Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-18February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 1 00000:1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 18, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve Item 5.1, and to accept Items 5.2 through 5.10 for information on the consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Item No. 5.1 Appropriation: Education Grants, $2,700 (Form #97047). At its meeting on February 9, 1998, the School Board approved an appropriation of $2,700 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made Teacher Incentive Grant awards to several teachers in the Albemarle County Public Schools. The awards made were to Christine Abidin, Roxanne Broadbent, Lucy Burnette, Marshall Chase, Jamie Endahl, A. Faith, and Elaine Richardson, Stony Point Elementary School, in the amount of $300 each; Dawn Hudgins, V. L. Murray Elementary School, in the amount of $300, and Donna Nash, Red Hill Elementary School, in the amount of $300. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program helps to strengthen the quality of education in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools and to encourage innovative projects which integrates the arts into non-arts curricula. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation, in the amount of $2,700, as detailed on appropriation form #97047. The Board approved the following appropriation by the above shown vote: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 97/98 NLIMBER: 97047 FUND: GR3LNT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF THE ARTS GRANTS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1310460211312500 1310460211601300 DESCRIPTION PROF. SER. INSTRUCTION INSTR. MATERIALS AMOUNT $ 150.00 1,950.00 February 18, 1998 Page 2 (Regular Ni~ ~eting) 1310460207601300 1310460216601300 INSTR. MATERIALS INSTR. MATERIALS TOTAL REVENUE 2310424000240319 2310424000240318 2310424000240321 DESCRIPTION COMM. OF THE ARTS COMM. OF THE ARTS COMM. OF THE ARTS TOTAL 000002 300.00 3O0.O0 $2,700.00 AMOUNT $2,100.00 300.00 300.00 $2,700.00 Item No. 5.2 Albemarle County Neighborhood Leadership Conference - "Neighborhood Connections ' 98", was received as information. Albemarle County has enjoyed a steady succession of dedicated community leaders and concerned, involved citizens. They sustain the county's long- standing traditions of active neighborhoods, participating citizens and lively cooperation between government and the community. The Neighborhood Leadership Conference, "Neighborhood Connections '98", is an interactive educational experience that will help individuals understand and participate in the dynamic process of making Albemarle County a better place to live. Partici- pants will gain insight into Albemarle's government processes and the inner workings of its neighborhoods, as well as gain specific hands-on skills in community organizing and leadership. Albemarle County's Neighborhood Team has developed a number of initia- tives aimed at working with and supporting neighborhoods. As the Team has developed working relationships with county neighborhoods and community groups, a common theme heard is that residents are interested in opportunities to learn leadership and organizing skills, to network with each other, to meet county staff, and to learn about the resources that are available to assist neighborhoods in problem-solving and programming. The Neighborhood Team, which includes representatives from County departments including Social Services, Parks and Recreation, Housing, Police, Planning and Community Development, Community Resources, Zoning, Community Education and the County Executive's Office along with the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA), Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) and Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (A/RIP), has developed a morning-long conference as a first step in meeting those needs. "Neighborhood Connections '98" has four objectives: 1) to broaden the participants' understanding of the Albemarle County community; 2) to encourage and assist the establishment of networks among neighborhoods and their leaders; 3) to enhance the ability of neighborhoods to resolve problems and/or initiate activities on their own or in cooperation with other neighborhoods to expand the pool of skilled, trained neighborhood leaders; and 4) The conference will be held Saturday morning, March 21, from 8:00 a.m. until 11:45 a.m. in the County Office Building. The confer- ence is free and open to county residents and will include a general opening session led by Selena Cuffee-Glen of the City of Richmond's Neighborhood Services Office as well as a number of smaller workshops on specific topics, a preliminary list of which is attached (on file in the Clerk's office). Participants will be able to choose from among the topics offered in those workshops that are of particular interest to them personally. The target audiences for this conference are neighborhood residents who are interested in forming an association or strengthening an existing group as well as those neighborhood leaders who head already established groups that may need more information on specific topics or who want to share their experiences/network with their peers. Members of the Board of Supervisors are cordially invited to attend all or a portion of the conference and are encouraged to publicize the conference February 18, 1998 Page 3 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) 000003 among their constituents. Any names ~of potential attendees should be for- warded to the Community Resources Office. ~ No. 5.3 1997 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Depart- ment of Planning and Community Development, was received for iinformation. Item No. 5.4 1997 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Depart- ment of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item No. 5.5 Copy of letter dated February 10, 1998, from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Anna Rugo concerning the status of Route 605, Durrett Ridge Road, was received for information. Item No. 5.6 Memorandum dated February 4, 1998, from Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re; Stone Robinson Elementary School Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, was received for information. The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 1998, unanimously found this request to be in compli- ance with the Comprehensive Plan with the understanding that the Engineering Department will conduct a review and develop a plan to address erosion and storm water issues for the entire portion of the property which will be County property. Attached please find a staff report which outlines this request (the report is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesi- tate to contact me. Ms. Humphris asked that staff express appreciation to anyone who might have provided assistance in this project. Item No. 5.7 Copy of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company to revise its fuel factor pursuant to Va. Code §56-249.6 (Case No. PUE970904), was received for informa- tion. Item No. 5.8 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 3, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.9 Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors meeting for December 16, 1997, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 5.10 November 1997 Financial Report, was received for informa- tion. Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on the FY 1998/1999-2002/2003 Capital Improvement Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1998.) Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, made a presentation on the proposed Capital Improvement Program. The Board approved a proposed FY1998/99-FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program of $47,546,847 at the February 4, 1998 meeting to be brought to this public hearing. She provided a handout listing all the proposed General Government and School Division projects, their costs and the fiscal years in which the projects will be completed. Also listed at the end of each division are the expanded projects that would restore funding back to the level originally recommended by the CIP Technical Committee (the handout is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). February 18, 1998 (Regular Ni~h~ ~ing) Page 4 000004 The Board's proposed FY1998/99-FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) totals $47,546,847. The fully restored CIP budget would total $54,857,223 if additional projects of $7,310,376 were fully funded. Addi- tional revenues of $877,000 would be required in FY99 to restore these projects. The Schools represent approximately 61 percent of the projects, General Government represents 38 percent, and tourism and stormwater represent the balance. Fifty percent of the proposed revenues are to come from VPSA bonds, 33 percent from a CIP transfer, borrowed government funds (mainly for the Juvenile Detention Facility and the 800MHz radio system) are eight percent, E- 911 revenues represent three percent, the tourism fund is at about one percent of the total, and other local funds make up the five percent balance. Administration and Court projects include a computer upgrade fund ($1,000,000), a facility maintenance/repair fund for the County Office Building, Crozet School, ($2,010,500), and court facilities maintenance/repair fund ($618,750), for a total of $3,629,250. Public safety projects include a fire/rescue building/equipment fund ($1,624,216), a Police NCIC upgrade ($15,000), a Police LAN upgrade ($165,000), a public safety facility study ($30,000), a Police transport vehicle ($40,000), an 800MHz communication system ($2,926,623), and the Juvenile Detention Facility ($1,644,792), for a total of $6,445,631. Highway/transportation projects include highway revenue sharing (1,980,000), the Meadow Creek bike/pedestrian path ($20,000), the Greenbrier Drive Extended bike/pedestrian path ($75,000), Greenbrier/Hydraulic streetlights ($19,250), the Airport Road sidewalk ($39,600), the Georgetown Road sidewalk (460,000), the Sidewalk Construction Program (4250,000), and the Neighborhood Plan Program ($242,825), for a total of $2,686,675. Library projects include a library computer upgrade ($100,000), and maintenance/repair ($99,500), for a total of $199,500. Parks and Recreation projects include Walnut Creek Improvements ($51,025), the Scottsville Community Center ($172,580), Crozet Park athletic fields ($544,000), the Southern Albemarle Organization Park ($100,000), athletic field development ($580,720, PVCC softball field lighting ($166,000), athletic field irrigation ($136,500), Towe Park irrigation ($20,000), Monticello High School recreation facilities ($68,500), the Stone Robinson playfield ($200,000), Chris Greene Lake property ($113,400), Ivy Landfill recreation access ($330,000), and maintenance/repair projects ($232,630) for a total of $2,715,355. Utility/stormwater/tourism projects include closure of the Keene Landfill ($372,937), the Master Drainage Program ($120,000), drainage/erosion correction ($100,000), a Route 250-Route 616 turn lane ($100,000), Ivy Road Bike Lanes ($237,000), and the Rivanna Greenway ($233,000). School Division projects include the Burley Library addition ($2,177,500), the Brownsville addition ($1,210,000), Southern Elementary ($30,000), Cale addition/alterations ($880,000), the CATEC Cosmetology Lab ($38,234), a Crozet kitchen serving line ($65,000), High School technology labs ($344,000), the Monticello High School addition ($330,000), a vehicular maintenance facility ($143,000), Albemarle High School Phase II & III ($649,000), Murray High renovation ($864,000), and administrative technology ($330,000), instructional technology ($1,980,045), the Henley addition ($628,000), Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) building renovations ($1,244,000), Northern Area Elementary ($8,414,000), the Red Hill expansion ($1,260,000), the Walton renovation ($121,650), the Jouett addition ($166,650), Northern Elementary recreation ($500,000), chiller replacement ($633,200), ADA structural changes ($30,000), and maintenance/repair ($4,112,820), for a total of $28,565,099. Expanded expenditures total $7,310,376. Schools account for 81 percent, administration for nine percent, public safety for one percent, highway and transportation for seven percent, and parks and recreation for two percent. February 18, 1998 (Regular Night M~eting) Page 5 0'00005 Revenues that will be needed to replace the $7,310,376 in projects will be the VPSA bonds (66 percent), a CIP transfer to General Government (19 percent), and a CIP transfer to Schools (15 percent). Expanded General Government projects include a County computer upgrade ($80,000), facility maintenance/repair ($353,307), Court facility mainte- nance/repair ($222,500), fire/rescue building/equipment ($47,116), highway revenue sharing ($520,000), sidewalk construction ($21,077), and the Mint Springs concession stand, which will be deferred until the sixth year (45,000), for a total of $1,289,000. Expanded School projects include the Jack Jouett addition ($641,850), the Walton addition ($483,350), Greer HVAC ($284,000), Walton HVAC ~($370,000), WAHS window replacement ($230,000), Hollymead gym/restrooms ($805,500), Henley office/classrooms ($440,000), the Monticello addition ($981,083), ADA improve- ments ($215,000), and maintenance/repair projects ($1,482,593), for a total of $5,933,376. At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the public heariang. As there was no one present from the public who wished to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas said the money was saved this year by postponing many projects, but next year the Board will have to put a large amount of money into the budget to fund them, if the projects are to be accomplished. Ms. Humphris said she is uncomfortable that the Board is not funding all the projects this year, but it has no choice but to approve the Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked what was included in the Burley Library addition. Mr. A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, said the project includes a technology lab and classrooms, in addition to the library. Mr. Martin said he still has doubts as to whether the Ivy Landfill can be used for recreational purposes. Agenda Item No. 7. Year Secondary Road Plan. February 9, 1998.) PUBLIC HEARING on the FY 1998/1999-2003/2004 Six (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and Mr. Cilimberg made the presentation. The Board has previously received a report, outlining the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Regarding the Hatton Ferry, statistics were provided for 1997 ridership. He spoke with representatives from Buckingham County, who have said the cost will have to be entirely funded by Albemarle County. He did not ask whether they would be willing to contribute in the future. Mr. Cilimberg had no explanation for the increased costs, which have been paid for as a contract by VDoT. The Ferry has been continued for its tourist value. Years ago there was discussion concerning whether to continue to fund the Ferry, but the decision was made to keep it, since it was a valuable tourist operation. If Revenue Sharing Funds after FY1998/99 are removed from the CIP, it would cause a one- to two-and-a-half year delay for projects $12 through $19 on the list, and seven projects would be deleted from the Six Year Plan altogether due to a lack of funds. This is based on the assumption that the County receives $500,000 per year from the state, and the County matches the $500,000. Since 1990, there has been an average of $884,000 in combined County and state funding per year. There has been a great deal of input concerning the Catterton Road paving project at Route 667, both at the Planning Commission level and during public discussions. The Planning Commission discussed extending the road an additional 1.5 miles to the west of the current limits of the project, but did not recommend it, and suggested it be reviewed again next year. The Planning Department received a petition from landowners who support the improvements, and a couple of letters in opposition. The project is not scheduled to be underway for several years, so a delay will not affect the project. There was a meeting today regarding moving ahead with the paving of Route 737, Mountain Vista Road. The project is lower on the list, with a June 2003 completion date. Rights-of-way are available. Mr. Cilimberg said the February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 6 O0000G project could be moved ahead of Route 708, Secretary's Road, because there are no rights-of-way available on that project. The Planning Commission's decision, because these projects are not scheduled soon, was that these projects could be included in next year's Six Year Secondary Plan. Regarding paving Routes 645 and 646 (this one is not included in the Plan), Goldengrove Baptist Church submitted a petition requesting paving both of those roads. They are so far down the list that he felt they could be considered in next year's Six Year Secondary Plan. Ms. Tucker is on a tight