Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-13March 13, 1996 (Regu!ar Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000242 A regular meeting of the Board 0~ Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 13, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, ~Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. ' Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. John Carter from Earlysville was present to discuss a matter of increasing concern, that being the increasing reliance of the County on tax revenues from the real property tax assessment. He said the assessment continues to increase each year to the joy of the spenders, but he warned the Board that real property values can go down or become static. Should they do either, the County would have to figure out what to do away with. Although some people think this cannot happen in Albemarle, it can, and the Board cannot stop it. Mr. Carter suggested that the Board move toward a discussion of an income tax for the people of Albemarle County, a tax which would not replace the real property assessment, but one that would make at least one-half of the tax base safe. He understands the Board has been pursuing this idea to a degree, but he does not think the Board speaks to the people. He thinks the people should participate. He asked that the Board let him "go to bat" with this idea, and if he strikes out, so be it. Mr. C. R. Chisholm, Jaycees, Chairperson for the JAYS Program (Jaycees Against Youth Smoking) was present. He said they are running the program from March 30 to April 6 and will be going to local retailers who sell tobacco products and politely inform them of the State laws which prohibit the sale of tobacco products to youth under the age of 18. They will be direct and forward with them and remind them that this is not a cure-all for the problem of youth smoking, but will remind them that the enforcement of this law does significantly act as a major deterrent to youth smoking. While visiting, they will offer information packets and ask them to sign a petition stating they will adhere to this law and refuse to sell tobacco products to youth under the age of 18. They will also ask if they can place signs in their stores, and offer them assistance in completion of this project. He requested a written endorsement of the program from the Board, to go along with paperwork from Mayor Toscano, and the local police chiefs. This endorsement will be copied and distributed in the packet. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to draft the appropriate resolution and include it on next week's agenda for adoption. Mr. Charlie Trachta from Woodbrook was present. He said the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) meets at times when most citizens who would like to hear their discussions, cannot attend. He asked the Board to use their influence to have the RSWA meet on Monday or Thursday nights, days which do not conflict with either this Board's meetings, or the meetings of the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the meetings to which Mr. Trachta is referring are not those of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, but rather the Solid Waste Citizens Task Force. The meeting time was chosen by that committee which is working on a single issue. When they have finalized their report, that committee will be disbanded. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called, ~nd the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. 000Z43 March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Item No. 5.1. Approprmatlon'i Educatzon Grant, $1,250 (Form #95063). It was noted in the staff's report, that at its meeting on February 12, 1996, the School Board approved an appropriation of $1,250 for three Touring Assistance Grants. The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded Touring Assistance Grants in the amount of $325 each to Brownsville and Stone Robinson Elementary Schools, and $600 to Henley Middle School. The grants help fund musical and dance performances by local artists in the schools. The artists perform music and dance from around the world and encourage student partici- pation through hands on introduction to rhythm instruments and dance work- shops. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95063 FUND: GRANTS PI/RPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR THREE TOURING ASSISTANCE GRANTS FROM THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF THE ARTS. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1310460202312000 1310460210312000 1310460252312000 REVENUE 2310424000240290 2310424000240293 2310424000240289 DESCRIPTION OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL AMOUNT $325.00 325.00 600.00 $1,250.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT BROWNSVILLE GRANT #96-1242 $325.00 STONE ROBINSON GRANT #96-1259 325.00 HENLEY GRANT #96-1277 600.00 TOTAL $1,250.00 Item No. 5.2. Adopt resolution authorizing staff to submit housing rehabilitation and road construction project for funding by the Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program (VCDBG), (deferred from March 6, 1996). It was noted in the staff's report, that pursuant to a public hearing on the VCDBG program held on February 7, 1996, the Board of Supervisors voted to submit an application for funding for a housing rehabilitation and road construction project. A second public hearing was held March 6, 1996, allowing comment on the proposed project and past use of VCDBG funds. The Board must indicate approval of the proposed project and pass a resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit an application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. The County is seeking $827,780 in VCDBG funds to rehabilitate 35, single-family houses and to con- struct a road enabling Habitat for Humanity to construct ten, single-family owner-occupied houses in the Esmont area. An additional $213,143, in County funds, and $106,750, in Indoor Plumbing and Regional Loan funds, will serve as matching funds for the project, for a total project cost of $1,147,673. The County will sub-contract with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program for project implementation and administration. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted, authorizing the County Executive to submit the application for VCDBG funds to the State: WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that decent, safe and sanitary housing is available for all its residents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to public hearings held February 7, 1996, and March 6, 1996, the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $827,780 of Community Development Block Grant funds for a Housing Rehabilitation and Road Construction Project; and WHEREAS, $213,143 from the County of Albemarle and $106,750 from Indoor Plumbing and Regional Loan funds will also be expended on this program; and WHEREAS, it is projected that this project results in the rehabilitation of 35 units, benefitting 78 persons, and the construction of a road enabling the construction of ten housing units benefitting 35 persons of which all 113 families will be low and moderate income. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for submittal of this Virginia Community Development Block Grant application. 000244 March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Item No. 5.3. Au~~ii~i~di~~ for transfer of jail property. It was noted in the staff's report that the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Agreement, executed in November 1995, created the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority. It provides that Albemarle and Charlottesville will transfer title to all real and personal property neces- sary for the operation of the jail to the Authority. The Regional Jail facility and the 8.251 acres of property that it is located upon are jointly owned by the County and the City. All the personal property used in the operation of the jail has been purchased pursuant to the per diem County and City cost-sharing formula used to fund the operating budget. The Code of Virginia requires the Board to hold a public hearing prior to authorizing the transfer of the real property. Staff recommends that the Board authorize a public hearing to be held on April 3, 1996, to consider the transfer of the County's title to the real and personal property necessary for the operation of the jail to the Jail Authority. By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized a public hearing to be held on April 3, 1996, to consider the transfer of the County's title to the real and personal property necessary for the operation of the jail to the Jail Authority. Item No. 