mr. Wagner stated, he is not suggestingi~ithat a large scale development be started tomorrow. He said that, instead, A suitable time frame enables his Company to work with the staff to develop an ~verall plan within the scope of the applicable ordinances which will be in the long term best interests of the staff, Board and citizens of the County. He ~hanked the Board for its atten- tion and said he would be glad to answer any ~uestions. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 59) 96 Ms. Lois Rochester spoke next and said she was representing the League of Women Voters in the absence of Mrs. Sally Thomas, the League President. Ms. Rochester stated that the League has been monitoring the Comprehensive Plan deliberations since the beginning of the review. Ms. Rochester said the League supports the development and use of a social data base and would support the establishment of a task force to investigate and make recommendations for the delivery of human services. Concerning solid waste management, Ms. Rochester asked that the emphasis remain on management and not on disposal. She said the League is happy to see that recycling is emphasized and supports the Comprehensive Plan on this issue. She recommended, however, that a stronger statement be included on recycling that would set the goal of recycling at least 25 percent of the waste stream by 1995. She said that the establishment of the City/County Solid Waste Task Force should be mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the League is pleased that household hazardous waste is of major concern and encouraged the County to use brochures that have already been developed by the Water Pollution Control Federation and the Environmental Hazards Manage- ment Institute to educate the public about hazardous waste. She stated that the League would like for some money to be put into next year's budget to support the hazardous waste pickup day. Concerning water resources, Ms. Rochester said, the League recommends that regulations for wells and septic system~ be added to the list on Page 83 of the Comprehensvive Plan, and she strongly!i~supports the formation of a Water Resources Committee. She said that recommendations are listed in the League's statements. She repeated a recommendation t~at the Water Resources Committee should include a representative from the Cit~ and a citizen representative from the general public. She stated that th~ League would like for the County to add a second strategy under "Voluntary Pr~itection Techniques," on Page 92 of the Comprehensive Plan, to require a conservation plan using best manage- ment practices as a condition for the land uJ~ie value tax. Ms. Rochester added that the League would like for the County to i!implement and enforce general standards to protect surface drinking water ~n watershed management areas along water supply impoundments and their watercourses. To protect groundwa- ter, Ms. Rochester asked that septic system megulations be strengthened by supplementing State regulations with stronge~ local standards and with the County's own septic system sanitarian. She qrged the Board to seek General Assembly enabling legislation to include Albemarle among those Counties which may require proof of adequate well water before a construction permit is granted. She mentioned that Clarke and Rappahannock Counties have such legislation. Ms. Rochester spoke about the County's natural, scenic and historic resources and said the League is especially Jleased to see some additions in this draft for the coordination with the Cit~~ and University for urban street corridor plans, development of a Rivanna Riv~ System Corridor and the attain- ment of design controls along roads "leadingZiito historically significant areas." She recommended overlays for these ~iesources as well as for all hazard areas and critical slopes :~ Ms. Rochester then referred to utilitiesi!and said the League feels very strongly that a regional master plan is neede~.'.d for public water and sewer facilities along with a financial plan. She !added that the Utility Master Plan should include plans for the watershed p~otection of Chris Greene Lake because it appears that the lake may be needei~ as a water supply within five years. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan!!~recommends ending recreational use of Chris Greene Lake at that time. She c~lled attention to the Appendix at the end of the League's document dealing with how long present water and sewer facilities will last. Ms. Rochester then addressed the problemi of land use in the rural areas, and stated that the League continues to be very alarmed about continued development there and supports the ' Comprehensive Plan s recommendation for incentives to lure developers into designated.['growth areas, but at the same time, the League believes that the time has c~me to place additional restric- tions on development mn the rural areas. She~isamd that for the f~rst time, the Comprehensive Plan suggests using taxes i~ combination with other fiscal resources as an incentive to encourage building in growth areas. She said that the League feels that this strategy must ibc accompanied by a "quid pro June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 60) 97 quo," for it is very likely that growth will continue in the rural areas even as taxpayers are subsidizing growth in the urban areas, villages and communi- ties. Ms. Rochester remarked that the League continues to support the Plan- ning Commission's recommendations for five by-right lots per parcel, except in the watersheds where there should be only three, as well as increasing the large lot minimum size from 21 acres to 40 acres, providing options for additional lots under certain conditions and maintaining the two acre minimum lot size. She pointed out, however, that the League feels that all lots should be buildable. If the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to reduce growth in the rural areas, she said, the Board must be courageous in resisting pressures that undermine the intent of the Plan. Concerning implementation, Ms. Rochester explained that the League has three recommendations. One recommendation is to add to the Action Agenda the Fiscal Resources Plan recommended on Page 319 of the Comprehensive Plan. She commented that the Board's decision this afternoon to appoint a citizens' fiscal committee is a good first step. She stated that another recommendation is to add an official map to the Action Agenda for planning purposes. Ms. Rochester said that the third recommendation ~is that the utilities master plan, the water resources committee and the water resources protection mea- sures should have high priority on the Action Agenda. She concluded her remarks by saying that the League would like 'to reiterate its previous request that the County, City and University work together to provide a common index to their Comprehensive Plans. She said thatj!because the three plans have dissimilar outlines and formats, common indexing would be very helpful to everyone who is trying to find information. .