Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1992-08-05
August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) M.B. 42, Pg. 73 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 5, 1992, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mrs. Charlotte y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting w~s called to order at 9:00 A.M. by the Vice Chairman, Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. ~genda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public~ There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Item 5.1 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Mr. Bowerman. ties. tion. Item 5.1. Parking Standards for County Office Building (COB) Facili- The following staff report of July 29, 1992 was received for informa- "BACKGROUND: At your June 3, 1992 meeting, the Administrative Office Section of the Community Facilities Plan was adopted with a standard of 4.0 parking spaces per 1000 gross square feet. You requested staff review the standard in regards to (1) City crite- ria and (2) reductions for Traffic Reduction Strategy (TRS) impacts. DISCUSSION= City Criteria: They use a 300 net square foot standard verses 1000 qross square foot standard by the County. Based on the 300 standard, the current COB has 50 excess spaces; under the 1000 standard the need is 68 additional spaces. Lowering of standards is not being considered, as current standards are lower than many jurisdictions. Changes for Traffic Reduction reasons is not recom- mended. Most parking demands on public facilities are not easily controlled or forecasted as they are created by the general public and not employees. Traffic Reduction Strateqy: Impact is unpredictable at this time, but it should be evaluated for each expanded/new facility when such facilities are required. Of the current 412 spaces, 96 are visitors, 114 are pool vehicles and 212 are employee use. Some carpool- ing already exists and further reductions may be forthcoming, but peak need is driven by public use. Reductions in employee parking due to TRS is often offset by new staff pool cars° August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) M.B. 42, Pg. 74 County Criteria: Staff proposed a 3.84 per 1000 gross square foot, but the Planning Commission cited a current parking defi- ciency and requested staff increase the standard. staff recommends retaining the 4.0 per 1000 gross square foot standard, but if a lower standard is desired, 3.5 per 1000 gross square foot is the abso- lute minimum. RECOMMENDATION: Retain the 4.0 per 1000 gross square foot stan- dard for initial planning and closely examine the impact of TRS on employee parking requirements for each expansion/new County facility." Staff's recommendation to retain the 4.0 per 1000 gross square foot standard for initial planning and closely examine the impact of Traffic Reduction Strategy (TRS) on employee parking requirements for each expan- sion/new County facility was accepted by the above recorded vote. Item 5.2. Letter dated July 24, 1992, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, entitled "Current Projects - Construction Schedule," was received for information. Item 5.3. Letter dated July 23, ~992, from Governor L. Douglas Wilder, informing the Board of his appointment of Jay Graves to the Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board, received for information. Mrs. Humphris commented that she is delighted that Governor Wilder has acted on this nomination and she thinks Mr. Graves will be a working member of the Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board. Item 5.4. Memorandum dated July 23, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commis- sioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, enclosing a copy of the "Final 1992-93 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement Program for the Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transite Ports, and Airports," received for information. Mrs. Humphris said that in the final '92-93 report the construction allocation for the six year improvement program for the interstate, primary and urban highway systems sent to the Board by Mr. Pethtel still lists a connector road from the Route 29 North alternative 10 bypass to the North Grounds of the University. Mrs. Humphris believes that this needs to be clarified. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) took it out of the description that the Board passed for the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and changed it. She asked that it get changed in the state plan as well. Item 5.5. Letter dated July 1, 1992, from J. H. Kesterson, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that Hawkwood Court in Laurel Ridge Subdivision has performed satisfactorily for a one year period of time, therefore the County's resolution providing a performance bond is no longer required, was received for information. Item 5.6. Letter dated July 17, 1992, from Barbara Everitt Bryant, Director, Bureau of the Census, giving revised 1990 census population and housing unit counts for Albemarle County, was received for information. The revision is as follows: Population ..... 68,135 Housing Units . 25,985 Item 5.7. Notice received July 17, 1992, from Paging Network of Virginia, Inc., of their application filed with the State Corporation Commis- sion for a certificate to provide radio common carrier paging service through- out the Commonwealth, received as information. Item 5.8. Notice dated July 21, 1992, from Virginia Electric and Power Company, stating that they have filed an application with the State Corpora- tion Commission requesting approval of a heat pump customer assistance program as a pilot program, was received as information. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) M.B. 42, Pg. 75 Mrs. Humphris said she feels the announced appointment of a new vice- president for energy conservation for Virginia Power is a major breakthrough and this is something they had been requested to do for a long time. She believes this will be a big help to the consumer. Item 5.9. Notice dated July 22~ 1992, from Rappahannock Electric Cooperative of applications filed with the State Corporation Commission, re: 1. Application to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity for the County of Albemarle to authorize the construction and operation of its proposed Proffit Substa- tion and a proposed single-circuit 115 kV line (Piney Moun- tain Project, Proffit to Rivanna 115 kV Transmission Line; Proffit 230 kV - 115 kV Substation). (On file in the Clerk's office.) Mrs. Humphris asked if staff could refresh the Board as to the condi- tions of approval placed on the special use permit for Rappahannock Electric. Mr. TuCker said he did not remember since the special use permit was approved some time ago. Mrs. Humphris said she asked because recently she saw a similar use was approved for Virginia Powerbut one of the conditions was that they provide measurements of electro-magnetic radiation at certain intervals and certain distances from the station. She wanted to know if, in the future, the Board could make that a condition of approval. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner, compared this application to the conditions of approval on the special use permit and the two documents were consistent. Also, at this point, it looks like Rappahannock Electric is meeting all of the conditions and including them in what they have submitted to the State Corporation Commission. As construction begins, they have to meet those conditions as well. The Board requested that the conditions of approval for SP-90-99, Rappahannock Electric Coop. be included on the Consent Agenda as information for the August 12 meeting. Se Application for a certificate of convenience and necessity (to construct, operate, maintain and improve in the certifi- cated territory of Virginia Power those facilities described in this application). Item 5.10. Notice dated July 24,.1992, from Rappahannock Electric Cooperative of application filed with the State Corporation Commission for a general increase in rates, was received for information. Item 5.11. Letter dated July 15, 1992, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy Director, Department of Historic Resources, stating that they have been requested to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the property known as Maxfield to determine whether it is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register, was received for information. Item 5.12. Monthly Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) for the Month of June, 1992, was received for information. Item 5.13. Copy of Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 1991, for Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, was received from the Auditor of Public Accounts, Commonwealth of Virginia (on file in Clerk's office), as information. Item 5.14. Copies of Minutes of the Planning Commission for June 30 and July 14, 1992, were received for information. Item 5.15. 1992 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the County Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item 5.16. Letter dated July 24, 1992, from Charley Goodman, Extension Agent, Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, transmitting a copy of the minutes of the Food and Agriculture Committee meeting held on July 21~ 1992~ was received for information. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) M.B. 42, Pg. 76 Item 5.17. Memorandum dated July 31, 1992, from Robert Wo Tucker, Jr., County Executive, transmitting a copy of the new voting regions defined by the Virginia Association of Counties Board of Directors and the number of seats assigned for each region, was received for information. The Board requested the County Executive to draft a letter, for the Chairman's signature, to the President of the Board of Directors of VACo, expressing concern about the County not being involved in the reorganization process and about the region the County was assigned. Item 5.18. Letter dated July 30, 1992, from A. G. Tucker, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, informing the Board that the Commonwealth Transpor- tation Board formally adopted a resolution approving Albemarle County's request for $500,000 in revenue sharing funds for FY 1992-93 for project #0631-0020224, C502, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Route 682, Total Project. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report of August 4, 1992: "DISCUSSION: The paving of Route 682, a gravel road, is shown as two scenarios. Scenario #1 is 0.8 miles and Scenario #2 incorpo- rates the second phase (1.7 miles) with Scenario #1. Doing so impacts (1) the total cost of Route 682, (2) the advertisement date of Route 682, and (3) the advertisement dates of other projects. The cost increases from $870,650 for Scenario #1 to $2,224,850 for Scenario #2. Advertisement Date on Route 682: Advertisement date would be delayed six months from July 1994 to January 1995. Advertisement Date on Other Projects: Six other pro- jects would slip from six months to three years. RECOMMENDATION= Provided for informa=ion." Mr. Tucker announced that Mr. John DePasquale from the Culpeper District Office of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) is present, along with associates, and will make a brief presentation of the