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 20, 1996, received for information. Item No. 5.5. Letter dated March 5, 1996, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, from Mr. William C. Porter, Jr., Louisa County Administrator, including resolution adopted by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors opposing the action taken by Albemarle re: through truck traffic on Routes 22/231, received for information. Item No. 5.6. Copy of minutes of the Virginia Association of Counties' (VACO) Board of Directors for November 12, 1995, a copy of VACO's Business minutes for November 14, 1995, and a copy of VACO minutes for February 15, 1996, were received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on the proposed 1996-2002 Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. Also to be discussed is the policy adopted by the Board, effective November 1, 1988, governing the paving of unpaved roads in the County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is in the minutes of February 7, 1996. Mr. Marshall asked.Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer for VDoT, about the right-of-way donations on Route 708 between Blenheim and Woodridge. Ms. Tucker said not all property owners have dedicated right-of-way at this time, and she has brought a handout (given to Mr. Marshall) regarding the same issue. With no further comments from the Board, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt Barbour was present to request that Route 674 which runs from Route 673 (White Hall) to Route 614 for 1.6 miles be added to the priority list for paving. He also mentioned the condition of the road and the need for its addition to the priority list. Mr. George Larie, President of CATCO, Charlottesville-Albemarle Transpor- tation Coalition, was present to say that CATCO supports the prompt construc- tion of the Meadow Creek Parkway in its two phases. Phase One, which is the construction from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road, he understood to be in the Six-Year Plan for both the City and the County, and is scheduled for construc- tion in 1998. He said the road was vital, and would be a much safer alterna- tive to "dangerous curving sections" on Rio Road as it joins Park Street. He said traffic was very heavy on this road and the Parkway would be a welcome relief. Ail the traffic studies and projections include the Meadow Creek Parkway. The County, the City and the University have all endorsed it. The Parkway will accommodate traffic from the fast-growing areas north along Route 29, and from the new undeveloped~ but designated, growth areas to the north. The Parkway will allow more direct access to downtown Charlottesville and its mall, which needs support. The Parkway is projected to carry 16,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day in the year 2015, about the same as the proposed Western Bypass. Mr. Larie stated that CATCO also supports the second phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway, from Rio Road to Route 29N, where it will join the interchange for the Western Bypass. Last May, a County and Virginia Department of Transportation Task Force underwent a study to reduce the cost of the Parkway making it more usable to the population and to make the project more attrac- tive for primary road funding. CATCO commended the Task Force for their work. He also said the Parkway has been "on the books" for almost twenty years, and said the Parkway was a major component to relieve the congestion of traffic by March 13, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (Page 4) 000245 permitting a north/south alternatl~'"~O ROute 29. He said the latest cost estimate for the Meadow Creek Parkway was approximately $31.0 million; and with a three percent increase per year, it equals approximately $42.0 million in the year 2005. Mr. Larie said since the three grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 were killed last year, the Meadow Creek Parkway is even more critical now to relieve congestion at the Rio Road and Route 29 intersection. The Dunlora Subdivision entrance may be impacted by the Meadow Creek Parkway, but suppos- edly no houses will be taken. This subdivision was begun in 1990, and the developers and the residents were well aware of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Real estate agents are legally required to inform buyers of situations like this. CATCO requests the Board to continue its strong support for the Meadow Creek Parkway as the highest County priority for construction. They ask that the Board again request that the Meadow Creek Parkway be placed in the primary road classification as they have for the past five years and be funded as soon as possible. Ms. Tucker commented on Mr. Barbour's statements regarding a section of Route 674. She supports adding this road to the priority list, since it meets the minimum average daily traffic count necessary to be improved under the gravel road program. She said that Mr. Barbour's concern for his neighbors participating in obtaining a donated right-of-way was a plus. She said a section of Route 674, which Mr. Barbour requested to have improved, is not on the Secondary Six-Year Plan or priority list either. Mr. Marshall asked if this is because all right-of-way has not been donated. Ms. Tucker said the priority list was developed from comments taken over the years from citizens, VDOT staff, and County staff and that not everything on the priority list makes it into the Six-Year Plan. Ms. Tucker said there will be a meeting.of the U.S. 29 Corridor Develop- ment Study Steering and Technical Committees on March 21, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., at the Department of Forestry Building on Fontaine Avenue. Mrs. Thomas said she had heard from a constituent about Route 688. It has moved up on the six-year list, and they want to be sure it stays there. With no further comments from the public regarding the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the Albemarle County priority for Secondary Road Improvements 1995-96 through 2000-01 as recommended by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1996, (Attachment A - on file in the Clerk's Office); to approve VDOT's Secondary System Construction Program for Albemarle County 1996-97 through 2001-02 (Attachment B); and to re-approve the Unpaved Roads Policy (Attachment C). Mr. Perkins asked if Route 674 can be added to the priority list. Mr. Martin said he thought they would need the donated right-of-way before the road was placed on the list. Mr. Tucker said this will start it in the process of being reviewed. Mr. Marshall asked if he could add Route 708 to the priority list. Ms. Tucker said there are more than 30 gravel road projects on the priority list, and many of them do not have the necessary right-of-way. That is not abso- lutely necessary to get on the list, but it is helpful when it reaches the Six-Year Plan because at that time, money is allocated toward the project. Route 708 is already on the Six-Year Plan but it does not have full dedicated right-of-way at this time. It is not the only gravel road project on the Six- Year Plan without right-of-way dedicated. Mr. Martin said if that is the case, he is not willing to put roads on the priority list without getting more information than the Board has received tonight. He knows of some people in the Stony Point area that have been getting right-of-way donated, but the road is not on the priority list. Ms. Tucker asked if Mr. Martin is speaking about Route 640. Mr. Martin said "yes". Ms. Tucker said Route 640 is on the list. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Martin is saying he will not amend his motion, and that the motion stands as originally stated. Mr. Martin said "yes". If the Board members are going to start adding roads to the priority list, there needs to be more information available. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Martin. He said that is the motion he seconded. Mrs. Humphris restated the motion. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. None. In response to a question from Mr. Barbour, Mr. Cilimberg explained that there were 59 projects on the priority list this year, and a number of those are unpaved road projects. There are many more unpaved road projects on the priority list than can be funded between now and the year 2003. Approximately 10 of those projects are in the funding program. Route 674 can be included, March 13~ 1996 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (page 5) ooo 4 ; and the others that were ~eh~i~h'e~6~h~ On the priority list can be included next year. They can be evaluated to see if they should be included in the recommendation. That will not effect having Route 674 paved. The paving policy as adopted is set out in full on the following pages: POLICY GOVERNING THE PAVING OF UNPAVED ROADS BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby readopt the following as a policy (originally adopted March 9, 1988, to be effective November 1, 1988) concerning the paving of unpaved roads: 1) First priority will be given to those roads laying in the growth areas of the County as shown in the Compre- hensive Plan; 2) Second priority will be given to those roads with sig- nificant daily traffic counts; 3) Third priority will be given to those roads where the right-of-way has been completely donated for the pro- ject; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board will not approve the paving of any unpaved road in the Rural Areas (RA) District unless all of the right-of-way has been dedicated in advance or there is a clear, demonstrable danger to public safety which would neces- sitate the use of State Secondary Road Funds to acquire the right- of-way; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board will not approve the paving of any unpaved road in the growth areas where there is not a com- plete dedication of right-of-way unless there is a clear, demon- strable danger to public safety or, on a case-by-case basis, in the opinion of the Planning Commission and/or the Board of Super- visors, the acquisition of right-of-way is needed to fulfill the Plan. The plans as adopted are set out in full on the following pages: March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 000247 March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) : ' 000248 March 13, 1996 (Regular' Night Meet'lng) (Page 8) 000249 March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 000250 (Page 9) I[ March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) : (Page 10) , , ~ ~ fl flo o o o ~ o 6 ' ' ~ II II , O O O , , , , ' ~ ~ ~ ........ ii I~ ......... II II - ~o . ~ ,. o,. o._ II II = ~ =~ ~ 0 -- - 0 · ~0 0 ~ 0 · IIII ~ = o ~v ~ · O~ ~m II II o ~ 0 ~'-- ~ >~ "~ March 13, (Page 11) 1996 (Regular Night-Meeting) 000~.,~2 March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000 53 Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-22. J. Bruce Barnes, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 19 acs from C-1 to HC, with proffers, located in Crozet on S sd of C&O Railway (current location of J. Bruce Barnes Lumber), presently recommended for Community Service (Community of Crozet) in the Comprehensive Plan. TM56, P58 & TM56A2(Secl), Ps70, 71, 71B&24A. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg noted that SP-95-22 for J. Bruce Barnes, Inc. is in actuality ZMA-95-22. This is a request for a rezoning to allow for HI in Crozet and the continuance of the existing lumber yard and warehouse operation with improvements that the applicant wants to undertake. The change in zoning would be from C-1 and would include proffers. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area in downtown Crozet for Community Service uses, but the update of the land use plan designates the area for Industrial Service to accommodate this existing lumber yard. The recommendations include a recommendation that if the lumber yard operation ceases, then the designation would be changed back to Community Service. The applicant has proffered to limit the uses under the HI desig- nation to those that are similar to the activities currently occurring, and those allowed by right in all commercial and industrial districts. There would be an upgrade of some facili- ties. Mr. Cilimberg said access to the site is less than satisfac- tory, but there are no real alternatives that would provide satisfactory access. The proposal will not intensify the use on the site, and there are no recommendations to improve the access. This rezoning would be generally supported by the Comprehensive Plan provided the Planning Commission's recommendation for land use is approved by the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said that Mr. Ron Lilly, Planner, provided a memorandum dated March 8, 1996, which mentioned a couple of changes that were noted at the Planning Commission's meeting: 1) To drop Parcel 70 from this rezoning. It is a small parcel and it would be very difficult to provide the necessary buffers if it were zoned for industrial use. It does not pose a problem under the advertisement. It would just lessen the amount of zoning to take place; and 2) On February 5, 1996, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the request, and supported the request noting that they want buffering and landscaping required as part of the site plan process when new development occurs. The applicant did add a second proffer concerning chemical treatment of soft woods. That was an issue that arose at the Commission meeting. That proffer says "The wood preserving activity allowed under section 28.2.1.16 shall not include chemical treatment of soft woods as defined by the National Hardwoods Lumber Association." Mrs. Humphris asked the Board's situation regarding the holding of the public hearing and the advertisement. She asked if everything is in order for the Board to complete the vote on this petition tonight. Mr. Cilimberg said he understands from the County Attorney that this cannot happen tonight under the adver- tisement that was run for this meeting. The applicant and the public are here, and Mr. Davis has said the Board could go ahead and receive information tonight, and then an advertisement could be run to hold a second public hearing, and action can be taken on April 3, 1996. Mr. Davis said the advertisement for this public hearing incorrectly identified the rezoning as Highway Commercial-HC rather than Heavy Industrial-HI. HC is a less intensive classi- fication, so the Board is unable to hold a public hearing on HI zoning tonight. In order to accommodate the applicant, the Board can take comments from the public tonight, and then hold the legal public hearing on April 3, 1996, which allows a proper advertise- ment to be made. Mrs. Humphris said the Board wants to hear everybody on the issue tonight, although the official public hearing and the vote will not take place until a later date. At this time, she opened the public hearing. Mr. Carroll Conley, Founder and President of J. Bruce Barnes, Inc~ was present and spoke on the history of J. Bruce Barnes, Inc. lumber yard. He stated that he had been with this company for more than twenty years. Mr. Conley also mentioned that his family was very active in the company. His son is the sales manager and his daughter is office manager. He said the family plans on being in Crozet for a long time running this plant. The business can not exist without buildings and equipment when necessary. Mr. Conley spoke briefly on the construction and remodeling he plans on doing in the near future. He said that he would not March 13, 1996 (Regular Night' Meeting) (Page 13) 000254 do anything to hinder the neighbors properties; and he brought some