schedule to get the Plan approved and underway. Funding is only needed for one year at this time. By fall, the FY1999/2000 Plan will be ready to present. Ms. Humphris asked if a letter in opposition to this project was received. Mr. Cilimberg replied, ~Yes." Mr. David Benish, Ms. Angela Tucker and Mr. Marshall met with citizens to explain the paving process for Mountain Vista Road. They told them the road could be considered in next year's Plan. Everyone present agreed to move Item #53 (Secretary's Road) below #57 because the rights-of-way are not available. The state does not want to get into buying rights-of-way. Ms. Tucker said the reason to reprioritize these two projects has to do with the availability of right-of-way. Ms. Thomas said the report erroneously indicates that the right-of-way is not yet available on Route 769, but she said it is. Mr. Martin said rights-of-way should not be purchased because then people might not offer them voluntarily, holding up projects and making them more expensive. Regarding Catterton Road, Ms. Humphris said she could not tell what is and is not to be paved. Mr. Cilimberg said Route 667 from its current hard surface section to the intersection with Route 776 has been in the Six Year Plan for several years. The remaining section from the intersection to Route 601 was discussed by the Planning Commission as an addition so that the whole road would be paved. There are opponents and supporters of paving the potential addition. There may be some opposition to the first section, as well. Mr. Marshall asked if rights-of-way were available. Mr. Cilimberg said they are for the first section. They may not be available for the addition. Ms. Tucker said the section already in the Plan, from Route 667 to Route 776, has easements and rights-of-way available. Regarding the addition west of Route 776 to the project, VDoT does not have all right-of-way available. Most of the property.is available for dedication and has been dedicated, but easements for construction will be needed. Dedication of rights-of-way had become routine, but easements were not taken into consideration back then, and they are missing for the western part. If property owners refuse, VDoT will not be able to pave that section. Mr. Martin said since the project is scheduled so far off, it may resolve itself. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. John C. Martin, of 5115 Catterton Road, said he lives on the western portion of the road. He is distressed, as are neighbors, at the idea of paving this extension. At the December 16 Planning Commission meeting, the extension was suggested by Mr. Finley, who owns most of the property along that road. Mr. Martin said he spoke in opposition at that time. The Planning Department recommended this be deferred, as did VDoT. He understood that to mean the addition was put off. Then he received a letter from Mr. Lee Weibel, who wants the additional section paved, and included a deed for Mr. Martin's signature to provide the easement that would be needed. He said he will not sign the deed. He opposes paving because the road is a historic road. He then presented a map from 1866. In 1784 Michie Tavern was constructed, so the road is very old. It is a beautiful road that should be left unpaved. The electric company came in and mowed down areas to rubble, that had been used by many people for recreational purposes. Paving would destroy his 4.179 acres. He was also worried about damage to the root system of the trees. He asked why tax money would be spent here when it could be better spent elsewhere. Mr. James Cox, is an attorney representing Mr. Timothy Gould, owner of parcels 69 and 70 on Map 17. Mr. Gould is adamantly oppoSed to the addition for reasons provided in a letter previously sent to the Board. He is con- cerned about the changing character of the area and the effect on his prop- 0O000'7 February 18, 1998 Page 7 (Regular Night Meeting) erty, as well as increased traffic on the road. He said the Board should not alter the decision of the Planning Commission to not include this project in the Plan. Mr. Robert W. Estes, from Goldengrove Christian Church, said the existing road is a narrow gravel one, and part of it is very steep. Currently gravel has to be continually applied to keep it passable. A school bus has a problem when meeting oncoming traffic. He asked that the Board look into the matter. He added that several other people were present who were in support of the project. Ms. Pamela Gould, who lives on the road, said it is one of the most beautiful roads in the county. It offers extraordinary views, and she uses it recreationally. She said the effort to pave it is put forward by someone who wants to subdivide the land and make money on it. She asked the Board to disapprove the paving. Ms. Janice Hunter, of 5283 Catteron Road, said she is opposed to paving and widening the road because it would destroy her property. She never wants it paved. Mr. Chris Chapman spoke regarding Route 637, Dick Woods Road. He said he wanted to be sure it did not get bumped from the schedule. Mr. Perkins said that road is scheduled to be paved in December 1999. Mr. Chapman noted that the road is dangerous and needs to be paved. Rights-of-way have been donated. Mr. Steve Blaine spoke, representing Mr. Tom Saunders, saying that Mr. Saunders opposes paving the portion of Catterton Road already scheduled in the Six Year Plan. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the right-of-way was dedicated at some point. With no one else present to speak, Mr. Marshall the closed public hearing. Mr. Martin made the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve the FY 1998/1999-2003/2004 Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the FY1998/1999-2003/2004 Six Year Secondary Road Plan as follows: February 18, 1998 Page 8 (Regular Night Meeting) 000008 II <D (D 03 0 ~ --  11 '~ '-- o o o o g~ o o o ~ o ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ o o 0 ~ ~ ,, February 18, 1998 Page 9 (Regular Night Meeting) 000009 II ~ ~ [ '~ '~ - ,, = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 88> 88= II 88 ~ " 8 8 ° 0 ° 0 8 8 0 oo o o o o ,,oooooooo~~~ ~~o '- II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~o o ~ o II II II ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o o o ~ , ,, .... II ~ II ~ II ~ o~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ II II II II II II ~ ~ II ~ ~ II February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 10 0000:1.0 February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 11 February 18, 1998 Page 12 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000 Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-97-01. Still Meadows (Signs 63&64). PL~DLIC I.IEARI:TC on a ~t ~ .................. ~..~ ~.. ~ acs .............. ~ ax ~ .~ .... ~lan.~ ~- ~-~ (Applicant requests deferral to March 4, 1998 ) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1998. ) (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 8:30 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman said that, after speaking with the applicant's representa- tive and members of the community, the Board needs to discuss this item further. It will be scheduled for the day meeting if there is an agreement between the developer and the community. If issues are still outstanding, it would then be heard on the evening of March 18, 1998. Mr. Bowerman made the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to continue the public hearing on ZMA-97-01 until March 4, 1998. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (Note: Mr. Martin returned at 8:35 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs 18&19). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. Loc on N side of Route 691 {Jarman's Gap Rd) approx 1.3 mls W of Crozet. TM55, Pcls 65&6SA (portion). Access to the property from Route 691. [The property is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 du/ac) in the Community of Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan.] White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff is reluctant to support a request which can be viewed as contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, however, implementation measures of higher densities remain under study. Based on density and character of surrounding development as well as demon- strated market demand, the proposed density of 2.5 dwellings per acre is recommended for approval. Staff recommends approval and acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The Planning Commission, at its February 3, 1998 meeting, forwarded the petition to the Board of Supervisors with no recommen- dation, after a 3-3 split vote. Mr. Davis said this is in effect a vote of denial, according to the rules of the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has received signed proffers from the appli- cant. One change in the proffers was made earlier in the day, calling for a change in the spacing of street trees to provide planting of trees at 40-foot intervals, so that they are staggered every 20 feet on either side of the streets. The Planning Commission spent a great deal of time on this item, considering the pros and cons relating to the Crozet Community Study (CCS), the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Area Initiatives Study (DAIS). Those in opposition were concerned with how the project was laid out on the land, saying that the plan is not in keeping with the growth area's character and style. Those in support felt the County had not outlined design require- ments, so they did not feel they could deny the request since it met a number of guidelines and standards. One Commissioner said he did not feel the developer should be held hostage to development area initiatives that may come forward later this year. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Blaine, Attorney with McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP, provided a slide presentation after introducing Ms. Barbara Fried; Mr. Mark Fried; Mr. Ramey Kemp, a Certified Traffic Engineer; Mr. Tom Muncaster, Project Engineer; and Mr. Charlie Kieler and February 18, 1998 Page 13 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Paul St. Pierre, from the Fried Company. These are principals with the applicant. Mr. Blaine said general principles for land use include accommodating new growth in the County within the development areas, encouraging greater utilization of land in designated development areas by achieving higher gross densities through residential and non-residential development, and encouraging in-fill development of vacant lands and developing under-used land within the designated development areas. The Grayrock development accommodates new growth in development areas, achieves higher density than the existing zoning allows, and is an effective use of under-used areas within the development areas. Thirty-four percent of growth in the County is in the rural areas, based on building permits. Single-family housing type makes up 43 percent, so only 57 percent of new growth is being accomplished in the growth areas. The Grayrock property meets the demand for the single-family housing type by supplying it within the Crozet Community growth area. Existing zoning permits only 37 dwellings, or seven dwellings per acre density. The proposed zoning would be limited to 131 dwellings, or 2.4 dwellings per acre. The proposal is consistent with surrounding and permitted developed densities such as Orchard Acres, Waylands Grant and Jarman Gap Estates. The CCS was conducted in 1995, and was the result of citizen participa- tion. It contained land use recommendations for this property at a medium density of one to four dwelling units per acre. The proposal, of 2.4 dwelling units per acre is directly in line with density recommendations contained in the study. The developer held three meetings with neighbors and was invited to attend the Crozet Community Association meeting. The overwhelming sentiment from the neighbors was concern about the Comprehensive Plan's call for urban density. They preferred a density more in line with that recommended by the CCS. The developer has proffered a maximum density of 131 single-family dwelling unit. Neighbors were concerned about the effect of the project on schools. The developer obtained statistics on the possible impact of the development on schools. According to those figures, the development would add the following number of students to each area school: 23 Crozet Elementary School, 11 Henley Middle School and 13 Western Albemarle High School students, which falls within capacity guidelines. There is a proposed 50 foot buffer along the Jarmans Gap Estates Boundary, a 20 foot open space buffer along Jarmans Gap Road, 12 acres of open space and passive/active recreation areas for common benefit to two communi- ties. The developer also added a picnic and basketball area, and said sidewalks could be added. Trails will be provided to make the development pedestrian-friendly. The Planning Commission was concerned about the depths and slopes of the banks. The depths average between two and five feet from the bank, so there is no steep drop-off. The County's Stormwater Management Plan's regulations require only a pro-rata contribution to the Lickinghole Creek Facility. The Gray Rock proffer provides on-site best management practices including ponds in their natural state, open space and a system of grass-lined swales, to address water quality and flow from the project. The applicant conducted a traffic study. The existing levels of services is at the highest rating on the roads surrounding the project. The projected level service of "A" will not change. VDoT made comments, addressed in the applicant's proffers. The key to road improvements on Jarmans Gap Road is the projected funding for those improvements in 2002. In conclusion, Mr. Blaine said the public facilities exist to support the project. The project will further the Comprehensive Plan's directives to direct development to growth areas, to promote in-fill development, and the proposed density is consistent with the recommendations of the CCS. The proposed density is consistent and in harmony with the surrounding land uses. February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 14 000014 (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 8:20 p.m.) Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Berman, a resident of Miller School Road, said he has watched the gradual degradation of the rural character of the area. Traffic has increased greatly over 11 years. With all the existing developments, population in the area is going to double. There will be a need for increased services, and taxes will not pay for the necessary infrastructure. Approval of 37 units on 53 acres would be fine. Growth is normal and is accepted. However, this proposal is not ~growth". High density housing should not be present in rural areas. He has heard members of the Board of Supervisors state their opinion on maintaining the beauty and rural character of the County. Allowing such high density zoning will destroy that character. Additional, he disagreed with the statistics provided on the effect of the development on the school system. He opposed the application. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 8:23 p.m.) Mr. Kim Kepchar, a resident of Yanceys Mill, said he is concerned about development. The Comprehensive Plan should remain intact, and should not be changed just to satisfy a developer, although he does not oppose development. He also questioned the school multiplier. Regarding the effects on traffic, Mr. Kepchar said the County must build the infrastructure before people move in. Route 797 is currently very narrow and hilly, and will not safely support much more traffic. He is also worried about the quality of water in the County. The stormwater holding system should require money to be placed in escrow to be sure the system is maintained through the years. Mr. Marshall noted that the Fiscal Impact Module, which provides costs of infrastructure, was the source of the school figures. Mr. Paul Grady said it is too bad the application is being presented before the DAIS is complete. After that study is complete, the property may actually be recommended for denser development than proposed. He is not sure how the lots were drawn, but the Board should defer this request until the DAIS is finished. Mr. Robert Armstrong, an area resident, said 50 percent of the western boundary, an old colonial roadbed, borders his five acre piece of property. He assumes he will have to deal with six lots bordering his property. He does not like the design of the development. The proposed buffer area easement means owners could construct fences or walls up to six feet tall and remove underbrush for landscaping. He said it would be preferable to have a stip of land deeded to the homeowners' association. Mrs Humphris confirmed that could mean several different fence types could be constructed along Mr. Armstrong's property line. Mr. Charles Trachta disagreed with the school estimates. The Rio Hill Coalition, when considering the Still Meadows Development, was told that 140 units would bring in 57 children. This developer suggests that 131 units will bring in 47 students. However, when you look at the Rain Tree community, begun in the late 1980's, with 160 homes, it has produced over 220 students. Eventually the Rio Coalition agreed it would be beneficial for the developer and residents to sit down and talk. He suggested the developer defer the application and further discuss the project with the community. Mr. Donald Lyon, President of the Rain Tree Homeowners' Association and a member of the Rio Hill Coalition, agreed with Mr. Tractor's comments. Communities, including Crozet, want to work with the County and developers. Through compromise and goodwill all will benefit. Mr. Dick Brandt, an area resident, said he previously sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors. He is concerned about the readiness of the infra- structure. If the County approves this zoning, over 200 housing units will be approved. In 1985 seventy units were approved for the back 20 acres. This area should be reserved for less dense overall development. Route 684 cannot handle the increased traffic. This 74 acre development is 74 acres, and is inside the growth area, but it is close to the border of rural areas. Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, said the questions are straight- forward. Mr. William Reiley, a Planning Commission member, said Crozet is being asked to absorb much more growth than other areas. Residents deserve a February 18, 1998 Page 15 (Regular Night Meeting) O000,'l better development. Higher density brings greater responsibilities. This property will set a precedent for acceptable design standards, and those standards must be appropriate. The proposed development will profit a few people, but put a blight on the neighborhood. He suggested the supervisors would not accept this development in their neighborhoods. The second question is whether those affected by the design will have input into the design. He questioned whether good design in Albemarle County has to wait until the results of the DAIS Committee is complete. He said the answer is, UNo." Not a single item requires one change in the law. The concern is that the developer gets all the benefits of high density with no benefits to the community. Mr. Bob Kirchman then gave a slide presentation. He said the Board should have knowledge of the community being affected. Slopes and drainage should preclude putting townhouses in the area. If Jarman's Gap Road is going to be improved, a development of a different density is acceptable. He showed a diagram with an alternative density and design, with a different access to Jarman's Gap Road, based on the form of the land. He showed sketches of different types of houses, patio homes, town homes on narrower lots, detached homes and single family homes he felt would better fit into the existing neighborhood, which represented a broad price range. His said his proposal builds on the unique quality of a rural town instead of urban sprawl. Mr. Keith Ford said he is confused about what is going on in the County. Many people are criticizing the proposed subdivision. However, when many people put their land in ~open space", not everyone was happy with that decision. His understanding was that this was done to move density into growth areas. Tonight people who supported the Open Space Plan are against this development, which actually calls for less density than the Bowen Tract next door. Mr. Ford said he conducted a survey of a one mile radius of Gray Rock, by talking to residents and merchants. Many are concerned that apart- ments would be built. Some are interested in bringing work to the area. The neighbors like the fact that the plan called for community meetings, and that the developers did not try to cover up what they were proposing. He asked the Board to approve the application. He submitted a petition with 109 signatures of people who supported the proposal. Mr. Mike Marshall, who was a member of the CCS Committee, said the proposal is not in line with the CCS. People in Crozet are against develop- ment. Gray Rock Farm, which was the subject of rezoning in the mid-80's, was accepted as an area that would be developed. It is unfair that the rule on density might now be changed. The main feature of the CCS was to create a vital downtown in Crozet and to avoid a strip mall development on Route 250. Sidewalks are needed for pedestrians, and it may be desirable to have a rezoning overlay for the historic business district. Unless the central business district is forged, growth must occur at a very small rate. Crozet already has three new large subdivisions which doubled its population. There were three points of view during the CCS: 1) growth is desired, 2) growth is inevitable, but must be made pretty, and 3) ~to Hell" with any growth. Constituents' feelings have changed since that time. Last year Mr. Hunter Craig asked that the Crozet growth area boundary be increased. There was public uproar, and the request was withdrawn. Anti-growth sentiment is very strong now, and the community realizes it is not prepared for the overwhelming and changing character of Crozet. He asked the Board to leave the zoning as it stands. Mr. John Michelson, co-author of the CCS report, said the report ~was misused at the Planning Commission's meeting. The development must be well- planned, and in the community's best interest. If going from 106 to 135 units can generate such great public interest and participation, going from 37 to 131 units should receive the same kind of support from Planning staff and the Board. The community should be given the opportunity to participate in the planning with the developer. Ms. Lisa Harman, an Earlysville resident, said it seems the purpose of the Development Area Initiatives Study (DAIS) is to work on the issue of growth. Design elements are very important to the community. The Board should wait for the results of the DAIS before taking action on this applica- tion. The CCS information is available and can be used now. There is a difference between telling people what you are going to do and involving them in the process. She asked the Board to allow further work between the developer and the residents. February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 16 0000:1.6 Mr. Sandy Wilcox, a longtime resident of the area, said he is concerned about what occurs in Crozet. He is not against growth, but two statistics concern him. Regarding the proposed increased number of students from the development, he said figures are completely off, because they do not reflect the additional students generated by the 70 townhouses and 50 lots east of Crozet which have already been approved. He believes the existing roads will not support the additional traffic. This affects more than Jarman's Gap Road. People will be using Half Mile Branch Road into Yancey's Mill, because it is the closest route to schools, Route 250 and 1-64. Although the area is not in the growth area, that is the area that will be affected by traffic, and it should not be discounted. Half Mile Branch Road already has hills, is narrow, has no shoulders, has deep ditches and is subject to accidents. He believes there will be an additional 1300 trips per day, in addition to those created by the other developments already approved. Ms. Cindy Brashear, who also worked on the CCS, questioned the credibil- ity of the proffers. At Emerald Ridge Subdivision, proffers were made and enforcement efforts have been disastrous. They are not enforceable. Erosion problems already exist. This development was prepared hastily and the developer has not examined the lay of the land. Crozet is a unique community, and it is premature to change the zoning at this time. Mr. Eric Strucko, a member of the Housing Committee and the DAIS Committee, said people know that development will occur. The Board does not have to wait for the DAIS Committee to finish its work before implementing decisions already in place. He encouraged deferral to tell developers it is important to involve the community and to work with citizens. Ms. Karen Friedlander addressed the school issue, saying that the Crozet community is dedicated to its schools. Current vacancies in the schools will soon be gone due to students coming from other developments. There is not an adequate infrastructure to support the additional students. There is no more money available to expand and improve schools now, and she wondered what would happen when more growth occurs. Ms. Amy Albright, a Crozet resident, expresed concern about the impact of this development on the schools. The current infrastructure will not handle the growth. Residents are also concerned about what is going to happen to downtown Crozet. She asked the Board to, at a minimum, defer the item to allow time for the developer to work with the community to create affordable housing people will be proud to live in. She added that this decision will affec~ other communities as well. There being no further public comments, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. .