Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-15348 AuguSt 15, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August~8, 1984) AuguSt 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Way nominated and offered motion to reappoint Mr. Walter K. Oslin to the Jordan Development Corporation with said term to expire on August 13, 1985. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher noted that another executive session is necessary to continue the discussions regarding appointments and suggested August 15, 1984 at 5:00 P.M. No objection was received. Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie noted that the Resource Recovery Commission will meet on August 21, 1984 at 10:00 A.M. in this building with Mr. Ed Jordan of the BFI Corporation for a presentation on the corporation's experience with burning trash to create energy. Mr. Fisher directed the Board's attention to the 1983 Residential Activity Report as compiled by the Planning staff ~and listed on the consent agenda. He felt the staff should be commended for the excellent job and asked that same be conveyed to the proper staff persons. Agenda Item No. 26. At 5:12 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn to August 15, 1984 at 5:00 P.M~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. AuguSt 15, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 8, 1984) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 15, 1984, at 5:00 P.M., at the Ivy Inn on Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from August 8, 1984. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 5:25 P.M.) and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. The meeting was called to order at 5:14 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs.-Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M. and immediately adjourned. August 15, 1984 (ReguIar Night Meeting) '349 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 15, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Development, James R. Donnelly. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the consent agenda consisting of one item for approval and one informational item. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth' Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of July, 1984 were presented; said statements were approved as presented. Item No. 4.2. Letter from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, dated August 3, 1984 as follows: "As requested in your resolutions dated January 11, 1984, and February 8, 1984, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective August 3, 1984. ADDITION BRINNINGTON SUBDIVISION Brinnington Road - From Route 678 to a Cul-de-sac. LENGTH 0.33 Mi." Agenda Item No. 5. an i~definite date~.) SP-84-29. Daniel J. Veliky. (Was deferred on June 20, 1984 to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, was present and said the following letter dated July 19, 1984 had been received from Mr. Daniel J. Veliky: "Dear Mr. Keeler: Please be advised that I wish to drop my request for a special use permit, for parcels 23C and 23D of tax map 103." Mr. Tucker recommended that the withdrawal request for SP-84-29 be accepted without prejudic-e. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the recommendation of Mr. Tucker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-11. Woodbriar Associates (Deferred from July 18, 1984). This petition was originally heard by the Board on June 20, 1984 and deferred at that time to July 18, 1984 since Mr. Lindstrom was absent and Mr. Fisher wanted to personally visit the Briarwood Subdivision to which this petition relates. (See the minutes of June 20, 1984 for the staff report in its entirety.) The applicant requested deferral on July 18, 1984 due to his absence; same was approved and the petition moved to this date. Mr. Tucker briefly reviewed the alternatives and issues discussed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 5, 1984 regarding ZMA-84-11: "Road plans approved before the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation sidewalk p0.1icy change: Plans for Whitney, Heather, Austin and the entire length of Briarwood Drive were approved prior to the new sidewalk policy, and therefore sidewalks along these roadways are eligible for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Sidewalks along other roads in Briarwood will not be eligible for maintenance. 3-50 August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Access from Austin Drive to proposed commercial area: Comment was made that General Electric had purchased a buffer area which may foreclose access to the proposed commercial development from Austin Drive. The proposed commercial area would have frontage on and vehicular access to both Austin and Briarwood Drives. Logical termini for sidewalks on these roads woUld be at these entrances, which would require amendment of road plans to reflect these entrances. (This would be an option of the applicant. Otherwise, sidewalks would be constructed to Route 29 North.) Require sidewalks as originally approved: This would require most sidewalks to be maintained by the homeowners' association. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation would permit these sidewalks to be located in public road right-of-ways; however, a maintenance bond may be required. Such sidewalks could be built to a lesser standard than Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation sidewalks, subject to County Engineer approval. Flexibility r.egarding future sidewalk requirements: Commission members suggested an approach which would provide flexibility in requiring sidewalks in the future. While opinions vary among current Briarwood residents, staff opinion is that pressures for sidewalks, particularly along major roads, will likely increase as development increases. Briarwood and Austin Drives will carry a total of about 3,850 - 4,600 vehicle trips per day from the develop- ment as well as through traffic from General Electric employees seeking access to the southern commercial area. Unless sidewalks are provided at this time, future residents may look to the County to install them. (Discussion of sidewalk installation along Georgetown Road began when the traffic count was about 7,500 vehicle trips per day.) Therefore, at a minimum, staff recommends sidewalks along Austin and Briarwood Drives. On other roads, if the Commission and Board choose to require sidewalks, the same could be constructed to Highway Department standards or other standards. If constructed to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards, the homeowners' association would have the option of dedicating the sidewalks at some future date, should a change in Highway Department policy occur. (Staff has no indication that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation would consider a change of~policy.)" Mr. Tucker sa±d two letters from property owners in Briarwood Subdivision have been distributed as well as a petition consisting of a survey to determine the percentage of the homeowners desiring sidewalks on their streets. (The letters and petition are on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 5, 1984 unanimously recommended amendment to condition #9 of ZMA-79-32 as follows: "9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the s~utherly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the easterly side of the entire length of Briarwood Drive." The Commission also indicated that should the applicant amend the road plans to show entrances to the commercial area, the sidewalks to be constructed as described in the condition could end at these entrances. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the plats of the individual lots contain a note about the sidewalks being required on the original approval. Mr. Tucker said sidewalks are normally not shown on a plat. Sidewalks are required at the time the road plans are submitted and that is usually done simultaneously with the plat. Mr. Lindstrom said therefore, from the public prospective there is no formal notice given either by the plat or from the surveys recorded with the plat. Mr. Tucker said that 'is correct. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Withers Finnell, representing Woodbriar Associates, was present. He said the concept of Briarwood Subdivision was to provide affordable homes and he feels that same has been achieved. Mr. Finnelt said the necessity for sidewalks in Briarwood is lessened by the fact that the roads are extremely wide; specifically, Briarwood and Austin Drives. Heather and Whitney Courts are not heavily populated because they end in cul-de-sacs. Mr. Finnell said if the Board desires to have sidewalks on Briarwood and Austin Drives, that will be done. However, when the residents were informed that the sidewalks would be built, the vast majority firmly opposed the idea. The lot sizes do not lend themselves to sidewalks and the reason for the lots being small was to achieve the concept of affordable homes. Many residents have utilized the front of their lots and placed fences and shrubbery in these areas; same will be destroyed with the construction of sidewalks. Mr. Finneil felt consideration should be given to the fact that sidewalks are contrary to the desires of the present homeowners. Mr. Fisher said sidewalks were a part of the original approval in 1980 and asked why same have not been constructed. Mr. Finne!l ~a~d~b~a~a~i~m~g~nally objected to the requirement of sidewalks due to the increase in cost for this phase as well as future phases of the development. However, sidewalks will be constructed if that is the des±re of the Board. Further, a bond has been retained for the construction of the sidewalks since the initial stages of the subdivision. Mr. Bowie said Mr. Fisher's question had not been answered and he would like an answer himself. Mr. Finnell said sidewalks are the last condition to be complied with. The sidewalk procedure would have been pursued this spring, but a question arose regarding the necessity of the sidewalks as a result of the Highway Department policy change. Other conditions for Briarwood need to be addressed regarding the acceptance of the roads into the State system and sidewalks are one of those areas. Mr. F~nnell further elaborated on the policy of the Highway Department which allows only certain sidewalks to .be maintained as noted in the foregoing writing. Basically those sidewalks in the current phase would be maintained because those lots were approved prior to the policy change. Mr. Fisher asked when the policy changed. Mr. Finnell said it is his understanding that the change took effect the latter part of 1983 or the first part of 1984. August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 35 Mr. Way asked how many dwelling units will be in Briarwood when the subdivision is completed. Mr. Finnell said the original approval was for 661 lots, but the Highway Department change relating to frontage requirements has resulted in a reduction of the number of lots. Mr. Tucker referred to a letter from Mr. Bob McKee, landscape architect for Woodbriar Associates, which was received this afternoon concerning the impact of the Highway Department's standard on minimum driveway entrance separation on the total lot count in the subdivision (Copy of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. McKee estimates that with the new Highway Department standard, the original layout of 661 lots will have to be modified yielding approximately 499 lots. Mr. Fisher asked if that estimate covers all phases. Mr. Tucker said yes, the estimate affects the entire development. Mr. Wendell Wood, representing Woodbriar Associates, was present and stated that the letter from Mr. McKee was requested by.the Planning staff. Specifically, the staff requested that engineering work be done to determine the ef~fect of the new policy on Briarwood Subdivision. In regards to Phases III and IV currently being developed, twelve lots have been lost on the cul-de-sacs due to the Highway Department change. Roads were allowed to be built through Phases III and VII to get to Phase I. Therefore, curb and curb cuts were already in place in accordance with Highway Department standards in effect at that time. The cul-de-sacs have not been built off of those roads. The Highway Department has allowed the curb cuts to remain in place since the roads were built prior to the policy change, but twelve lots were lost since the cul-de-sacs had not been built. Mr. Wood said every expenditure for building remains the same but 162 lots have been lost in the total development in order to conform to the new policy with a total reduction in lot sales of $1,400,000. Mr. Wood said he cannot continue to provide affordable housing with this type of loss and another type of housing will have to be requested in order to recover the losses. The intent of the original request was to provide an attractive subdivision and this has been accomplished. Mr. Wood said with additions to the initial cost of the development, he is not making any profit. He then referred to the tot lot which was originally required by the County and a $1,500 bond required for same. The area for the tot lot was cleared. A basketball net was erected at the wrong height and had to be removed. The County then changed the bond to $3,700. Complaints were received from the residents about the location of the tot lot and same was moved. The basketball court was not mandatory but rather at the choice of the firm. However, once same was built, the County required grading and blacktopping. The original topos used by Woodbriar Associates were not accepted by the County and a new site plan had to be drawn which resulted in a cost of $22,000 for the tot lot. Mr. Wood reemphasized that all new requirements are making the project impossible for the original concept of affordable housing. Mr. Wood said sidewalks were not built as originally requested because the requirement was that any sixty-six lots fronting on a road would have to have sidewalks. In order to avoid constructing the sidewalks, an attempt was made for all the cul-de-sacs to contain less than sixty-six lots. Mr. Fisher asked where the requirement of sixty-six lots came from. Mr. Wood said that was a staff recommendation in the original approval. Mr. Fisher said sidewalks have always been required on Briarwood Drive and asked why same have not been built. Mr. Wood said there are no sidewalks anywhere in Briarwood because there are a number of lots not built upon and it does not make sense to build sidewalks before a house is built. The reason for this is that utilities are located underground and there is constant drilling. Further, Mr. Wood said the roads have just recently been paved. Mr. WoOd said all work has ceased during the last 120 days because of the letter from the County giving the new Highway Departmant policy. Mr. Wood concluded by stating that he hoped some consideration could be given to this issue since the roads are extremely wide, and every lot has off-street parking. Mrs. Cooke asked what the difference in value of the house and lot would be in terms of the large lot frontage required. Mr. Wood said the lot price will remain the same because the lots were presold to R. D. Wade. One hundred and fifty lots must be provided to Mr. Wade at the fixed rate. Mr. Wood said the expansion costs cannot be recovered on the 150 lots; as noted previously, twelve of the original lots have already been lost. Mr. Fisher said the issue of lost lots is an economic issue and is not related to the planning issue of sidewalks. Mr. Fisher said the