~ Mr. Andrew J. Dracopoli, Vice Presidenti~f Worrell Investment Company, Inc., spoke next and said he was representin~ Mr. Eugene Worrell, who owns approximately 246 acres in a triangle bordered by Route 250 East, Interstate 64 and State Farm Boulevard. Mr. Dracopoli indicated that Mr. Worrell is currently out of the country, and he submitted a letter to the Board from Mr. Worrell for the record. Mr. Dracopoli said this property is currently zoned approximately 57 percent for commercial use and the balance for office service. He said there have been discussions with this Board, the planning Commission and the staff about the designation of the property. He stated that now the property is designated "Office/Regional Service", and this limits the amount of regional service type uses. He said that 20 percent the land is now planned for some sort of commercial use, and 80 percent required to be for office use as opposed to 57 percent and 43 percent, respectively. He said this is a major change with major financial implications for the owners of the property. He said the requirement that the commercial uses can be developed only in phase with office uses concerns his company..~He said it is not spelled out specifically in the plan, but it was specifically discussed as an option at the May 3 work session. He stated that this ~ould effectively delay any development of the commercial property for a i~ery long period of time because enormous portions of the office park would h~e to be developed before a viable commercial project could be started, ye added that his Company sees this as a further economic penalty placed on ~he property. He said it is true that the underlying zoning on the property isl~not being changed, but he hopes that the Comprehensive Plan is going to be us&d as an overview of what is going on in the County, and, therefore, any s~ecmf~c plan for development that is submitted on this property will be considered in the light of the Compre- hensive Plan as it is approved. He mentioned{~that the Worrell Investment Company has stated several times that changin~ the designation of this prop- erty is premature. He said that his Company iSs currently going through a with the Department of Transportation!!ionil the widening of Route 250 process East. He mentioned that he does not know hoW~imUch~ of the Worrell land will be taken as a result of this. He recently looke~ at the maps that were placed in the County Office Building, and it appeared t~at, if the eastern bypass is selected, the interchange between the easterni!bypass and Route 250 East effectively wipes out all of the undeveloped, 'regional service zoning that is along Route 250 East. He added that the argu~ent that there is adequate regional service land on Route 250 East may b~ moot depending on other deci- sions that have not yet been made. ~ Mr. Dracopoli said the Company has tried~' over a period of time, to make constructive suggestions. He said he has suggested a designation of regional June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 61) 98 service along Route 250 East over a portion of its frontage which represents a dramatic reduction over what the current zoning allows. At one point, the planning staff recommended a portion of his suggestion and brought it up as a possiblity in a work session. He said his Company has accepted a 38 acre parcel on the north side of Route 250 East which is currently zoned "PD/SC". He said the Company has already accepted that this will be changed in the plan to medium-density, residential zoning with a small neighborhood service area. He feels that the Company has tried to reach an acceptable compromise with the Board. Mr. Dracopoli then addressed specific items that are in the Comprehensive Plan that concern his Company. He said the office regional service area is the only area bound by specific language concerning landscaping and mainte- nance in environmentally sensitive areas. He said the Company strongly supports this language and does not think that the office regional service area should be the only area bound by this language. He said this is a legitimate concern in all areas, whether residential or nonresidential, and he does not think this particular service area should be singled out. He men- tioned in his letter that the regional servi~e designation on Route 250 East should have similar concerns. He pointed ou~ that he is not asking that this designation be removed from his property, but only that it be expanded. Mr. Dracopoli then mentioned a concern about screening any development from Monticello, which applies to NeighborhoOld Three in the open growth area. He said the Company's only concern about screening for Monticello is trying to develop something that is practical, and he =emarked that Monticello is 320 feet higher than the highest point of his Cor~Pany's property. He said the property would be landscaped, but he does no~ know what can be done to hide the rooftops from Monticello. He does not t~ink that his company will ever have an expanse of buildings as large as the~!iState Farm building. He said he would hate to see development on this proper~y stymied because the County is requiring unreasonable requirements. Mr. Dracopoli stated that he is not ask$!ng for any special favors and he is not asking that the Board upgrade the property to give the Company a designation that it does not already have. He said the Company is simply asking that some of the rights be preserved ~hat are currently enjoyed there. He said that he is not asking for additional idevelopment rights, and he pointed out that the Company has already volHntarily offered a substantial reduction in the amount of commercial zoning ~'that is allowed. He hopes that his Company can continue to work