of his neighbors with him for support. He also stated that his payroll in 1995, was $1.1 million, w~ich most of the money was spent in Crozet. He said his donations to the community amounted to over $22,000. He said little league baseball would always be a major part of his contributions and support. He handed letters of support to the Board. He also asked his wife, son, and daughter to stand and be recognized. Mr. Conley said he was told that he needs industrial zoning for the survival of the lumber yard. He said VDOT noted that conditions would not be better if this request is approved, but they also would not be worse. Mrs. Humphris asked for a show of hands from people who came tonight in support of J. Bruce Barnes, Inc. (There were approxi- mately 30-35 people present in support of J. Bruce Barnes, Inc. Mr. Werner Gstattenbauer, an adjoining landowner to J. Bruce Barnes, Inc., spoke in support of Mr. Conley's proposal and hopes that the Board will support the proposal as well. Mr. Walter Blankenbaker, owner of the Crozet Post Office property, spoke in support of Mr. Conley, both as a neighbor and a business owner. He hoped that the Board would support Mr. Conl- ey's application so that he would not take his business to another county. Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, said he supports Mr. Conley and what he stands for and hopes the Board will support him as well. Mr. D. B. Sandridge, representing the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, said the zoning change would not have a negative impact on the department. He said that the department supports this application. With no further comments from public, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris said she believes everyone understands the need to re-advertise and to have the legal public hearing on April 3, 1996. It will not be necessary for anyone to come back and speak again. Motion was made by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to defer this petition until April 3, 1996, for the legal public hearing. Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. None. (Note: Mr. Bowerman abstained from the following discussion due to an ongoing business relationship with Forest Lakes. He does not feel it is a technical violation; however, it does create the appearance of a conflict of interest, and he would disqualify himself. He then left the room.) Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-95-24. Forest Lakes Associates. Public hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-94-04 to modify type of fencing provided. Property located at N end of Timberwood Parkway is zoned R-10 and is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 du/ac) & Neighborhood Service in Community of Hollymead by the Comprehensive Plan. TM46B3, P1 & TM32, P29F. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26, and March 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report. He said there was a proffer originally that regards this section of Forest Lakes which required fencing. The adjacent owner has asked that the fencing be the same three-board type of fencing which is being provided on the opposite side of their property by another devel- opment. The request is that proffer number four be changed to recognize that type of fencing on the Forest Lakes property. Mrs. Thomas asked if this was intended all along, and the word "foot" just was put in the statement. Mr. Cilimberg said that was noted, and a "three-foot board" was an improper description which was corrected in the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said that at its meeting on February 20, 1996, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of ZMA- 95-24 subject to the proffers as noted in Attachment C, (on file) modifying proffer #4 to read: "Install a three board fence along March 13~ 1996 (Regular Night !Meeting) (Page 14) I 000 o the applicants' western boundary, or the eastern boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N2." With no other comments from the Board, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Franco, from the Kessler Group, stated that this was in response to a neighbor who originally expressed concern over safety, had proffered the chain-link fence. The neighbor has now requested a change in the type of fence that is being put up, so it would match what is on his boundary. With no further comments from the public, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve ZMA-95-24, as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer as set out below. Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman PROFFER Date: 2/20/96 ZMA # 95-24 Tax Map Parcel(s)#: 46-43B2-01 & 32-29F 12.08 Acres to be rezoned from to Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) (2) (3) (4) Provide access from Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, to the west to align with access as shown on the rezoning for Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N (ZMA-91-09) . Dedicate, at the time of subdivision plat approval, a thirty (30) foot strip across the State Route 649 front- age for future road improvements by the County of Albemarle or the Virginia Department of Transportation. Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty foot dedication aforementioned for construction of a bike path. The applicant will not be responsible for the construction of the bike path. Install a three board fence along the applicant's west- ern boundary, or the eastern boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N2. Signed by: Stephen N. Runkle, Feb 22, 1996 Robert M. Hauser, Feb 27, 1996 Craig van der Linde, 2-27-96 Randolph D. Wade, 2-28-96 (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.) Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway (deferred from February 14, 1996). Mr. Cilimberg said concerns were raised by the public at the February 14, 1996, public hearing on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Staff was asked to respond to the items which can be categorized as traffic and environmental concerns. Regarding traffic, the main concerns revolved around whether the Meadow Creek Parkway would be a faster alternative than using Route 29 and Rio Road to travel between the same points. Staff's preliminary analysis indicates that, as proposed at this time, the Meadow Creek Parkway is slightly longer in length (approximately 3.3 miles vs. approximately 3.15 miles). It would be quicker to take the Meadow Creek Parkway due to congestion on Route 29. As an example, the traffic model indicates that during the PM peak period it would take seven minutes and fifteen seconds to travel the Route 29 and Rio Road route, while it would take four minutes and forty-nine seconds to travel the Meadow Creek Parkway. Analysis indicated that without the Meadow Creek Parkway, the Route 29 and Rio Road trip would take eight minutes and fifty- four seconds. These times were all for the forecast year of 2015. March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Mr. Cilimberg said the residents in Forest Lakes and Hollymead rejected this road in 1993, specifically the "T" connector sections. These are not now a part of the recommendation of the Meadow Creek Parkway Task Force for this corridor. This additional information is provided to supplement the original recommendations of the Task Force and the Planning Commission. Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, said the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) published a 303(d) Priority List in the Spring of 1994. The list contained all river and stream segments in Virginia that do not fully support all beneficial uses (aquatic life, swimming, fish consumption, etc.). The Rivanna River from the confluence of the North and South Forks down to Milton was on the list based on biological monitoring tests performed by DEQ staff in 1991 near the Route 729 bridge (Milton). The methodology used compares the Rivanna to a "reference stream" which is a stream similar to the Rivanna in size, but which is in relatively pristine condition and whose watershed is undeveloped. The reference stream represents, in theory, the best possible condition for a river like the Rivanna. The biological "gap" between the Rivanna and the reference stream, as measured by communities of aquatic insects, is used to assess the relative health of the Rivanna. Ms. Higgins said the 1991 results that led to the "moderately impaired" ranking of the Rivanna on the 303(d) list had plenty of insects, but the populations found were not as diverse as those found in the reference stream. She said it is misleading to draw the conclusion that the Rivanna is devoid of life, dead or severely impaired, although it certainly is not pristine. There are many land uses, both urban and agricultural, within the watershed that are capable of degrading water quality, and the geology and soils of the river valley make it particularly prone to stream bank erosion (which releases large quantities of sediment into the river). All of these factors contribute to some measure of degradation. Given watershed characteristics, the Rivanna is not likely to ever match the biological health of the reference stream. Ms. Higgins said the DEQ biologist who performs the sampling on the Rivanna reported to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Watershed Manager recently that one particular category of insects missing in 1991 was found during subsequent monitoring events. This means that the moderately impaired ranking is relative and cannot be assumed to be a constant condition of the Rivanna. Finally, DEQ reports that several chemical monitoring stations in the Charlottesville area consistently indicate that water quality standards are being met. Ms. Higgins said the second concern expressed at the public hearing was that of the design of the roadway through the flood plain. The alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway will require it to cross the one hundred year storm floodway and floodway fringe of the South Fork Rivanna River and Powell Creek, as delineated by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). According to the County's Zoning Ordinance Section 30.3 "Flood Hazard Overlay", roadway activities such as bridges within the floodway and fill placed within the floodway fringe, are permitted by special use permit provided the one hundred year stormwater surface elevation is not increased. According to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards and practices, stream crossings and the associated fill are permitted in areas where the NFIP has delineated the floodway and floodway fringe, provided there is no increase in the water surface elevation. In areas where the NFIP has only delineated the flood plain (i.e., no floodway), VDOT permits an increase in no more than one foot, provided there is no detrimental impact to adjacent or upstream properties. Ms. Higgins said the stream crossings will be required to comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations and permitting requirements (VMRC, US Army Corps., DEQ, etc.). There was a question about the roadway design as it relates to the potential for flooding. When designing culverts to cross streams or watercourses, where flood plains are not involved, the design criteria depends on the functional classification of the road. Typically, the 25-year storm is used for primary roads and up to the 50-year storm for higher classifications. When stream crossings involve flood plains, compliance with flood plain regulations and/or practices alone will assure that the crossing will pass the one hundred year storm without being overtopped by floodwaters. This criterion does not include provisions for storms larger than the one hundred year storm, nor do they account for situations where debris restricts or blocks flow through the crossing. As to the general environmental concerns, Ms. Higgins said the proposed crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River is not in a drinking water watershed. However, the Rivanna corridor in general is receiving and deserves increasing attention. A case in point is the on-going effort to develop a regional stormwater program to improve the quality of urban runoff from the County, City and University. When designing a large crossing of this nature, how to mitigate the impact to the River and its flood plain must be carefully considered. In addition, stormwater runoff along the route should be consid- ered with regard to water quantity and quality impacts. State agencies are obliged to consider these factors under State Stormwater Management Regula- tions and other state and federal permit programs (e.g., Army Corps wetland permits). The County would help to ensure that stormwater issues are ad- dressed with creative solutions. 000 57 March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Ms. Higgins said the cost of the bridge over the River, wetlands, and railroad has been adjusted up from an estimated $100.00 a square foot to $120.00 a square foot; which is VDOT's estimate. She offered to answer any questions from the Board members. Mr. Perkins commented regarding the "general environmental concerns" which says that the proposed crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River is not in a drinking water watershed, when in fact, it is in someone's watershed. Mr. Martin said he would benefit from thinking of the other Supervisors. In the past, he has been in favor of this road. When the "T" connectors were first removed, he thought the road may not be that beneficial without the "T" connectors considering the price originally discussed, since it would not be carrying the same amount of traffic that had been projected. He still be- lieves that is a legitimate concern. He wondered if 16,000 trips is worth even today's prices for the Meadow Creek Parkway. On the other hand he thinks that every vehicle taken off of Route 29 will be a help to Route 29. Looking in terms of future connections to the "W" connectors and the need to eventual- ly get to the Airport from downtown Charlottesville, that traffic would not need to use Route 29, and that is a plus. He wants to do the logical and right thing but he is not sure what that is. People have commented that they believe the Meadow Creek Parkway is still a fight against the Western Route 29 Bypass. He wants to hear other Board members before he makes up his mind. Mrs. Humphris said she had been dealing with the issue of the Meadow Creek Parkway in an official capacity for thirteen years, (seven years on the MPO Technical Committee, six years on the Board of Supervisors and the MPO Policy Committee). She said that this road must have been important because the Virginia Department of Transportation said the improvements on Route 29 will fail if the Meadow Creek Parkway is not built. VDOT said it would fail when the interchanges were to be built. The interchanges are not going to be built. This was said before the County had the UREF project taking shape as an impending occurrence. Mrs. Humphris said the Meadow Creek Parkway has been deemed important in the CATS where it has been for many years. All of the citizens and technical people have said this is a road which is essential to the network. Mr. Martin said in the years when it was deemed so important, the Meadow Creek Parkway extended all of the way to Proffit Road. Mrs. Humphris said that was true, although it now veers over to Route 29, but the same things hold true as to the importance of the road relieving traffic on Route 29. The Commonwealth Transportation Board supported it in 1990 when they set up the agreement of how and when the roads would be built. It was agreed to by the City, County and University and the SVERDRUP Study recommend- ed it. Every technical and governmental body has agreed that this is an essential road to our network of roads. Mrs. Humphris said when you start talking about time saved, most people have been making comparisons between the Meadow Creek Parkway and the Western Bypass as if the decision is for one or the other. Plans for the Bypass are moving along, and VDOT intends to break ground in 1998, according to what she was told on Monday. She does not believe anything will prevent that from happening. When studying the Western Bypass, it was found that the trip on the Bypass