~ (At 9:16 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:27 p.m.) Mr. Marshall allowed the applicant to address statements made by the public. Mr. Steve Blaine said that, based on comments made during the public hearing, he understands there is a desire on the part of the community to be involved in the design. However, there is no one single community vision for a design. The developer arrived at the proposed design based on guidelines provided in the current Ordinance. Public participation was involved in the Comprehensive Plan to direct growth into growth areas, and the Plan is reviewed every five years. There has been public participation in the writing of the Subdivision Ordinance, and there have been public hearings and study groups. Regarding urban design elements, the Ordinance was written with the rural areas in mind, not the urban areas. Comments were made concerning trails, which have been addressed in the plan. Concerns about water quality were addressed through the storm water management plan. Regarding school figures, Mr. Blaine said Mr. A1 Reaser provided the statistics. Mr. Ramey Kemp, a traffic engineer with Ramey Kemp and Associates, prepared the traffic study. He said he is familiar with VDoT and traffic study procedures. His company took counts at Routes 684 and 240 during peak hours. The alignment on Route 684 is not ideal, but this development will not create a problem, since most people use Route 240 to exit the area. Mr. Perkins asked about the price of the proposed houses. Mr. Blaine said they will cost between $150,000 and $200,000. February 18, 1998 Page 17 (Regular Night Meeting) 00001? Mr. Perkins asked for further explanation on the proposed buffer. Mr. Blaine said the 50 foot buffer will run along the entire western boundary. The minimum lot size will be 10,290 square feet, and the depth must be at least 140 feet. He added that an easement provides the same protection as open space, and the homeowners association can enforce it. The intention is that the homeowners will not put anything there. Mr. Bowerman asked whether this type of buffer has been used elsewhere in the County. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said some had been used by the University Real Estate Foundation, and Peacock Hill is a residential example. This type of buffer is not commonly used, because usually planned residential developments call for common open space. Ms. Fried said the proffer states there can be no disturbance except for additional landscaping or to clean up underbrush. She said her company has successfully done this in other locations, including at Wintergreen. Lot owners are protective of their land. Proffers are an agreement with the County, and it would be a zoning violation if one was not honored. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Davis to address the enforcement of proffers. Mr. Davis said proffers can be enforced as zoning violations, and the homeown- ers association would have enforcement capability. He said homeowners associations may not be very successful, but the Planning Department might be able to help correct violations. Ms. Thomas said covenants cannot be enforced by the County, and Mr. Davis said that was true. The 50 foot buffer area would, however, be enforceable by the County. Mr. Marshall asked if that meant homeowners could cut down trees. Mr. Davis said the County could cite a violation of the Zoning Ordinance if a tree was cut down, but it would be hard to correct. Fines could be levied, or civil action could be taken. Mr. Lyons said the developer is the homeowners association until 51 percent of the lots have been sold. Mr. Bowerman asked what plan was presented at the community meetings. Mr. Blaine said a similar plan was demonstrated, but not all the proffers were available. They had begun with a proposed 131 original lots with open space around the lakes, but there was no pathway to the lake. Mr. Bowerman asked what modifications were made to the original plan, besides the proffers, based upon community input. Mr. Blaine said the following items were added: the buffer and pathways, open dedicated space along Jarman's Gap Road, a tot lot, a picnic shelter, a basketball court and trails which might become part of a Crozet Greenway Corridor, if one is developed. He added that the concerns about water quality were addressed by the proffers. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any consideration of a planned residential development. Mr. Blaine said, UNo." Mr. Perkins asked when the DAIS will be completed. Mr. David Tice said it is expected to be completed by September. Regarding the 20 foot buffer on Jarman's Gap Road, Ms. Humphris asked how it is measured. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be 20 feet from the edge of the 30 feet that they would dedicate for the widening of Jarman's Gap Road. Therefore it would be 50 feet from the center of the road. Ms. Thomas noted that the County can mandate landscaping, and she wondered if that would require a buffer. Mr. Cilimberg said it would not necessarily require a buffer. Staff can require, under standard zoning requirements and with the Planning Commission's approval, that double frontage lots that back up to a road be screened from the road that it backs up to. Screening can be handled through an open space area, or it can be handled on the lot itself. Ms. Humphris asked what has been the usual depth of screening. Mr. Keeler said there is no required depth. The proffers reflect what is in the Ordi- nance, which is a requirement that a double staggered row of evergreens be planted 15 feet on centers. The County cannot require the 20 foot strip of open space. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant can try to accomplish this through an open space provision, but the reason they got a double frontage lot is because the lots back up to the right-of-way. Ms. Humphris said 20 feet is a short distance. Mr. Cilimberg said it is adequate to handle a double row of evergreens. Ms. Humphris asked if it was customary to require things in proffers that the County could require anyway. Mr. Davis said it may not be customary, but it is not improper. Staff is just pointing out what is required and what is considered going "above and beyond". The same result could perhaps be February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 18 O000 .$ attained through the existing Ordinances, but these proffers do not diminish what the County can already require. Ms. Humphris said she does not understand January 7, 1998 and January 22, 1998 letters received from V DoT. The first letter says VDoT wanted a proffer to be made of $150,000 to build turn lanes with the proposed Route 691 road project. However, the January 22, 1998 letter did not specify a dollar amount. She said the proffer was for $65,500, or $500 per lot. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant will have to build turn lanes. Dollars proffered are toward improvements to Jarman's Gap Road that are in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Ms. Thomas asked about the left-hand turn lane recommended by V DOT. Mr. Keeler said VDoT recommended a left-hand turn lane, however, it is not required. The proposal to improve Route 691 was for a two-lane road. That does not address other left-hand traffic turn lane generators, such as Orchard Acres. Mr. Kemp said VDoT agreed with the developer's analysis that a left- hand turn lane was not required. Mr. Marshall said the January 22, 1998 letter said that if a left-hand lane was required, the applicant would be required to pay for it, but that is not addressed in the proffer. Mr. Davis said if it was determined that the left-hand lane is required by the develop- ment, it would have to be proffered, but it could only be required if it is necessitated by this development. Ms. Thomas asked when that would be determined. Mr. Davis said it would be based on traffic statistics. Mr. Keeley said the $150,000 figure recommended to be proffered was for all the turn lanes. The right-turn lane will be necessary, and that amount would cover the cost for both lanes. Mr. Cilimberg said the left-hand turn lane is typically a function of