with the Board in the spirit of compromise. He said he has suggested two ways the Board ~ould deal with the Company's concerns: either designate a portion of the ifrontage road along Route 250 East for regional service use or expand the allowed area in the office region- al service area from the current amount and make the phasing requirements more flexible. He recognizes that the Board does ~ot want to have the shopping portion built first and never have an office ?ark developed. He thinks, however, that a strict phasing requirement iSi~unduly restrictive. He pointed out that a main concern of Worrell Enterprises is the quality of the develop- ment along this entry corridor. He concluded~~ by saying that for this project to be developed in an economically viable way~ there have to be uses in a time frame that allow the project to be economically viable. He thinks the Board should take into consideration the way that M~C. Worrell has maintained this property for the 15 years that he has owned ii~. He said that Mr. Worrell takes an enormous amount of pride in the property and does not want to see it developed in an unattractive manner. Mr. Lucius Bracey, representative of McGaire, Woods, Battle and Boothe, spoke next on behalf of Mr. Eugene Worrell. He said the Board is in receipt of a letter from his law firm (he handed a copy to the Clerk for the record). He said that progress has been made, particularly on the north side of Route 250. He said there has been some change madei~in regard to the property on the south side of Route 250, and he believes that~ithis is in recognition that this is the most ideally located site in the urbani~growth area for regional ser- vice. He stated, however, that the 15 percen~ limitation placed on the southern site makes it a token recognition instead of a realistic or meaning- ful recognition. He said this 15 percent translates, as is noted in Mr. Dracopoli's letter, into not more than 30 acres of regional service use. He added that, according to the chart in the Comprehensive Plan, 30 acres is the minimum size for any regional service use. He said that basically the June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 62) 99 proposed Comprehensive Plan takes the most ideally suited tract for regional service use and allows the very minimal regional service use that would be permitted under the Plan, so it is a token change. He stated, however, that he and his clients are grateful for it. Mr. Lucius Bracey said he feels that the text describing Office/Regional Service is irrational, discriminatory and confiscatory. He thinks that the text is irrational because the Worrell property is, in terms of location, size, single ownership and depth, an ideally suited property in the urban growth area for regional service use. He said this area is presently planned predominantly for office space which, he believes, will attract more residenc- es than will regional service retail uses. He asked if the County wanted to encourage more residences. In reflecting upon the communications that have transpired during the work sessions, Mr. Bracey said, he believes the token 15 percent and the fact that there is not more regional service uses recorded is an overreaction to the Route 29 North strip shopping centers. He said all shopping centers and retail centers are not alike. He said that a large tract of land such as this one lends itself to the possibility of a better planned regional use than any other tract in the urban area. He said there is a demand for a regional service retail type use, and the Worrell property is the best place in the County for it. Mr. Bracey said the limitation placed upon the Worrell prop- erty is discriminatory because there is no o~her property in the urban growth area that has been downgraded in this fashion. He said there are other undeveloped regional service properties in Neighborhood Three of the urban growth area of significantly less depth and ~ize which do not meet the strate- gies and standards in the Plan as well as this property does. He asked how this can be justified, and how this property!icould be singled out for this irrational, arbitrary and capricious treatment. He said the limitation is confiscatory in the sense that the office absorption rate for the amount of acreage that would have to be devoted to off~ce use would not occur for many years, and perhaps decades. He said that if~there is any phasing requirement that is proportionate to the off~ce development for the retail development then even that could not be used for many decades. Mr. Bracey said it appears that it is the desire of the draft of the proposed Plan for the property to remain undeVeloped, but there has been no talk relating to any kinds of compensation f~r not developing the property. He said the irony of all of this is that the~!plan deals harshly with this property owner who not only has given properly to the community but has shown by everything that he has done, in the way o~ development, a keen sense of aesthetics, and a desire to preserve the environment when development takes place. Yet, Mr. Bracey said, Mr. Worrell isi!being adversely discriminated against for no rational reason. He said Mr..iWorrell is not asking for any favors, or for property to be upgraded. He~ ds basically asking for the property to be left in the same category in ~he new plan as it is in the existing Comprehensive Plan and as it was in'.!the'~ Comprehensive Plan prior to this one. Mr. Bracey also said that this wo~ld be in accordance with the existing zoning of the property. He concluded by saying he hoped the Board would see that the present course is unfair, !unjust and improper and he hopes that adjustments will be made as requested by. the property owner rather than letting this irrational proposal be "rubber stamped", causing undesirable action. The next speaker was Mr. Peyton, a resident of Greenwood and Chairman of the Greenwood Citizens Council, a citizens' organization in western Albemarle. ~e expressed his support for the basic frameWork and structure of the Compre- hensive Plan and the guidelines that it lays out for orderly growth in the County. He recognizes the Comprehensive Plan to be the result of hard work and careful long range planning and endorses it for providing the best formula for preserving the unique rural and aesthetic~qualities that make Albemarle County so special, while at the same time providing for the growth that is and will continue to take place in the County. He said that the ultimate strength or weakness of this Plan will be in its implementation. He encouraged the Board to demonstrate the strength of conviction to uphold this plan as it is periodically challenged and tested in real application throughout the County. Mr. Sam Kaplan, President of the Woodbrd~k Community Association, stated that, after listening to the discussions of the future of Albemarle County, June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 63) lO0 with representation by lawyers, professional Board displays, and color dis- plays, it would appear that his request is simple. His concern is with two sentences of the Comprehensive Plan near the bottom of Page 250 which his Association would like erased from the plan.