sidewalks were part of the 1980 approval and were a requirement when Mr. Wood contracted with Mr. Wade. Mr. Wood said that is correct, but sidewalks were not required in Phase II on any cul-de-sac with less than sixty-six lots. Mr. Wood said the streets in Phase II have not been designed for sidewalks and he hoped sidewalks will not be required at this time. Mrs. Carolyn Dawson, resident of Whitney Court, was present. She distributed pictures of sidewalks constructed on one side of the street throughout another development (Townwood). The sidewalks are broken up and serve no use. Mrs. Dawson then distributed photographs of items in Briarwood which would have to be removed if the sidewalks were constructed. She further noted that the area is not graded for sidewalks meaning all of the lots would have to be regraded because of drainage problems, if sidewalks are required. Next to speak was Mrs. Margaret Cooney supporting the sidewalk requirement. When she purchased her lot, she understood that sidewalks were to be constructed. Therefore, she does not understand why the issue should be argued now when the requirement was made in 1980. Mrs. Cooney said the financial problems of Mr. Wood are of no concern to her (a letter from Mrs. Cooney dated June 24, 1984 is on file in the Clerk's Office). Speaking next was Mrs. Shirley Crenshaw, resident on Whitney Court. The points of Mrs. Cooney are understood and she too, expected sidewalks to be constructed when purchasing her lot. However, the majority of the residents did not expect sidewalks. Mrs. Crenshaw said according to information she has received more accidents have occurred over the last year on streets having sidewalks than those not having sidewalks. Therefore, sidewalks do not make streets any safer and are unattractive. 35 2 August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Charles Martin, resident on Austin Drive, spoke next noting that he did not know anything about sidewalks when he purchased his home. Given the small amount of front yard space, he would probably have not purchased same if he had known about the sidewalks. He does not understand why the sidewalks cannot be built on the west side of Briarwood Drive and the south side of Austin DriVe since there are no homes built in either of these locations. With that suggestion, there would be approximately two homes that would not have sidewalks but would have had same with the current plan. Mr. Martin said a shopping center is proposed for the immediate area, so there will be sidewalks up to those two homes or at least very close to same. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said agenda item 7 is related to this subject and asked if the Board wished to defer discussion of ZMA-84-il until item #7 is heard. Mr. Bowie said he has received at least fifty cards and letters from residents opposing the sidewalks and he would prefer to hear item 7 first. No objection was received. Agenda Item No. 7. Request from County Engineer to plan for completion of roads, drainage, and recreational facilities in Briarwood. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present. Last fall, Mr. Wood was requested to finish site plan requirements for roads, drainage and recreational facilities in Briarwood in order that the roads could be taken into the State Secondary System. The work was not done and during the winter, lots of negotiations and legal maneuvers occurred which resulted in an agreement in January 1984 With Mr. Wood that the major work would be completed and the roads paved by April 15, 1984. Some paving has been done but repaying is necessary for that which was not done correctly. Mr. Elrod said the major part of the asphalt pavement is in place and acceptable to the Highway Department but numerous minor problems remain to be corrected with driveways, street signs, fences in the road, and drop inlets installed incorrectly. A list of about thirty items was prepared during site inspection between himself, an inspector from the Highway Department and Mr. Finnell and none of the work on the list has been corrected. Therefore, Mr. Elrod said if the road is to be accepted into the state system before this winter, plans, specifications, and bidding procedures need to start now. Mr. Elrod said due to the controversy about this subdivision, the staff decided to ask the Board for its concurrence to proceed with planning for this work. Unless the Board instructs him otherwise, he intends to have the sidewalks constructed as well as the~recreational facility and all other items necessary to complete the roads at one time, using proceeds of the bond being held for this purpose. Mr. Fisher asked what sort of notice regarding the problems has been given to the applicant. Mr. Elrod said a list of items needing correction from the Highway Department (i~ems pointed out during site review in the'spring) was given to the applicant as well as a letter outlining all the problems. Mr. Fisher asked the date of the last notice. Mr. Elrod said there was no date set to finish~the work because at that time all necessary work was not known. On September 16, 1983, a letter stating that he did not intend to allow renewal of the bond was sent to the applicant and another letter sent in November 1983 that all the work had to be completed to have the roads in the state system. Mr. Elrod said there is no doubt in his mind that Mr. Wood has known since September 1983 that the County will take every action to get the roads into the system. Mr. Fisher asked if the bond was renewed in November 1983. Mr. Elrod said no, the bond which was in the form of a letter of credit with Albemarle Bank and Trust was called, but the Bank refused to honor the bond. In January, 1984, Mr. Wood, Mr. Ron Keeler and himself met and discussed the project. There is now a $50,000 certificate of deposit being held pending completion of the work. Mr. Elrod said he would prefer that Mr. Wood do the work. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any record of communications with Mr. Wood on this subject. Mr. Elrod said yes; a complete ~ile. Mr. Fisher asked if he could review the file. After reviewing same, Mr. Fisher said the dates on the letter are as far back as 1982 concerning the erosion plan details and asked if the problems with that have been corrected. Mr. Elrod said that was done as far as the seeding is concerned, but minor problems still exist and he is not certain if the erosion has been stabilized. The erosion was in an area where at one time Mr. Wood planned to build a road, but construction will not occur in that location for some time and therefore, Mr. Elrod said he would like to have this area stabilized now. Mr. Fisher said the request before the Board is to call the bonds and authorize the County Engineer to proceed with bidding in order that the improvements in Briarwood can be completed. Mr. Elrod said that is correct. A fair amount of County staff time will be necessary and it is his intent to use the $50,000 certificate of deposit for the work. Mr. Fisher asked if the $50,000 will be sufficient to handle all the remaining improvements. Mr. Elrod said yes, but more deterioriation will occur if same is not pursued soon. The road problems are the first priority; then come the sidewalks. The recreational area was covered by a separate bond in the amount of $3,000 (letter of credit); which also has not been honored. However, Mr. Etrod feels the $50,000 is adequate to take care of the necessary improvements. Mr. Bowie asked if the reference to drainage improvements means for erosion control. Mr. Elrod said no, erosion is not a major concern at this time. Although there are some ditches eroding, and telephone lines exposed,~ the problem is basically localized. Mr. Bowie asked if the funds are sufficient to also handle these problems. Mr. Elrod said yes. AugUst 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 353 Mr. Lindstrom asked if the suggestion of Mr. Martin to build the sidewalk On the west side of Briarwood Drive and the south side of Austin Drive which have no homes at this time would be feasible. Mr. Elrod'said yes because the south side of Austin Drive is the side where the shopping center is proposed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended the south side and the east side of Briarwood Drive. The idea of the Commission was to have one continuous sidewalk into'the commercial area. Mr. Tucker said the vast majority of the residents live on the west side of the road. Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, and asked if he had any comments. Mr. Roosevelt said he was only present to answer questions. Mr. Fisher asked if he concurred with the statement of Mr. Elrod that major work is not involved to have the roads accepted into the State system. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct. There are some drainage items which could be considered major items but the $50,000 will be ~adequate to take care of the necessary street improvements. Mr. Wendell Wood said contrary to the comments just made that communications were sent to him in August, 1983, is only rehashing yesterday's problems. The matter was resolved to the extent that the paving and associated road work is to be completed by April 15, 1984; that constituted the major portion of the work which had not been done. There were three inches of blacktop in place during the winter of 1983; this was put down during construction because it was believed to be proper to do this while construction was occurring. The final coat of black top was not applied during construction because of the possibility of having to cut under the road for a utility line. The final coat of black top will not be applied until construction of the houses is completed. Mr. Wood said to his knowledge the seeding as contained in the list of corrections has been done. Four or six curb cuts which were cracked by concrete trucks have to be taken out and replaced. There are three drop inlets which have to be replaced because the contractor installed the drop inlets incorrectly. A plan for these drop inlets was submitted to the County and apProval has not yet been received from either the County or the Highway Department. Mr. Wood said inspection of the roads was not held until late April, then a letter was received in late May giving the incorrect items. Mr. Wood said another site plan has to be submitted for the playground which is where most of the drainage problems are. Mr. Wood said the contractor wants to install the drop inlets, concrete work, and drainage ditches at one time instead of piecemeal. Mr. Wood said this work could have been done in the last thirty days because he just received the drainage site plan approval. Mr. Wood said it is more economical for the playground, curb cuts and drop inlets to be done at one time. Seeding has been done and paving and one correction is still necessary. Mr. Wood said he intends to do the work in accordance with approved plans. Mr. Wood said when he was informed of what work had to be done, he was told to wait for the outcome of his petition on the sidewalk issue. Now, he is being told that the County wants to go ahead and do the work. Mr. Fisher reminded Mr. Wood that if the streets and sidewalks had been built according to approved site plan, as well as the stormdrains and the recreational facilities, none of this would be necessary. Mr. Wood said the majority of the work has been done. The bond is for the final blacktop. Although the cost is proposed to be $35,000, and the bond is in the amount of $50,000, he has not received any return on the funds. Mr. Fisher said perhaps the work should have been done before the policy of the Highway Department changed. Mr. Wood said that is true, but 600 lots cannot be used at this time since only fifty to seventy-five homes are being built each year. This development was planned to take place over a ten-year period, and the bottom line of his comments is that he is going to do the necessary work. Mr. Fisher said the question is when will the work be done. Mr. Wood again noted that he does not have the approved plans on the drop inlets. Approval was just received for the playground and the bids received were extremely high. Therefore, the project will be rebid. Again, Mr. Fisher asked when the work is planned to commence. Mr. Wood said weather permitting, he would estimate within the next forty-five days. ~- Mr. Fisher said there had been consideration of holding an exective session on agenda items 6 and 7, and he asked the Board members if they wanted to go into executive session at. this time. Mr. Bowie asked what options are available. Mr. Fisher said either the executive session or action on both agenda items. Mr. Henley asked about the plans for the drop inlets. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department does not need to review the plans because the road plans were approved with a different size drop inlets. He understands that there is one drop inlet on the plan on Heather Court the plan called for a twelve foot length and same cannot be built because two feet of same would be in a driveway. Mr. Wood's engineer recently submitted a letter requesting drainage computations and also a change in the twelve foot length to ten feet. Mr. Fisher referred to a copy of a letter dated May 22, 1984 signed by Mr. Jim Keister of the Highway Department listing two pages of items needing to be corrected on Heather Court #3. Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Wood did the work, would there be any reason to hold him up. Mr. Roosevelt said no, not in his opinion. (Note: This conversation will continue after the executive session which follows.) Agenda Item No. 8. At 8:50 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters involving potential litigation regarding Briarwood. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:41 P.M. and returned to agenda item 6. 354 August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-11. Mr. Fisher said two hearings have been held on this petition. He asked Mr. Tucker to restate the recommended wording of condition #9 by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the recommendation is that "Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side, of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the easterly side of the entire length of Briarwood Drive." As stated by Mr. Martin earlier this evening, the suggestion is that the sidewalk be placed on the westerly side of Briarwood Drive because it is as yet undeveloped. Mr. Tucker said the Commission also indicated that the applicant might have the option to terminate the sidewalk at the entrance to the commercial area, both on Briarwood and Austin Drives meaning the road plans would have to be amended. Mr. Fisher asked if relocating to the west side is a workable idea. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr.- Bowie felt the residents are essentially correct in stating that cutting five feet off of an eighteen or twenty foot front yard, then raising the yard a foot to get to sidewalk level, would be an engineering nightmare. He personally feels that a sidewalk is needed on Austin and Briarwood Drives due to the expected 5,000 vehicle trips per day as stated in the staff report. He wished sidewalks could have been required on both sides of the streets, but since same cannot feasibly be constructed, he feels the suggestion for the sidewalk to be on the west side of Briarwood Drive is more logical than on the east side of Briarwood due to less disruption to the existing homes. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve ZMA-84-11 by amending condition #9 of ZMA-79-32 for Briarwood PRD to read as follows: "9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood Drive." Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Henley asked why the sidewalk was not required all the way to Route 29 when this petition was originally approved. Mr. TuCker said the original approval was for the sidewalk to be constructed all the way to Route 29. The Commission, at its meeting on June 5, 1984, discussed the possibility of giving the applicant the option to terminate the sidewalk at the entrance to the commercial area. Mr. Fisher supports the motion to have the sidewalks extended all the way to Route 29 because eventually this will be the proper thing to do. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Request from County Engineer to plan for completion of roads, drainage, and recreational facilities in Briarwood. Mr. Fisher asked if this request also includes sidewalks. Mr.~Elrod said yes. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution to appropriate the amount of $50,000 for improvements in the Briarwood PRD, including completion of roads, drainage, recreational facilities and sidewalks, funds for same to be derived from the certificate of deposit currently being held by the County for that purpose. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs.. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $50,000 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Program Fund and coded to I 9000 07001 977001 entitled"Briarwood Road Improvements"; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the Capital Improvements Program Fund is hereby amended by the addition of $50,000 to Code 2 9000 140001 40120 entitled "Redemption of Road Bonds"; and FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Agenda Item No. 9. SP~84-43. Robert & Elizabeth Wilson. Request to expand Little Keswick SchoOl on 1.19 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on north side of Route 731 about 300 feet southwest of Route 22. County Tax Map 80, Parcel 112. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 31 and August 7, 1984.) Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. James Donnelly, the recently employed Director of Planning and Community Development. Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: "Request: Private school (10.2.2.5) ~ 1.19 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 112, is located on the north side of Route 731, about 300 feet southwest of Route 22 at Keswick. Character Of the Area: The applicant proposes to house a teacher and three students in a dwelling on this property. The existing Little Keswick School is located across Route 731 from this site. To the northeast are the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department and a country store. Other properties in the area are larger tracts in agricultural/residential usage. 355 August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff Comment: The Little Keswick School licensed by the State has operated in Keswick since 1963. The school is a residential school with a current enrollment of 26 learning disability and emotionally disturbed students. Employees consist of nine teachers and five other staff members. While in proximity to a fire company and store, the school also benefits from a rural setting. A problem arises in terms of access to the site. Sight distance toward Route 22 is inadequate for either a private or a commercial entrance due to a short, sharp hill in the road. In the original staff report, the staff stated that as with SP-84-36, Free Union Country School, the staff cannot recommend favorably on this request due to safety concerns. This recommendation was based on an understanding by both Planning and Zoning that the classroom in this new satellite location would be available to all students of Little Keswick School. However, at the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant' stated that the only pedestrian traffic ~etween the two locations would be the three students from the satellite location crossing Route 731 twice daily for recreation at the main school. Staff has recommended that, if approved, a crosswalk should be required near the fire company where sight distance is greater and that school crossing signs should be considered. With concern about walking along Route 731 and in view of the stated amount of pedestrian traffic, the Planning Commission did not recommend a designated arosswalk but in separate action recommended that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation install appropriate school crossing signage. In view of this additional information, staff recommends approval consistent with Planning Commission action." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 7, 1984 unanimously recommended approval of SP-84-43. In separate action, the Planning Commission voted to request the Highway Department to install school crossing signs in the area at appropriate locations. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Wilson, applicant, was present and noted that the school's enrollment will not be increased by this petition. The purpose of the request is to house a teacher and three boys, ages fourteen and fifteen, in a dwelling on the property in order that the youngsters can learn independent living skills. The youngsters will learn to wash clothes, grocery shop, budget and basically enjoy a home life environment which is not provided in the dormitory. Mr. Wilson said the hope is to move the youngsters to Fishersville, Va., when these learning skills have been accomplished. The students are of average and above intelligence, but are handicapped with learning and emotional problems. The three youngsters have been at the Little Keswick School for two years and the desire is to provide this extra service for them. Mr. Wilson said as for the deceleration lane, there should be no problem because only one vehicle occasionally goes out from this facility. Mr. Wilson said at the request of the Highway Department, he cut down some trees and bushes, but his personal driveway is opposite this driveway and having lived here since 1956 there has been no difficulty with the sight distance. Mr. Bowie said he understands there will be a couple, both teachers, living in the dwelling with the youngsters and the boys will never cross this twenty foot gravel road unescorted. Mr. Wilson said that is correct. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-84-43 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-84-45. Christian & Missionary Alliance Church. Request to establish a church on 4.654. acres zoned~ Residential. Located on north side of Route 631 and houses Merridale School. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 127. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 31 and August 7, 1984.) Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: "Re_q.uest: Church (14.2.2.12) ~ 4.654 acres Zoning:_ R-2 Residential Location: Property described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 127, is located at the intersection of Routes 631 (Rio Road) and 652 (Old Brook Road). Character of the Area: The eastern portion of this property is developed with the Merridale School while the western portion is vacant. Property to the west was recently approved for professional office usage (SP-84-23, William Bailey Realty). To the rear of the property is Raintree Subdivision. 356 August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff CommenT: The parking area for Merridale School was recently reconstructed during road improvements made in conjunction with Raintree Subdivision. Staff would recommend that this parking area be expanded to serve the church and that access to the property be restricted to Route 652 (Old Brook Road). Staff recommends approval subject to: 1) Access restricted to Old Brook Road (Route 652)." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 7, 1984 unanimously recommended approval of SP-84-45 with the condition as recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher asked how much expansion of the parking area is necessary and how same is related to the size of 'the church. Mr. Donnelly said that approximately 250 people attend the church; that equates to a need of about sixty parking spaces. Mr. Fisher said he asked the question because the number of persons in the church is not stated in the staff report. Mr. Donnelly said a site plan will have to be submitted to build the church and the size of ~he church will be addressed at that time in accordance with Zoning Ordinance provisions for a church. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Worley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Alliance Bible Church, was present. He said the plans are to build'a church for 180 to 200 members. Mr, Worley said the Merridale School property is owned by the church and it desires to build the church on the same site. The school will remain as presently exists, hopefully being able to relocate the school eventually. Mr. Fisher asked if the school is operating under a special use permit. said no; the school is a nonconforming use in the R-2 District. Mr. Tucker With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke said she did not have any problem with the request and had not received any opposition to same. She then offered motion to approve SP-84-45 with the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. CPA-84-8. Resolution of intent to amend Comprehensive Plan to recommend that properties on north side of Route 631 between the Putt-Putt golf course and Route 652 be shown for commercial office as opposed to medium-density residential usage. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 31 and August 7, 1984.) Mr. Donne!ly presented the following staff report: "Amend the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 to recommend commercial office development for specified areas of Rio Road as opposed to residential development (both medium and low-density residential). The area under consideration is located on the north side of Route 631 (Rio Road), east of the existing Putt-Putt golf course and west of Route 652 (01d Brook Road); to the north it is bounded by the Raintree Subdivision. Approximately 9.5 acres are involved. At its meeting on July 17, 1984, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 as stated above. Staff Comment: This area is located in Neighborhood Two and is recommended in part for medium density residential development (5-10 dwelling units per acre) and in part for iow density residential development (1-4 dwelling units per acre) by the Comprehensive Plan. Recently, the Board of Supervisors rezoned a portion of the medium density residential property to commercial office. In addition, east of this rezoned property (Tax Map 61, Parcel 124C), a special use permit was approved on low density residential recommended property to locate a professional office as an addition to an existing residence. The following table outlines the current status of properties in the area being examined for Comprehensive Plan amendment. CURRENT TM/PARCEL COMP. PLAN RECOMMENDATION ZONING COMMENTS 61/124C Medium density-residential CO Previously rezoned from residential 61/124A 61/124B 61/128 61/127 Medium density-residential R-10 Medium density-residential R-10 Medium density-residential R-10 Low density-residential R-2 to CO (ZMA-84-6) (March). Requesting rezoning to CO (ZMA-84-18). Requesting rezoning to CO (ZMA-84-18). Approved special permit for commercial office (SP-84-23) (June). Presently requesting special permit approval for a church (SP-84-45). August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 357 After reviewing this area, staff found that commercial office development along this section of Rio Road would not be a detriment to adjacent properties and probably be more in keeping with the changing character of this area based on the following: - Commercial office development is comparable in terms of vehicle trips generated per day to medium density residential development. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has noted no objections to this proposed amendment as long as traffic volumes generated by commercial office development do not exceed anticipated residential development traffic generation counts. As compared to residential development, typical commercial office development also places less demand on water and sewer services. - The ultimate design for this section of Route 631 is for a four-lane, divided highway with the crossover spacing being in accordance with the Highway Department standards. Given the proposed improvements to Route 631, commercial office development may be more appropriate than residential development directly adjacent to this roadway. In the past, staff has recommended commercial office usage as a transitional use between residential areas and other areas such as intensive commercial or industrial areas. In this instance, commercial office development could serve as a buffer between a four-lane highway and existing R-10 zoned property. It should be noted that road stripping and individual entrances should be discouraged and alignment of entrances with Highway Department planned crossovers should be encouraged to the greatest extent possible along Route 631. - Commercial office development should also not significantly change or be a detriment to the character of the area. As noted above, previous petitions to rezone property in this area to commercial office and to allow by special permit the addition of an office to an existing residence have been approved. Additional petitions for rezoning properties to commercial office are pending. Office use is not viewed as incompatible with residential development, especially when the required 50 foot setback for office buildings from adjacent residential properties is considered. It should also be noted that existing dwellings can presently be expanded and converted to offices (as occurred with William Bailey Realty) by special permit only, without requiring rezonings or comprehensive plan amendments. - Commercial office uses may also require less impervious coverage to be developed; which may be significant given stormwater detention and run-off control issues in the urban area. This would particularly be true if existing dwelling units are converted for commercial office use." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 7, 1984, unanimously recommended approval of CPA-84-8. The public h~aring was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the petition and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley asked if the Alliance Bible Church (parcel 127) which was just heard for the special use permit for a church was notified of this amendment since its property is included. Mr. Tucker said commercial office allows churches to be constructed, but the special use permit will not be affected by this amendment. Mr. Fisher said since a school exists on Parcel 127 and a church is proposed, is there any reason to change the zoning designation of the parcel. Mr. Tucker said there is no problem with deleting the parcel from this amendment nor any problem if same is included because the proposal is only to show the area as commercial office in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley again asked if the church had been made aware of the proposal. Mr. Tucker said the proposal is for a general area which the staff was reviewing from Old Brook Road down to the Putt-Putt golf course. Advertisements were made of the public hearings, but the individual property owners were not notified by separate letter. Mr.. Fisher did not support including the church property in this amendment because a problem could develop in the future since the property consists of 4.654 acres. Mr. Tucker said he understands that the church may decide to have some other use on parcel 127 in the future. Mr, Fisher said this parcel will clearly not be used for commercial offioe as long as the school survives, and after the church is built. Therefore, he could see no compelling reason to change the zoning designation on that parcel at this time. Mr.. Henley did not have any problem with including Parcel 127 if the owners have been notified. Otherwise, he did not feel the parcel should be included in this amendment, but could be changed at a later date if that is desired. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve CPA-84-8 as recommended by the Planning Commission to show Parcels 124A, 124B, 124C and 128 on Tax Map 6 for Commercial Office in the Comprehensive Plan, but to exclude Parcel 127. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-84-18. Randolph D. Wade. Request to rezone about 2.7 acres from R-10 Residential ~o CO Commercial Office. Located on north side of Route 631, about 0.4 mile east of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 61, Parcels 124A and 124B. Charlottesv~ District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 31 and August 7, 1984.) Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: CO, Commercial Office Acreage: Approximately 2.7 acres Existing Zoning: R-10 Residential Location: Property described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 124A and 124B is located on the north side of Rio Road approximately 0.4 mile east of Route 29 North. '358 August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Character of the Area: Both properties are developed with single-family dwellings. Property to the west was recently rezoned to CO and houses the office of R. D. Wade Builder. Property to the east was recently approved under special use permit for professional office usage (William W. Bailey, zoned R-10). Property to the north is zoned R-10 and has been approved for townhouse development. Comprehensive Plan: This report assumes that CPA-84-8 will be approved recommending this area for commercial office usage. Staff Comment: Approval of this petition would give the applicant commercial office zoning on three parcels totaling about four acres. It would be of benefit to the applicant and general public to access these properties from the approved townhouse entrance road. When Rio Road is improved, a crossover wilt be located at the townhouse access road providing convenient access from eastbound traffic as well as left-turn egress. This approach may also prove less expensive than establishing multiple commercial entrances. Should concerns related to access be resolved between the applicant and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, staff would recommend approval." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 7, 1984, recommended approval with the understanding that the verbal commitment for a proffer limiting access of the property to be rezoned to the proposed townhouse access road would be submitted in writing prior to review by the Board of Supervisors. The public hearing was opened. with the staff report and comments. Mr. Randolph 'Wade, applicant, was present and agreed Mr. Fisher referred to the following proffer received from Mr. Wade: "August 9, 1984 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning . . . Re: ZMA-84-18 rezoning request Dear Mr. Keeler: The recommendation that the area proposed for rezoning be accessed only from the proposed road that is to serve the rest of the future development is acceptable to me. Yours truly, (SIaNED Randolph D. Wade" Mr. Fisher asked if the intent of the proffer is to satisfy the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Wade said yes and noted that an entrance is already proposed and approved on the plan to the townhouse project. That will serve as the entrance for the two parcels contained in this request. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the foregoing proffer is accepte~. Mr. St. John said the proffer is procedurally correct. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve ZMA-84-i8 with the proffer dated August 9, 1984 and as set out in the foregoing writing. Mr. BoWie seconded ~the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda-Item No. 13 SP-84-t0. Louis S.. Eaton. Request for Board to allow administrative approval of change in the plan upon which this special use permit was based. Mr. Tucker said SP-84-10 was approved by the Board on April 18, 1984 for a low-water bridge across Ivy Creek.' (See the minutes of April 18, 1984 for the details of the petition.) The subject property is located On the north side of Route 250 West, and lies northeast of the Exxon station at Ivy. Mr. Eaton shares an access w.ay to Route 250 with~ adjoining landowners, Rene and Marjorie Muller. Mr. Tucker said he understands that Exxon has decided against allowing easement across its property. Therefore, Mr. Eaton has prepared an alternative to the approved plan so as not to cross the creek'but to provide an access further downstream. This will improve the sight distance from the existing driveway. Although, it will not meet the conditions of the Highway Department for sight distance, same is better than the existing plan. Both Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, and Mr. Bill Norris, Watershed Management Official, agree that this alternative will be less detrimental to the fiood plain of Ivy Creek. The new plan eliminates the crossing of Ivy Creek. Mr. Eaton is requesting that the staff.be allowed to administratively approve this change so he can obtain the fill material needed from the contractor who is now constructing the sewage pumping station for the Rivanna Authority. Mr. Tucker said the staff also requests the Board's concurrence to allow administrative approval of this change subject to all other conditions on SP-84-10. August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 359 Mr. Fisher said this is an unusual procedure. He has serious misgivings about amending a special use permit in this fashion. However, he is familiar with the circumstance~ surrounding this change. It does appear that the plan approved on April 18, 1984 will not help anyone since it cannot be done due to Exxon refusing to grant an easement. The only way to obtain an access is by some method of relocating the entrance. The fill dirt is there and has to be moved. Starting over with the special use permit process would mean the dirt would have been removed from the site by the time that process were completed. Mr. Fisher said by supporting this request it does not mean he feels all emergencies should be handled in this manner. This request is a small change and does provide~ a better plan. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said as long as the Highway Department approves the entrance and the County Engineer oversees the flood plain fill, as well as seeing that all temporary bridges are removed at the conclusion of the project, he will support the request. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve the request of Mr. Lou Eaton for administratiw approval of a change in the plan upon which SP-84-10 was based; specifically to eliminate the crossing of Ivy Creek. Mr. Way seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Resolution: Bus Stop Signs. Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated August 10, 1984 from Mr. Agnor regarding a resolution for bus stop signs along County mass transit routes. Mr. Tucker said these two new transit routes were approved during the budget process in the Spring. "Attached is a resolution for your review and adoption regarding bus stop signs along the two transit routes within the urban area of the County. The resolution is needed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in order to locate the signs within their right-of-way. The resolution is recommended in lieu of a bond for the maintenance, improvement and removal of those signs installed. This resolution is similar to the resolution the Board of Supervisors adopted in 1980 for bus signs located along Route 29 North. The actual cost of the signs and their installation is being borne by the Charlottesvi!l~ Transit Service. Charlottesville Transit Service hopes to begin installation of the bus stop signs on August 28, 1984. In addition to the adoption of the resolution, staff recommends that you authorize the County Executive to sign the necessary VDH&T permit th'at will accompany the resolution." Following is the~resolution referred to in the above memorandum: WHEREAS, Charlottesville Transit Service is scheduled to provide mass transit service along two routes in Albemarle County beginning September 4, 1984; and WHEREAS, all bus stops along these routes have been established by Charlottesville Transit Service, contract service provider, and approved by the Albemarle County staff and by Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation requires that a bond be posted by the County of Albemarle, or a permit secured through an appropriate resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors, in lieu thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County of Albemarle doeS hereby guarantee any and all costs involved in the maintenance, improvement, and removal of all bus stops installed on the routes, and does hereby apply for permit in lieu of bond; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and to Charlottesville Transit Service. Mr. Bowie said these two routes are only temporary until ridership statistics are received regarding the usage of same. He asked about removal of .the signs. Mr. Tucker said the resolution contains a provision that the County remove the signs. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the foregoing resolution, and to authorize the County Executive to sign an application for a permit from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Way distributed a proposed resolution concerning a hearing to be held by the House Privileges and Elections Subcommittee on the selection of SchOol Board members on August 21, 1984 at 1:30 P.M. at the Ramada Inn, Charlottesville. He feels the issue is important and he hoped the Board would adopt the resolution opposing the popular election of school board members especially since school boards do not have taxing powers. Mr. Way felt the current method of appointments to the School Board should be favored. 360 August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom suggested the third paragraph of the resolution be changed by changing the end of the third paragraph to read'which sets-school policy and Board of Supervisors which levies the taxes necessary to the implementation of those policies." Ail agreed with the suggestion. Mr. Way then offered motion to adopt the following resolution with the inclusion of the suggestion by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. He noted that he is familiar with areas of the country where school boards do have the power to tax and the outcome is mass confusion. Mr. Bowie supported the resolution and concurred with the statement of Mr. Lindstrom. Further, he felt this resolution should be presented at the hearing by one or two Board members. Mr. Way agreed. Mr. Fisher said he planned to attend most of the session and would be glad to present same. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. WHEREAS, the House Privileges and Elections Sub-committee Studying Selection of School Board Members is holding a hearing Tuesday, August 21, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. in Charlottesville, Virginia and has requested the views of the public on the present selection methods; and WHEREAS, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit school boards from levying taxes; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors believe it is in the best interest of our schools to have a close and cooperative working relationship between the School Board which sets school policy and Board of Supervisors which levies the taxes necessary to the implementation of those policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, that we oppose the election of school board members by popular vote. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the current practice in Albemarle County whereby school board members are selected and appointed by the Board of Supervisors be continued. It was noted that several people had been interviewed by the Board for a vacancy on the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors. Mrs. Cooke then nominated and offered motion to appoint Mr. Donald J. Wagner to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors with said term to begin immediately and expire on April 16, 1988; said appointment to replace Mr. L. A. Lacy. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher said notice has been received from the State Department of Housing and Community Development that the County's application for two Community Development Block Grants have been received. The review of the County's proposal as well as the other proposals received will be conducted and hopefully concluded by the end of October. Mr. Lindstrom said two study committees established by the last Session of the General Assembly are dealing with topics he feels are of interest to the County. One is the possibility of granting local governments the authority to require developers to make offsite as well as onsite'road improvements in connection with subdivisions or site plans. He felt the Board should ask the staff to prepare a resolution supporting this concept because he feels authority should be granted to deal with problems regarding frontage and off-site improvements to the extent these improvements are demanded by the development itself. Mr. Lindstrom said this is a power that the County thought it had, but was interpreted by the Supreme Court decision to not exist. Mr. Lindstrom said the creation of transportation improvement districts similar to what the County has with respect to water and sewer districts will also be studied. Mr. Lindstrom urged the Board to ask the staff to prepare a resolution to support the study. Mr. Lindstrom said the other study committee is one regarding mobile homes (referred to as manufactured housing). Local government regulatory policies and practices ~wilt be studied. The committee is also to study local treatment, of manufactured housing, mobile homes for tax purposes including tax classification, rate and appraisal methods. Personally, Mr. Lindstrom felt the County's existing authority shoUld be retained for dealing with mobile homes. August 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr.. Lindstrom then offered motion to request the staff to prepare resolutions for consideration by the Board~regarding House Joint Resolution 146 (mobile homes and manufactured housing) and House Joint Resolution 119 Con and off-site road improvements) for submittal to these subcommittees. Mr.~Way seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie reminded the Board of the 10:00 A.M. meeting on August 21~ 1984 regarding solid waste disposal and burning. Agenda Item No. 16. At 10:35 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn to August 16, 1984 at 4:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion car~ried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None.