when the development comes, in relationship to what is there now. There may come a time in the future when it is required, and it can be required without a proffer, if the timing is right. Mr. Keeler said the speed limit on Route 691 from the site of Dr. Bain's former office to Route 240 is 25 miles per hour. Route 684 is posted at 35 miles per hour, and staff has asked V DoT to look at Route 691 between the current posted speed limit and Route 684 to ensure consistency. Ms. Humphris asked how maintenance of the storm water plan will be handled. Mr. Cilimberg said the measures would be subject to Engineering Department approval. It is required that all facilities have an agreement between the facility owners and the County. Mr. Davis said the storm water facility would call for a recorded instrument, provided someone (perhaps the homeowners association) be responsible to annually inspect the facility and maintain it. If maintenance is not done, the County could do it and charge the cost back to the owner. This is not routinely done, because the County has not run into problems yet. Ms. Humphris asked if such facilities have been inspected. Mr. Davis said the issue is handled on a complaint basis. Ms. Humphris asked whether ball could be played in the open space near the ponds. Mr. Cilimberg said the tot lot and basketball court were the areas to be used for active recreation; the rest is only for trails. Ms. Humphris mentioned the proffer that the inner parcel access will expire in seven years. She suggested the County might want to have this continued if the other property is not developed by then. Mr. Cilimberg said there are lots of points of connection to other areas that were dedicated as part of development over the years that have not been utilized. Some of these have been done as part of decisions the Board has made, that would not be utilized. The County is in a position to ask the applicant to extend the timeframe, but they are not willing to do that at this time. Mr. Perkins asked if that connection would be conditional upon the adjoining property also wanting a connection. Mr. Cilimberg said it is desireable to have a connec- tion to other neighborhoods, and he added that there will be a need to have a second point of access for emergencies, as the area develops. Mr. Perkins disagreed with Mr. Rieley's statement that Crozet is getting more than its share of development. According to the Building Report prepared by the Planning Department, the White Hall District had 116 building units, and Crozet got 59 of those, out of a total of 905 units in the County. The rural area was about 272 units. It used to be that 60 percent of growth was going into the rural areas and 40 percent was going into the growth areas. Those numbers have switched over the years. February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 19 Regarding the previous zoning in this area, Mr. Perkins said he does not see how someone can build 70 townhouses with no sewer connection. Now that the sewer line is in place, growth has expanded. In the 1977 Comprehensive Plan, Crozet was projected to have 13,000 people by now, but it does not. Mr. Perkins said he has asked the Fried's what kind of house would be built, adding that those proposed by other people were two-story homes. However, the Fried's suggested single-story houses will be preferred by an aging population. He said that good design is subjective. Mr. Marshall said he continues to hear how wealthy Albemarle County is. However, most people in the County are in the working class. The County does not have the power to implement an income tax. It only has the power to tax real estate, personal property and meals. He said this takes the costs out of the pocket of the working class. The County is losing the car tax, and he hopes those monies will be replaced. He marveled at the growth in the County, and said the County cannot keep destroying the beauty of the rural area. That is what the Board is trying to do. He said growth must be addressed in the urban ring and growth areas. Growth cannot be stopped, but must be con- trolled. Mr. Bowerman said this is a growing community, due to amenities and a good quality of life. The Board's job is to try to manage the resources it has efficiently, while recognizing property rights and quality of life issues. The infill development policy and downzoning were attempts to reduce by-right development in the rural areas. The County has made progress, having gone from 60 percent of growth in rural areas to 37 percent. It is more efficient to deliver services to the public if the public is in some sort of density. When approaching infill development, the Board was aware that not everyone would be happy with every project. If there has been no participation between the developer and the citizens to shape the environment which they live, there will be conflict. Mr. Bowerman cited examples of cooperation within the Rio District, and said the community ended up buying into those processes through education, the efforts of the Board and the willingness to make some sacrifices for the good of the community. The County must listen to its citizens and the developer, and should not hold the developer hostage to the DAIS Committee. If the Board thinks this is the best development it can get and the process has run its course, the Board should approve the application. However, he does not think the process has run its course. He believes there can be at least a grudging agreement reached. Rezoning restrictions and planned residential developments take away a great deal of control from the Board. People will buy whatever is built. Density and amenities are the real issues. He suggested the item be deferred. Mr. Perkins said the Board needs to go further. He is concerned about what will happen to the northern part of the property. He would like to see a plan for the whole piece of land. He asked for suggestions as to what should happen. Mr. Bowerman said community members who have a stake here should be involved in the development. There is no shortage of ideas or willingness to participate. People will agree with reasonable use, and what has been going on cannot continue. Ms. Thomas said if the County is successful at achieving infill, it will be unique in the nation, because it is difficult to accomplish. At least Crozet has a plan, which helps. Now the community is learning how to plan for growth. This is the perfect time to examine the entire piece of property. It is in the growth area, takes advantage of public water and sewer, and encour- ages density. Simply adding developments can take away from, not add to, the community. Increasing zoning should lend itself to increasing amenities to the community. She does not believe County Ordinances require this particular development. The Board continues to shaft Crozet and she does not want to do it again. This time the Board has a choice. The present zoning provides the developer a legitimate use of their land. It would be desirable to have the majority of the community in agreement with what is proposed, and she believes the developer can rise to the challenge. Mr. Martin said he has mixed feelings. For years there has been a goal. If the Board steps back from it, the Board has to all be in agreement. However, when the Board gets close to the goal, it is squeamish. This is new territory, and these are new policies and precedents. The Board has been running away and setting a trend. If the Board is backing away from the February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 20 000020 commitment of moving growth into the growth areas, it might be trapping itself. He serves on the DAIS, and does not expect to hold anyone hostage until that work is done. The developers are following the County's rules, but the Board is now forcing them to work with the residents to the point that the Board will "know it when we see it". He does not like subjectivity, because it can lead to discrimination. He said the Board needs to keep an eye on the objective. If it is not being accomplished, the Board may need to change its objectives. Mr. Martin said he does not want to see growth stop occurring in Crozet, which is a growth area. His district is growing more than any other. There is water and sewer available and it should be used as it was intended. He agreed with Mr. Ford regarding his statements on open space. The community needs viable growth areas. Ms. Thomas said she is not backing away from having density and growth inside the boundaries of Crozet, but the community deserves a better design. Mr. Martin said he is just reiterating the need to be cautious that does not occur. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned with growth pressure in his district, which does not even have water and sewer. Ms. Humphris said she does not think the infrastructure should be underutilized. She was concerned by a Planning Commissioner's statement that developers do not know what the County wants. The Board has always been moving in the direction of better planning for developments. Crozet's Community Study is a perfect example. There is a crisis in the Crozet community, and density is not the only problem. Density must go where the infrastructure is in place. There needs to be better cooperation between everyone affected by development. She agreed with Mr. Bowerman's suggestion that interested parties should sit down and come up with something that is desirable. Common ground is attainable. Mr. Perkins said the Frieds have done more than any other developer he has worked with. He made the motion to defer ZMA-97-12 until June 17, 1998 to allow time for the developer to discuss design options with the community. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Marshall said he had just attended a four-day institute in Richmond made up of chairmen of boards of supervisors throughout the state. He discovered that Albemarle County was run much better than other counties. The County has good Planning staff, the School Board, the Board of Supervisors and other resources. Mr. Bowerman said staff should come to the Board if they have issues, because this will be a difficult process. Mr. Cilimberg said decisions made by the Board have given a clear message to Planning staff that there is an expectation that applicants will have to spend a lot of time meeting with neighbors before making decisions so that neighbors have input. The DAIS process will do that, but there is no need to wait for its completion. He noted that Planning cannot be seen as being in someone's corner, and staffing time is limited. Staff now spends twice the amount of time on rezonings as in the past. Mr. Marshall said the Board still need a recommendation on part of staff. Mr. Tucker said staff need guidelines so that they do not appear arbitrary. Mr. Martin said it would be hard for him to build a deck if he had to get the neighborhood's consensus. He reiterated that the Board must move cautiously. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: February 7, 1996 and Septem- ber 17, 1997. February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 21 ooooza. Ms. Humphris said she read the minutes from February 7, 1996, and Mr. Martin said he read the minutes of September 17, 1997. Ms. Humphris made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes of February 7, 1996 and September 17, 1997, as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Martin thanked staff for their work on the Technology Plan. He would appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask questions, and suggested this item be placed on the March 4, 1998 agenda. Ms. Thomas said she had an item that had to do with the Planning District Commission and the General AsSembly budget. There is a proposal to increase the state funding of the Planning District Commissions throughout the state. Funding has remained the same for the past ten years. The City of Charlottesville supported the proposal last night. (Note: Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 10:50 p.m.) Mr. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt a resolution to support an increase in the state funding of planning district commissions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. Mr. Marshall. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the planning district commissions throughout the Commonwealth serve both state and local interests; and WHEREAS, the state funding for planning district commissions would support the state's interest in regional planning, and the use of regional planning as a basis for state-wide planning; and WHEREAS, the local contribution to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission increases every year as a result of population growth; and WHEREAS, additional state support would assist the planning district commissions to help both the state and local governments; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Countuy Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council hereby supports increased state funding for planning district commissions and urges the passage of the budget amendment to do so. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, corect copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 5 to 0 on February 81, 1998. MS. Humphris said that VACO requested the Board of Supervisors call their legislators to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that the state will replace local revenue dollars lost as the result of the property February 18, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 22 ooooz tax increase. She said she was hesitant to do that since she had no back- ground information. Mr. Tucker said he had received the same request, but had no further information. Mr. Martin said if there had been much support to support a Constitutional amendment, the car tax simply would not have been passed. If there was that much support the whole concept would have died in the first place. Ms. Humphris asked if there was any other way those payments could be guaranteed. Mr. Tucker said the purpose of the constitutional amendment was to ensure the payments would be made. It could then not be easily changed without a lengthy process involved. Mr. Davis said any promise the current General Assembly makes can be changed by simply making a budget decision. (Note: Mr. Marshall returned at 10:52 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 10:53 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to Charlottesville's transition to town status. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Executive Session. At 11:12 p.m., motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Non-Agenda Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Tucker to look into improving the lighting system at the Monticello High School Stadium. She suggested Mr. Phil Ianna, from the University of Astronomy Department, as a possible resource. Mr. Tucker belatedly presented plaques to Messrs. Bowerman and Perkins to recognize their service as former chairmen of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 0000; 3 February 18, 1998 Page 23 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Marshall ad- journed the meeting at 11:12 p.m. Approved by Board Chairman ~ 000024 March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 4, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. (Mr. Martin arrived at 9:06 a.m.) ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Marshall presented Certificates of Appreciation to Mr. John K. Pollock for his years of service on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Citizens Advisory Committee and to Ms. Anne Rooker for her years of service on the Board of Social Services. Mr. Marshall then recognized Ms. Sarah Cagle, a reporter for the Daily Progress, who is leaving the area. He thanked Ms. Cagle for always reporting the news fairly and presented her with a T-shirt to show the Board's apprecia- tion. (Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 9:06 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve items 6.1 through 6.3 and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item No. 6.1 Set a public hearing for March 18, 1998, for approval of sanitary sewer easement across County-owned property (TM 91-2) near Monticello High School. TMP 77-47, owned by Hillcrest Land Trust, was rezoned to Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC) and the developer is preparing design plans for the proposed shopping center to be constructed at that site. The proPosed shopping center would be served by public water and sewer. The only available connection to an existing sanitary sewer manhole is located on the Lakeside Apartments property. This requires that the proposed sanitary sewer extension cross either TMP 77-43, owned by Calvary Baptist Church, or the County-owned property. The Purchase Agreement for the Monticello High School property contains a provision that states that the County agrees to grant ~utility" easements necessary to provide utility service to certain other parcels owned by the sellers (including TMP 77-47), but a separate provision dealing with sanitary sewer easements does not specifically obligate the County to grant such easements.