~ He said they are in the Traffic Recommendations for Neighborhood Two section and relate to the connector road linking Woodbrook and Carrsbrook Subdivisions, and the mention that the right-of-way has been dedicated for this road. It is his understanding that the second sentence is incorrect and that the right-of-way has not been dedicated. He said that if he is correct in this assumption, then there would only be the connector road left to deal with. Mr. Kaplan said there are plenty of traffic problems in Woodbrook as things are now. He noted that there are two lanes exiting Woodbrook, one of which is a left-turn lane and the other permits a person to go straight across into Rio Hills Shopping Center or to turn right onto Route 29 North. Mr. Kaplan stated that, even if it is not possible for financial reasons for the County to build this connector road because the right-of-way has not been dedicated, he wishes to convince the Board that it is undesirable to do so, even if the funds were available. He stated'~that Woodbrook residents believe that they are blessed because there is a relatively low crime rate there. He said that this is attributed to the active Neighborhood Watch Program, and also to the fact that there is only one entrance to Woodbrook. He believes that the discerning criminal knows that ther~ is only one way out by vehicle and chooses to go elsewhere rather than risk~being trapped in the Subdivision by a quickly responding police department. Secondly, he pointed out that the connector road is Idlewood Drive and Shady L~ne. He said that Shady Lane is a very beautiful, almost rural, road. He adde~ that it has 15 feet of pavement, it is tree lined and the nearest thing to a ~.ural area that can be enjoyed in the urban neighborhood. He stated that the ~wners of the rights-of-way between the two subdivisions have been kind enough not to put up a permanent barrier. He said, however, that there is pedestrian access which is used by joggers, parents with baby carriages and oth~.r pedestrians, and it is enjoy- able to walk along Shady Lane without worrying about traffic. He thinks this serves a recreational function in the absenc~ of another kind of park. He wanted the Board to know also, that the owners of property in Carrsbrook along Shady Lane have put up screening, such as bushes and trees, which would have to be removed in order to widen Shady Lane a~equately. He said it would also obstruct the turns that a school bus, for ex~ple, might have to make to get onto Carrsbrook Drive. He said that either t~his vegetation would have to be removed or there would be a dangerous traffi~ situation created. The most important reason for not putting a connector road there, Mr. Kaplan continued, is that there are no sidewalks in Woodbrook, and the resi- dents walk in the street. He believes that i~ntroducing any more traffic into this subdivision would endanger the children!~hhere. While the people who live there know where the children congregate and ~?are aware of the number of children there, people passing through to another subdivision would not know this. He asked the Board, when it comes up ~ith the final version of the Plan, to remove all of the 11 offending wordsi~ that deal with the connector road and the right-of-way. ~- Mrs. Cooke commented that she has had q~ite a lengthy discussion with Mr. Roosevelt on the issue of the traffic exiting onto Route 29 North. She pointed out that this is a highway matter and has nothing to do with the Comprehensive Plan, so this is not an appropriate forum for this matter. She stated that, as far as the words that Mr. Kaplan has alluded to in the Compre- hensive Plan, that request has already been made to this Board, and considera- tion is being given to having the language removed. (Note: The Board recessed at 8:59 p.m..and reconvened at 9:07 p.m., with the public hearing continuing.) Next to speak was Mr. Woody Baker, a far,er in Albemarle County, who said that he enjoyed living in Albemarle and wante~ to commend the Board, Planning Commission and staff, for their efforts to prepare a document that seems to address some of his concerns. He noted that ~verybody thinks that this is a great County and this worries him because everybody wants to live in Albemarle County. He noted that Louisa County is hungr~ for growth and development. He thinks the County has to be concerned about i~s water and land because that is why people come to this County. He mentioned.~.the visitors that come to June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 64) 101 Albemarle County and said that it is possible to have a nice job within five minutes of a person's home. He stated that he has seen the document that states that 88 percent of the growth in the area between now and the year 2000 is supposed to take place in the County. He said that a good Plan has been developed, and he thinks that this is the right place to speak about concerns relating to the Comprehensive Plan so that a plan can be developed that people can live by and keep. He said growth should not happen and subdivisions should not be built unless they are thought out and planned. He believes the Comprehensive Plan is the background to support the direction that the County is taking. What makes this County special must be preserved, and the Plan that is finally adopted will need to be followed. He remarked that there seems to always be an exception to every regulation, and he is concerned that this is what will cause trouble. He mentioned that even though people have different circumstances and the Board has tohear every side of the story, he asked the Board