would save more then 20 seconds over the same trip on the improved Route 29 North. The traffic count on the Bypass is estimated to be 16,000 vehicle trips per day (vtpd) in the year 2015. In that same year 2015 on the Meadow Creek Parkway, the traffic count is estimated to be between 16,000 and 18,000 vtpd. The traffic counts are roughly equal; however, the costs for the Western Bypass (figures correct as of today from VDOT) are: construction and engineering $105.0 to $110.0 million, right-of-way approximately $31.0 million, for a total of $136.0 to $141.0 million for six miles of roadway without bike pathways. Mr. Martin asked why Mrs. Humphris is making this comparison. Mrs. Humphris said she is doing this because the opposition has made the comparison and the opposition, in a letter she received today, made a comparison saying the road would be much more expensive, comparatively, than the Bypass. She said the Meadow Creek Parkway is estimated to cost $31.2 million for the 4.2 miles of road. She prepared this comparison for the Board in light of information the Board members have received recently. Some people have said to not build the Meadow Creek Parkway, but build the Bypass instead and it will take care of the problem. This is an apples and oranges situation because there will be two different groups of traffic that will be taken off of Route 29. The Western Bypass takes off 16,000 vehicles, and the Meadow Creek Parkway takes off a different 16,000 vehicles per day. The estimated cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway is only a fraction of the Western Bypass. There is no way to compare the costs. Every expert the Board has heard, every citizens group that has spoken, every consultant the County has hired, and the VDOT Transportation Board, have all said that without the Meadow Creek Parkway, the Route 29 North improve- ments will fail. She supports construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway in light of the facts as given by V DOT. Mr. Martin said he would still like to hear from other Board members. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Martin has questioned the need for a roadway that will carry 16,000 vtpd. That is a substantial number of vehicles. As Mrs. March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Humphris pointed out, the Western Bypass is to carry about the same number. Collectively, they can take 32,000 vtpd off of Route 29. Mr. Martin said the Western Bypass was basically fought by the members of the Board who were in office at the time this proposal was made. The Meadow Creek Parkway is entirely a decision of this Board and future boards. If this Board says "no", it is not as if VDOT will try to "ram it down our throats." Mr. Bowerman said the Meadow Creek Parkway is just one part of a multi- phase plan of roadways for this community which has been looked at over the last 20 years. He thinks Mr. Martin is hanging on the fact that the Parkway was originally planned to serve the Hollymead Community when the Community was to serve 10,000 people. Originally, it was thought that the Parkway would take those 10,000 people and get them downtown, or wherever they wanted to without their having to travel on Route 29. Because of the concern that Fomest Lakes residents raised, one of the "T" connectors, which was a viable part of the Parkway, was eliminated, and that is one of the reasons the Parkway will not have as many vtpd's. He does not believe that has eliminated the need for another connection to Proffit Road, one which does not go through Forest Lakes. There is other land in the area which will need to be served, such as the Airport and the Towers Land Trust. Previously, the Planning Commission took action to recommend to this Board a petition from GIC, which is a sub- stantial employer of 600 people. Mr. Bowerman said it is not one road, but a combination of roads that the Board is considering. The Parkway is an integral part and if it is eliminatd, the traffic will be forced elsewhere. It has been a part of the plan for a long time. The residents of Forest Lakes want to be sure the Parkway is sited so it does not enter their community, but he would rather see it there because he thinks it could be a substantial benefit. Timberwood Parkway has been built for traffic from the Parkway, and at some point in the future, Forest Lakes may want to be connected. It is just one part of a plan that has been drawn to deal with traffic through the year 2020. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman is considering the "W" connectors. Mr. Bowerman said "yes". Mr. Martin asked how that plays into Mr. Bowerman's thinking. Mr. Bowerman said they are another alternative. He does not know how the Route 29 Corridor Design Study (turning Route 29 it into an interstate highway) plays into this. He knows that land along the western part of where the "W" connectors would go has a limited number of landowners involved, and the properties are undeveloped at this time. It could be possible to have a road serve the University Real Estate Park on the west side of Route 29 which would connect to the Parkway. Routes 29 and 20 are the only two ways into the community from the north. He thinks it makes sense to have the road in place, especially since it connects to downtown Charlottesville, to serve the area between Routes 29 and 20 that is ultimately going to be developed, probably as residential. Mr. Bowerman said in reference to the Western Bypass, the main objection to that route was that it went through the reservoir area. That was the main concern about that road, but that is not the case with the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the land that it will serve is also not in the watershed which is an important characteristic of where growth areas are planned. Mrs. Thomas said she would like to pick up on the statement that VDOT is not forcing this road on the County. It is a choice of this Board. VDOT is also not interested in the Southern Connector Road because VDOT is not generally interested in planning for roads ahead of growth. The reason VDOT is interested in the Western Bypass is because Lynchburg and Culpeper are applying tremendous pressure to get their traffic through because they think using our Route 29 North is "killing them off" Nothing is pressuring VI)OT to build this road, so it has to be this Board which looks out for the future of the community. With all of the industry and employment being foreseen in the 29 North area, there must be alternative routes proposed. There is no way to get out of the area without using Route 29. It is not just that the people using the Meadow Creek Parkway will have shortened trips, but it has to do with the number of cars that take Route 29. Mrs. Thomas said she sees it as an indication of whether the Board is serious about long-range planning for an area that is going to become a city. She cannot imagine that the County will not have this road to assist with the traffic that will develop from that area. Mr. Perkins said he feels this road if more important to the City than to the County, and without this road, the City is really "bottled up". This road is the key link to clearing that bottle-neck. He thinks this road will also serve as a semi-eastern bypass. It will be tempting for people going west on 1-64 to get off at Shadwell, come in on Route 250, get on the Meadow Creek Parkway, and then go north. If this community is to maintain the vitality of the downtown area, then he thinks this road is important and will help to do that. Mr. Bowerman asked what the specific decision before the Board is. Mrs. Humphris said she understands the Board has to decide if the Meadow Creek Parkway is to be included in the pending request for primary road funds. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission recommended that the Board accept the study corridor including its design speed and its classification as the road to be identified in CATS, which basically takes the corridor which 000 9 March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) went out to Proffit and shifts the corridor to the west to tie into Route 29 where the Western Bypass is to tie into Route 29. This request will then go to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for inclusion in the Char- lottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS), as well as proceeding with the request for primary road funds. Once the Parkway is in CATS it can become part of the transportation improvement program for the area which is necessary if it is going to be funded with federal monies. Mrs. Humphris asked if the recommendation was included in the January 10th information. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. Mrs. Humphris read the desired motion into the record. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is important to take this step. The Board had engineering studies done as to different alignments, and there are a lot of different letters on the map still. He thinks it is important that an exact alignment be pinned down so people will know where it will go, and right-of-way can be obtained. Mr. Cilimberg said if the corridor is designated in CATS and the Board is successful in seeking money from VDOT, then VDOT would have to fund right-of- way acquisition to get the road built, and the environmental process undertak- en (like that done for the Western Bypass) which would ultimately lead to the precise location of the road. Mr. Martin said this has been a tough decision for him. It has been tough for the last year ever since he made a personal decision to oppose the "T" connectors. That put everything else in doubt. He has heard what all the Board members said, and there are some good arguments in terms of this plan being in place for a long time. He still sees the negatives and thinks that if the "T" connectors are taken away, it changes the character of what is being planned. He heard what Mr. Bowerman said, but any connector that comes into the community of Proffit, he will "go to his grave" opposing. Mr. Bowerman asked if he (Mr. Martin) was speaking of "T4" Mr. Martin said "yes". It would have to be done in some way that would not ruin a historic community. He is not saying he would not support something either west of that area, because in his opinion, at some time in the future an alternative route will be needed to Proffit Road since it will be very difficult to widen when the need occurs. He hopes the Board can start looking at an alternative route immediately to run from Route 20 to Route 29, but a little further north where the future development that has been mentioned would connect and thus bypass Proffit. Any version of the "T4" connector would need to bypass the community of Proffit. Mr. Martin said there are many people present tonight that he has talked with. He has also talked with many people on the telephone and received a lot of letters. However, he believes the right thing to do is for him to support the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29, and he will do that in the form of a motion: Motion was made by Mr. Martin to approve the following: · Designate the Meadow Creek Parkway Corridor from Rio Road to Route 29 North (as depicted on the attached map) in the County's Comprehensive Plan and CATS as a 45 mile per hour minor arterial road with intersec- tions at Rio Road and Route 29 North and three additional controlled access points for undeveloped land between Rio Road and the South Fork Rivanna River at Route 643, and for undeveloped land between Route 643 and Route 29 North. Pursue Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) funding for the ultimate construction of the Parkway. Proceed under the VDOT process with consideration and analysis of the Sverdrup Study's "B", "G" and "Y" alternatives within this corridor. · Drop from further consideration the Sverdrup Study's "Ti" Connector. · Reserve for future study the Sverdrup Study's "T4" Connector and "W" Extension of the Parkway until final decision is made on the Compre- hensive Plan Growth Area Expansion and The Route 29 North Corridor Development Study. Mr. Marshall said he would second the motion. He was not present for the public hearing, so he wanted to hear what the other Board members had to say. Some of the people present tonight are friends and they are concerned about this roadway, but he is an elected official, and has to vote for what is in the best interest of the County, and he thinks this is what the Board should be doing. Mr. Perkins asked if this motion assumes that the County will get Primary Road funding for this project. The Parkway will never be built if it has to be built with Secondary funds. Mrs. Humphris said the Board members have to assume that they will try for the Primary funds. Mr. Martin said this is all for setting up the project in a way so the County can ask for the funds. Mrs. Humphris said before having the roll called, she would like to say that she was looking through her very thick file on the Meadow Creek Parkway and found an editorial about the road from two and one-half years ago in the Daily Progress. After what was said tonight, she looked at it again, and the editorial concluded that building roads is difficult for everybody in the March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) O00 GO community. It states "In'difficult cases, such as this one, leaders cannot hope to please all parties. True leadership is doing what is right, sometimes even when the din of complaints is shrill and persistent." Mrs. Humphris said that same thing has been said here tonight by other Board members. Mr. Martin said in reference to the alignments, he would like to make a recommendation (he had no map to refer to) that VDOT or the design team give a lot of study to moving the Parkway to the alignment that is farthest away from Dunlora. Mr. Bowerman said the road is going to affect some area (Huntington, Dunlora or Bentivar), but it has to go somewhere. At this time, roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall,. Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris None. (Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:31) Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Six Year Primary Road Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said as a response to comments made at last week's meeting, and not knowing exactly what might happen tonight with the Meadow Creek Parkway, staff went ahead and made some slight revisions to the priorities. One thing that was done was to change the reference to sidewalks to pedestrian walkways. That will encompass whatever type of facility is felt to be appropriate in a given case. Under No. 1 of the Standard Projects, the following statement was added: "The County is now seeking approval of a revised Rio Road to Route 29 North, Meadow Creek Parkway corridor as an amendment to the CATS (Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study) with ultimate inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program." (Note: Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 7:33, and Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 7:34) Mr. Cilimberg said, now the staff can work up the statement which is to be made on March 25, 1996, at the Preallocation Hearing for Primary and Interstate Highways in Culpeper. The priority will be revised and furnished to the Board at it's meeting next week. (Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 7:36) Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board needed to take any action tonight. Mr. Tucker suggested a motion to defer this item would be sufficient. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to defer this item until March 20, 1996. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: July 7 and September 15, November 17, 1993; and September 19, 1995. Mr. Martin had read September 19, 1995, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read July 7, 1993, (pages 18-31[item 15b]), and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall had read September 15, 1993, (pages 30-37), and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman had read November 17, 1993, and found them to be in order. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, M~s. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said he would like to bring the Board members up-to-date on the joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) petition. Staff had suggested a date of either April 9 or April 16. Mr. Cilimberg said two members of the Commission will be out of town on April 9. Mr. Martin said he was not present last week, and asked the reason for this meeting. Mrs. Thomas said this is an attempt to help both the public and March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) O002Gi UREF by not having to come to two separate public hearings, but to have a joint hearing instead. It was thought that the logistics of such a meeting could be worked out in such a way as to be successful. Mr. Davis said staff has not received the revised proffers yet. It was his understanding that the joint public hearing would not be advertised until the proffers were received, reviewed, and found to be satisfactory by staff. He is not sure of the schedule for that. Mr. Martin said he had not heard that speed was of the essence. After a short discussion, it was decided to let UREF know that the proffers need to be submitted in time to have them analyzed by staff, and in time to re-advertise the petition. Staff will try to ascertain an appropriate date for the hearing. Mr. Perkins said he did not want to put Mr. Martin "on the spot", so he had passed him a note about reconsidering last week's vote on the donation to Christworks Food Ministries. He asked Mr. Davis what the Board should do to reconsider that vote. Mr. Davis said it would be appropriate to have a motion to rescind the denial of the motion to approve the donation, and if that motion passes, then a vote may be taken again to adopt the resolution that was before the Board last week to authorize a donation of up to $2000 to Christworks. Mr. Martin said he had no problem with taking such a vote. Based on the conversations he has had with the public this past week, he had expected the question to be brought up again tonight. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to rescind the vote on the prior denial of the resolution to authorize a donation to Christworks Food Ministries. Mrs. Thomas said if she thinks Mr. Martin should have a chance to vote on the request, but she does not wish to change her vote, can she vote on this motion. Mr. Davis said "yes" Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins~ Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. None. Mr. Davis said the prior action has now been rescinded. The Board may now vote on the resolution which was before it last week. Mrs. Humphris said although she felt these people do good work, she did not feel she knew enough about them. She was concerned about the precedent being set because there are so many people doing good work who might want the Board to do similar things for them. On the other vote for a donation to the Claudius Crozet Park, she feels the Park is a part of the County so she could support that one. Mr. Martin said he could not have supported the request from the Park Board. He said that Christworks is not so different from other groups that the Board supports, such as the Free Clinic, or SARA, or the Shelter for Help in Emergency. All of these agencies started without governmental support, but with support from the community. Then at some point, they came to the government requesting funds. Last year the Board gave $5,000 to the Free Clinic and this year, the Board automatically gave them $5,000 and debated whether that should be increased by three percent or not. Waiving the site plan fee for Christworks is likely to be a one-time donation. By doing so, the Board will have helped an agency which multiplies its effect throughout the community. He feels this $2,000 donation will ha~e a tremendous, positive effect on the neighborhood. Mrs. Thomas said she did not feel strongly about it, but for the very things Mr. Martin had just mentioned about all of the agencies the Board approves for funding, she felt Christworks should go through the same process. She asked a few people about this group and found that they are not "plugged in" to any of the other social services groups. These other agencies go through a review process for budgets and requests from agencies that do not coordinate their work with others. At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered motion to adopt the following resolu- tion authorizing a donation of up to $2000 to Christworks Food Ministries. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris. March 13, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) O00; G; (Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below:) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION TO CHRISTWORKS FOOD MINISTRIES WI4EREAS, Christworks Food Ministries is an entity permitted under the Code of Virginia to receive donations of money or property from the County of Albemarle; and W~EREAM, the Board finds it is in the public interest to donate funds to support the development of facilities necessary for this entity to provide services to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, B~ IT R~SOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby appropriates and donates to Christworks Food Ministries an amount equal to the fees charged by Albemarle for preliminary and final site plan review for the Christworks Food Ministries project, provided, however, the amount shall not exceed $2,000. Upon certification by the appropriate development review department, such funds shall be transferred by the Depart- ment of Finance to the revenue accounts of that department or directly to Christworks Food Ministries if the fee has already been paid to the County. Mrs. Thomas said that last week during presentation by the Auditor of the County's 1994-95 Financial Report, she had requested some information from Mr. Breeden concerning the number of new businesses which have located in the County. She has received that information and it shows that last year there were 669 new businesses and this year, so far, there have been 403 new businesses. Mrs. Thomas mentioned the draft "Albemarle County Mountain Protection Plan" which was included with the packet this week. She suggested that the members read the draft and answer the survey questions for the Mountain Protection Committee. Mrs. Thomas noted that the children who appeared at the Board meeting last week about a problem with dead animal carcasses and dumping started a flurry of activity. There has been one neighborhood meeting, and there will be another in the County Office Building on next Monday night at 7:30 p.m. in Room 12 on starting a neighborhood watch program. County staff is also developing a fact sheet to be used to report such problems in the future. Mrs. Humphris said she had received new letters on the Routes 22/231 situation from Mr. John Moore to Senator Emily Couric and Chief John Miller, and from Louisa County to Mr. Bob Tucker, and from Mr. Dennis Rooker to the Board of Supervisors. She asked that staff take these letters into consider- ation and provide the Board some new information. Mr. Tucker said the Board adopted a resolution requesting VDOT to restrict through truck traffic on these routes. Mr. Fletcher Askew, District Engineer, is to have a meeting with people from Louisa, Orange and Albemarle to discuss the whole issue. Mrs. Humphris said she does not have a suggestion, but it appears that the citizens are very upset at VDOT's attitude and the answer from Senator Couric. A letter from Mr. John Moore seems to indicate that Senator Couric did not understand all of the issues, but a letter from Mr. Dennis Rooker was very enlightening about what could be done. She does not know if VDOT would consider it, but Mr. Rooker had not copied the letter to VDOT people, and she believes it should be sent to them. Mr. Martin said he had not had a chance to read all of these letters yet. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to March 18, 1996, 1:00 p.m. At 9:01 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn this meeting until March 18, 1996, at 1:00 p.m. Roll was called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. None. ~irman --