to stick with the Plan. He noted that the Plan is to be evaluated every year, and he thinks that this is good. Mr. David Franzen, a member of the North Garden Concerned Citizens Committee, said that he has addressed this Board in the past as well as the Planning Commission. He read a letter, dated February 22, 1989, from the Committee's liaison to Mr. John Horne dealing, with the Committee's concern relating to the Comprehensive Plan and the V~llage of North Garden. This letter stated that the Board of Supervisors ~ad deleted entirely the road direction and realignment, public water and/~r public sewer systems and density greater than 1.5 acres per parcel as?they pertained to the Village of North Garden. He said the Committee had exp~Hssed its appreciation that these items would not appear in the Comprehensive ~lan. He then stated that it was with some surprise and concern that Page 287 ~of the Comprehensive Plan lists recommendations for public water and/or sewe~ systems for the North Garden Village. He expressed the Committee's opposition to the language with respect to the recommendations for public water and/dr sewer systems. He understands that artesian wells have been considered by ~he Planning staff and the Board, and he mentioned that the Board has already ~een addressed by water engineers regarding the availability of water in North?iGarden. He added that the availability of water is a serious problem tl~ere and for that reason the Committee requests that any reference to public water and/or sewer be deleted from the Plan. Ill Mr. Franzen said the Committee also opp }scs the expansion of the northern boundaries as far as the Hardware River. He iisaid that the service area at the intersection of Route 692 and Route 29 shoul~ be centrally located and under the proposed plan, the service area is close {~o the southern boundary. He mentioned that the Crossroads Store has just i~been approved for a fairly significant expansion, and the Committee fee!~ that this should be the entrance to the North Garden Village and the iplace that tourists and local residents could view as the focal point. He i~aid that if the service area is located at the southern point, it will make ~i~t difficult for the residents in the northern boundaries to take advantage of!this service area. He recom- mended that the boundaries that presently exist in the Comprehensive Plan be used, and he said that this would put the sera,ce area in the middle of the area, and he thinks this is more appropriate.i~ In addition, Mr Franzen mentioned that the existing plan involves fewer acres, but given the severe problem with the water supply, the Committee .~eels that this would be more appropriate and would encourage the kind of n~derate growth that the County is looking for and that the Committee is willingJto support. Mr. Frazen then called the Board's attention to Page 296 in the insert replacement pages of the Plan. He mentioned ~hat at North Garden, the Plan lists 972 developable residential acres with ~04 added dwelling units at a population of 1675. He stated that he had seen a map which indicated that this involves a density of approximately 1.25ii'acres per parcel, and it was the Committee's understanding that the Board had ~lready agreed that 1.5 acres would be the most dense that this area could be developed. Mr. John Marsden spoke for Neighbors along a Scenic Highway, which involves Route 250 West in his area. He stat&d that he supports the Compre- hensive Plan, as it deals with scenic highway~ and byways, and he supports the Comprehensive Plan as it deals with strengthening the downtown area of Crozet as a shopping area. He also supports the Pla~ as it relates to limiting ommercmal development on Route 250 West to nemghborhood servmces. He sa~d June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 65) 102 that his group would also like to strongly suggest that this area, which is now zoned for highway commercial use, be deleted from commercial designation and remain only for nonconforming uses as the other areas along Route 250 are now zoned. He also supported the realignment of Route 240, coming from Crozet to Route 250. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Board. She stated that PEC commends the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for its continued commitment to the goal of directing growth to the designated growth areas and of preserv- ing the rural areas for agricultural and forestal uses. She said the draft Plan is also to be commended for its recognikion of the inter-relation between preservation of the agricultural and foresta~ resource base and the protection of the water supply and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources. Ms. Buttrick stated that the Plan is frank in admitting that the strate- gies for implementing some of these goal have not been fully successful. She went on to say that the Plan states on Page 300 that the by-right rural residential development that continues to occur is compromising the intent of the Plan. She remarked that PEC urges the adoption of several important steps proposed in this draft plan to address this ~roblem. One step is the adoption of a small lot option to allow clustering. She added that the next step would be the adoption of a maximum lot size for sm~ll lots, and PEC suggests six acres as the maximum lot size for small lotsil She then said that PEC urges the reduction of development rights in the watershed from five to three and would advocate the location of rural residen{ial lots away from prime, unique and locally important soils and would advocate the determining of the base acreage for subdivision potential on a net b~sis by subtracting steep slopes, flood plains, wetlands and setbacks from st=~ams. She then stated that PEC urges the Board to reinstate the 40 acre lot~ size recommended by the Planning Commission. She said the PEC urges that the~following recommendations for future action be undertaken. An inventory o~ significant natural and scenic resources as the first step toward a critica~ resources plan. Such an inven- tory might offer protection to resources suc~ as ridges and view sheds. She then recommended that there be a Master Utilities~ Plan created as well as an Historic Preservation Committee. Another recommendation was the consideration of historic overlay districts. She then cal~ed attention to Page 75 of the Plan which involved PEC's last recommendatio~ which was for the assignment of a County staff person to investigate additional conservation techniques such as financial incentives to conservation. Sh~ then asked that the people stand who were at the meeting in support of PEC's Cecommendations. Next to speak was Mr. Craig Van De Cast,e, and he made comments about the inclusion of the North Garden Village in thei?Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Vmllage ms designed for the capacmty of ~everal hundred houszng unzts and stretches for approximately two miles along ~ section of Route 29 South. His concern is that this is a very unspoiled scenic highway that is rural in character and comes all of the way to the bo~ders of the City of Charlottesville. He sa~d the ~nterchange ha~ been designated for development in accordance with the standards set forth. {!He stated that with the placement of several hundred housing units 12 miles fuvther south on that highway, it will put a lot of pressure on the area in between and that it might be a prudent policy to set some standards before ~hese pressures for development along these sections of the highway occur. 8e stated that this effort might keep the unspoiled character of that highwayliintact. Mr. Peter Grung~s spoke next and also a~gued against expanding the Village of North Garden, because the area already being heavily developed.~ He sa_'~d that just about every open tract of ~and is having something built on it. He said that expanding the Village is d~signed to do one of two things: either increase the rate at which developmen% occurs or increase the intensity at which that land is developed. He said th%t, unfortunately, the Red Hill/ North Garden area already has a number of pr~blems that need to be addressed. For example, he said, the Red Hill School is .itremendously overcrowded with four or ~%ve new classrooms. He stated that !many people feel that even with the new Southside School and redistricting p~ans, the problem will not be solved and may even be exacerbated by the fa~t that there will be so many new houses in the Red Hill/North Garden area. H9 said the roads are poor in the North Garden area and there is little water ~vailable. He said that there are June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 66) 103 lots of different reasons why that area should be examined before it is overdeveloped. He remarked that, given the fact that the area is already under fairly heavy development, it does not make sense to make it more intense now without at least examining possibilities of other things that might occur if development continues. Mr. Norman Senter stated that he lives in North Garden and he wished to endorse what has already been stated by Dave Franzen, and Peter Grungis about development in North Garden. He said the North Garden area is rural, and he likes it that way. He stated that the County is converting the rural areas, which are covered by expansion plans, with by-right expansion plans, and the proposed Plan indicates that lots can now be~ built that are one and one-half acres in size. He said there is nowhere to put 500 to 700 houses with 1600 to 1700 new people. He is concerned about the overcrowded Red Hill School and said that when he asked the School Board about the long range plan and how much capital money was in the next ten year budget for Red Hill School, the answer was that there was no money included for the school. He said the school has six trailers that are used for classrooms. He wondered how those trailers will be emptied, unless the children are bused out of the neighbor- hood. He said the school has an enrollment of 400 children, and the school's capacity, without the trailers, is 240. At ~he same time, he said, the Board of Supervisors is trying to bring in new peo.p, le with their children. He asked the Board members if they intended to bus th~se children to other schools. He said that this is what would have to happen, ~unless the Board comes up with lots of money for new roads and a new school~ He said there is no compelling need to expand North Garden beyond the Plan ~eveloped in 1982-83. He asked the Board to reconsider and stated that it w~uld cost the Board nothing to take this page out of the plan and leave North Garden the way it is. Mr. Way asked the people from North Garden to stand, i~ Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Board and~ said he had four concerns to discuss. He said that in looking at the proposed Plan, he sees that along State Farm Boulevard the land is zoned for o~fice service and behind that road it is zoned for residential density. He ask~id that the boundaries of the property be shifted to the creek because the ?boundaries were done according to lot lines, and the lot lines were arbitrary ~!ines created for financing and did not suit the topography. He said it doe~i not make very good use of the topography to put the residential area on a Slope behind the office space. He said this would be better planning for the l~d because the boundary should have been at the creek at the back and to th~! west of State Farm Boulevard. Dr. Hurt said his second concern involved Rio Hills Shopping Center on Route 29 North. He stated that when the property was rezoned originally, the front of the property was zoned for commercial and the back residential. He said that now the land has been sold and the shopping center has been built and the automobile agency is in there, and he is left with a narrow strip of land behind the automobile agency that is approximately 200 feet deep. He does not think that this is a very attractive place for a residential area, so he would like to see some type of commercial ~se of a service type behind the shopping center and the automobile agency. He stated that this property fronts on the road that parallels Route 29, a~d he does not see where this would be adverse to anybody's interest. Dr. Hurt also asked the Board to reconsider the land that is south of Piedmont Virginia Community College. He said?~that it is a beautiful ridge situated between Tandem School and Piedmont COllege, and has good access to Interstate 64. He said he has shown this land to several institutional buyers in the past. Since the school is located to ~he south and the college located to the north, he thinks that there should be some type of institutional office use there rather than to have it residential.!i Dr. Hurt said he believes that it could be zoned for office services. He mentioned that there is a large office building proposed for the Forestry Dep~rtment, which contacted him and asked if he could suggest some sites for the ~ffice building, with a require- ment that it be convenient to Interstate 64. ii{He said this land meets that requirement. He said that the site is approximately 25 acres in size. He stated that he has had three inquiries about ~his land. Dr. Hurt then remarked that he had sOld ~00 acres at Hollymead to Mr. Frank Kessler, but he still has part of the o~iginal section that Was part of the PUD. As he looks at the Plan, he sees that the zoning of the part across ! June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 67) 104 from the townhouses in Hollymead, zoned for multi-family use involving approx- imately 30 units and five acres of land, has been changed on that PUD. He assumes that this is a mistake, and would hate to think that this had been changed. Ms. Mary Scott Birdsall was the next speaker, and she stated that.she was speaking as a private citizen in favor of maximum protection for the rural areas. She thanked the Board for this opportunity to speak to this issue. She explained that she was born in Albemarle County, and left for awhile, but now she is back. She said she came back to a community, but the particular community she is referring to is not Charlottesville, Albemarle County or the surrounding counties and mountains at large, but the 250 acres of her family farm in the Jack 3ouett District, plus additional acreage in the White Hall District. She said this farm has been a community because, like many of the farms in Albemarle County, it has provided homes for up to thirty people at a time. She added that she arrived at this figure by counting the familes who live and work there plus the faculty, studen.ts, secretaries, doctors and bookstore managers who have rented there. She mentioned that since the people on this particular farm are all within shouting distance of one another, and the remaining 240 acres is in open space, it could be called a form of cluster housing. She said this farm is and has been a community, because the people who live there together are very diverse economically, ethnically and racially in education, talents and skills. She said that over the years, this acreage has supported, in addition to a wide varietyiof human beings, crops, woods, livestock, vegetables, vegetation and wildlife. She said it has provided housing, jobs, food, fuel, income, wildlife habitat, property taxes and vistas and views of beauty unequaled by any art tha~ humankind produces. She re- marked that this one farm community is not ai{.unique, personal paradise. It is typical of many, many farms in this County. i.She added that the farm contrib- utes a mixture of environmental and human services in the form of low cost housing for some, watershed protection, agricultural and forestal production and lessons in human interdependencies and adhievements. She said that all of this takes space. Mrs. Birdsall said a majority of people!!.~have agreed that this space is best designated as Rural Areas. She added t~at this rural area has been significantly encroached by development and ~hat is left is worth all of the efforts that this community can bring to bear~. Her message to the Board of Supervisors was to respectfully request that ithe Board do all within its power to support the intent and language of the Comprehensive Plan's efforts to keep open space to the maximum in the rural areas~ Her opinion is that the Board will not be doing the citizens of Albemarle G~ounty a favor to dilute the effects of that Plan. She said that it only!!takes investors to put a housing development on top of a farm, and it only tares ten or twelve sections of small land parcels for individuals who think .!that they want to live in the country to find out that they are living in ~ suburban community. She added that there is no way at all for anyone to ge~ open land out of a mass produced development or a suburban neighborhood. She !iremarked that there is room enough for many types of life styles and homgplaces in this County, and the Comprehensive Plan has provided for them. She asked the Board not to abandon the farm and the space that it takes to have !one as an option for those who live and work there. She urged the Board to l~do the maximum to protect and salvage this choice. Mr. James Darr said he lives on Route 71'0 at North Garden. He spoke in opposition to enlarging the North Garden Village. He pointed out that there is inadequate groundwater in the area, so th~ area does not support the density of housing already allowed under current zoning. Mr. Dart said he had a well that was perfect for four years. He S~aid that a couple of new neigh- bors moved into the neighborhood and drilled ~new wells, and very shortly thereafter, his well went dry. He continued i~to say that the type of density called for in a village should only be allowed where there is adequate water to support it. He added that the "cart is b~ing put before the horse" if this type of density is allowed where there is no~ adequate groundwater or some type of water supply. He said it is not goo~ planning to allow this type of density and then have to take repair measure~. Since there was no one else from the public who wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day M~eting) (Page 68) 105 Mr. Way said he would like an opportunity to consider what has been said this evening. He suggested that July 5 be considered as a possible time for the Board to have a work session on these suggestions and to consider adoption of the Plan at that time. Mr. Bain agreed that the Board should have at least one work session to give the staff time to look at some of these matters again. Mr. Lindstrom said he has made a note of a couple of things and if the Board is not going to take action to adopt the Plan tonight, he would like to address some of these issues. He said it has been established that North Garden is not susceptible to utilities. He said that when the Board began working on the Plan, a meeting was held at which there was an opportunity to hear comments from everybody, including those who want open space as well as those who want to develop. He thinks that in a County of 740 square miles this is possible. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the road system. He has come to the conclusion that there really is no way that the road system can accommo- date what is anticipated to happen in this community without a tremendous infusion of dollars being spent on other than the Route 29 corridor issue. He said that no matter what solution is adopted~! it will not take care of some problems, and this is because of the number 6f people anticipated to live here in the next 20 years. He believes that the ~rojected number of people is underestimated because the State would not a~low the County to use the esti- mate that the County really believes is accurate. He mentioned that the County's figure was derived by looking at th~ growth originally projected, plus the University Real Estate Foundation'sli'~proposal for its Airport property and the proposed increase in the student bod~~ at the University. He thinks the needs of the community can be provided f6r adequately, but he is concerned about substantial increases in population in!~i!a relatively short period of t~me. He does not think the law of V~rg~nla~,{or the f~nancing available to this County or the mindset of this communityliiis capable of absorbing that much growth. Mr. Lindstrom then mentioned the Hollymead area and said that hundreds of additional undeveloped acres are shown in thei Plan and not just the 250 acres that the University Real Estate Foundation i~ proposing to develop. He agreed with Mr. Wagner and thinks that it makes sense in the northeast quadrant to provide places for people to live because that is the essence of the cluster concept. He said he would like to see the B~rd consider this possibility, even if it has to be done at some future dat~, but he thinks that it should be considered before the five year cycle is ove~. He also thinks that the Board needs to consider whether it is wise to have ~as much land for industrial use and commercial office use in that area as is ilShown. Another factor that concerns him is not ~nly the transportation issue, but the costs of the University proposal. H~ attempted a pragmatic economic analysis of the University Real Estate Foundation proposal and discovered that if all of the revenues are considered from th~ development, spin-off housing, employment, commercial development, etc., the County ends up at least $1.0 million short each year. He added that this does not count the cost of General Government capital projects, but does include the cost of school projects. There is a 2.4 percent unemploymen~ rate in the County now, which means that nearly every new job created will bring more people into the community. He pointed out that this is not a "no growth" attitude, and he mentioned the projections of 40,000 to 50,000 ~additional people in the area within the next 20 years. He does not think this kind of growth can be accommodated if a large portion of the zoning?that is shown for Hollymead is developed. He knows that a large portion will be developed because of the University Real Estate Foundation's plans. H~ said the only way that this community can, through its zoning and planning, effectively address the issue of rate of growth is through the amount of av4ilable employment-generative zoning that is shown in the Plan and on the ZSning Map. He thinks there is too much of this type of zoning being considered for the Plan, and he does not think that cutting this amount in half at Holtymead will even slow down the amount of population growth that is projected! He does not think the County is set up to deal with this population proble~ financially or from a transpor- tation or a philosophical standpoint. ~ June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 69) 106 Mr. Lindstrom said there is more than enough potential growth to keep nearly every developer in this community busy and to keep his people employed. He added that if the County grows much bigger, there will be more develdpers in the community, and they will not be local people. He thinks this County will see the type of changes that the people in Northern Virginia have seen. He said that the door is open, and if the Board has the authority to deal with the amount of population increase, he thinks that it will be through the amount of land that is zoned for employment-generative uses, such as indus- trial. He urged the Board to re-consider the Hollymead area, which has a tremendous amount of unused land zoned for industrial use and to re-consider the northeast quadrant, as a solution. He thinks that the plan, in concept, for the rural areas is a good one, and he thinks that the Board will have to learn how clustering works. He reiterated, though, that he is very concerned about the amount of employment-generative zoning that is anticipated in this plan. He does not think that the community can handle it. He is not sure that he can support the Plan as it is now because of the numbers he has seen since this process began. Mr. Bowie agreed that there were far too many comments made tonight for him to take action. He said he would like to see the staff's comments as well as have time to look over some of the written material that he has received. He stated that he is opposed to the 40 acre lot size because it does not slow down rural growth, and he believes that it j~st eats up the land faster. He believes that it is also better to have the Cluster provisions for the rural areas with permanent open space. ~ Mr. Bain asked for an examination of th~I policy established by Clarke and Rappahannock Counties, which requires proof ~i~ adequate well water before construction permits are issued. He pointed:ii'ut that the League of Women Voters mentioned this matter in their statement on Page Two. He also stated that he would like to have some more analysi~ion additional regulations dealing with septic systems. Mr. Lindstrom asked for an analysis of the land shown for industrial uses other than the land shown for the University ?Real Estate Foundation's project, in terms of the approximate amount of developable acreage. He also wanted to know what, on the average, the project would'[translate into in terms of employees. He also asked for information as "ito how this will comport with the projected population that the remainder of the Plan has been built on. Mr. Way said the Board would hold a worl~,~ session on the Plan on July 5, at 1:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn. With no f~rther business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:59 !P.M. CHAIRMAN