background informa- tion. He will then answer any questions the Board members may have. Mr. DePasquale said this project will start at Route 250 go to the railroad tracks and continue on to Route 787 as the first portion. VDoT, at this time, does not have developed plans but does have a preliminary estimate of the engineering, right-of-way costs, construction costs and an advertise- ment date. The preliminary engineering costs for the first portion, which is approximately 8/10's of a mile, is $160~000; the right-of-way costs are approximately $105,000; construction costs are approximately $650,000; advertising date is in January, 1995. Looking at just the project from Route 250 to approximately 1.7 miles beyond the intersection of Route 787, the preliminary engineering costs are estimated at $250,000, which is an increase of approximately $90,000; the right-of-way costs are approximately $325,000, because there are many more property owners along this stretch to deal with; construction costs are approximately $1,700,000; and, the advertisement date would be pushed back approximately seven to eight months. Again, these are preliminary costs at this time. Mr. Perkins said he thought this road was added to the improvement list because the rights-of-way had been dedicated. He asked why $325,000 is shown for purchase of right-of-way. Mr. DePasquale said VDoT wants to minimize any impact the project will have as far as the purchase of right-of-way. Some- timest because of design conditions, the vertical elevation of the road or the horizontal position, the road cannot stay within the specified width. Mr. Perkins felt the Highway Department should negotiate with the landowners to get the additional dedication from them without any cost. The only reason the road was added to the list was because all of the right-of-way had been dedicated. VDoT has now decided that the road has to be changed to loop across the railroad track and that is where the additional right-of-way is needed. Certainly, a great number of roads could be prepared or black- topped much cheaper than this road and serve a greater purpose. Mr. Tucker said the two scenarios are presented so the Board can advise VDoT which direction to take. In terms.of the right-of-way, Mr. Perkins ~s exactly right, and that is the reason this is before the Board today. If the project is to go forward, the worst case scenario is anticipated. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) M.B. 42, Pg. 77 Mr. Perkins believes Highway Department standards create unnecessary costs and waste taxpayers money. He feels that roads can be built to a much lower standard at a much lower cost and serve the same purpose. Mr. Marshall said he supports the project because of the safety factor and he feels it needs to be done. He does not want to hold it up but does agree with Mr. Perkins. He does not understand what VDoT could have changed to make the cost increase this much. Mr. Bain said when he and Mr. Bowerman met with Mr. DePasquale and VDoT personnel, they were assured that this ~s a worst case scenario for prelimi- nary planning. In terms of certain places along the road needing more width than initially set out, VDoT has not negotiated a second time on these sections. Mr. DePasquale said that VDoT is looking at somewhat relaxed standards on the contract and recognizes the County's desire to minimize impacts. VDoT is looking at a minimum width of roadway and minimum design speed. Mr. Martin thinks there are situations where you need to take more right-of-way than what has been dedicated, but peer pressure should be used to get it. If peer pressure does not work then the road will just have to left alone and VDoT will have to go to the next project. If payment for right-of- way is started for some landowner, then all landowners will expect it. Mr. Bain said VDoT will not know what right-of-way is needed until they have done the actual engineering work for the project. Once that is done, if they run into a hurdle getting right-of-way on the second section, then it does not get done. Mr. Tucker said that is a good point. The Board can decide whether to go forward with scenario #2 or stay with scenario Mr. Martin asked if the preliminary engineering designs for the second section would be useful if that part of the project were not done for six years or so. Mr. DePasquale said VDoT would look at the plans and properties to see if anything had been built during that time, but he feels the plans would require very little additional work. Mr. Tucker said that the Board needs to either approve or have a consensus as to whether the preliminary engineering for the entire project should be done at this time. There was a consensus of the Board that VDoT move forward on preliminary engineering design for the complete Route 682 project. Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tucker about a letter the Board received about the installation of guard rails on Route 240. It was scheduled to be done in June and has not yet been done. He asked if anyone knew what the schedule of this is. Ms. Angela Tucker, Assistant Resident Engineer, Highway Department, was not sure of the schedule. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 1-8, Additional court costs, of the County Code, to assess a two dollar ($2.00) fee on all civil cases in both the Circuit and General District Courts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress July 21, and July 28, 1992.) Mr. Tucker summarized the request. The public hearing was opened. There being no one from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris moved and Mr. Marshall seconded the motion to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 1-8, in Chapter 1, General Provisions of the Code of Albemarle, as set out in full below: There being no discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) M.B. 42, Pg. 78 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 1-8 IN CHAPTER 1, "GENERAL PROVISIONS" OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED that Chapter 1, "General Provisions" of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 1-8, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 1-8. Additional court costs. A fee of two dollars ($2.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal, traffic, or civil case in the respective courts of the county for the purpose of provid- ing for the maintenance, construction or renovation of the courthouse, jail or court-related facilities located in and serving the county and to defray the costs of cooling, heating and electricity in these facilities. The director of finance shall segregate the fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose designated above. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: To receive views of citizens on the appointment of a member from the Scottsville District to serve on the Albema- rle County School Board. (Advertised in the Daily Progress July 25, 1992.) Mr. Bain opened the public hearing. Mr. Ervin Jordan, Jr. came forward 'and said the May 20th and 21st issue of the Daily Progress stated that Scottsville District Supervisor, Forrest Marshall, indicated the need for minorities to be represented on the School Board. Because Mr. Jordan is a resident of the Scottsville District and has an education background, he decided to apply. He completed and mailed his application on May 20th and telephoned Supervisor Marshall that evening to inform him of his candidacy. Mr. Marshall was encouraging and supportive. The School Board's only black member, Dr. Valdrie Walker~ also contacted Mr. Jordan to describe the duties and responsibilities of the Board. Mr. Jordan said that he never received any information as to what the procedure was but made it clear that he was a candidate only for the Scottsville'District seat..~ The last week of May he was contacted by Ms. Neher to arrange an appointment to be interviewed by the Board of Supervisors. At first, he refused because he had stated that he was only a candidate for the seat in the Scottsville District. He called Mr. Marshall to express his concern and was informed that he had to be interviewed by the Board of Supervisors before he could consider appointing him. The Board interviewed him on July 1st. Supervisor Marshall did not ask him any questions and during the meeting Mr. Bowerman asked if Supervisor Marshall had met with him prior to the interview. Since they had not, he felt very good about the interview. Mr. Jordan said that on July 21st he was notified by letter from Supervi- sor Bowerman that he had not been appointed. Mr. Jordan said he assumed this concluded the matter and he never heard from Supervisor Marshall. Mr. Jordan asked what the legal procedure for appointment to the School Board is since based on his experience, it is clear that for the at-large seat all candidates must be interviewed by the Board of Supervisors, but for the respective district the procedure is not clear. B~sed on what Dr. Walker told him, he should have been interviewed by Supervisor Marshall. In Mr. Marshall's interview broadcast this morning on WINA he stated that there were no other applicants other than Mr. George Landrith, III, yet admitted that the position was not advertised. Mr. Jordan said he was an applicant for the Scottsville District seat and was never interviewed by Supervisor Marshall. He believes this is wrong and is a circumvention of the process. African American residents of the County have told him that they believe he was deliberately blocked from being considered for the School Board but until this morning he simply dismissed this by saying that he had a fair hearing by the Board of Supervisors and considered the matter closed. Residents feel that they have been betrayed because the Board of Supervisors does nothing to ensure minority representation. Insinuations have also been made publicly about the fact that he and his wife do not have children. Having children in a public school should not be a prerequisite for membership on the School Board. Any quali- fied voter and taxpayer should be eligible for a seat. Mr. Jordan said this procedure has not been fair to him nor any other candidate for the Scottsville District seat. Mr. Jordan urged county residents to support elected school boards and said that until this morning, he had not recommended this, but now feels by doing this, favoritism and cronyism can be avoided. Ms. Peggy Russo, mother of four children who are students in the county schools, spoke in support of the appointment of Mr. George Landrith, III to the Scottsville District seat on the School Board. She said that like most parents, they care deeply about their children and want them to receive a first-class education. For this reason, she and her husband strongly support the appointment of Mr. Landrith to the School Board. Mr. Landrith and his August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) M.B. 42, Pg. 79 wife have four children. Their oldest child is seven years old and will be a second grader at Cale Elementary this fall, their youngest child is two months old and will not graduate from high school until the year 2010. This means that Mr. Landrith has a vested interest in working for excellence in our schools for the next 18 years. Mr. Landrith believes that education is vitally important to the community and most directly to our youth. He has been active with youth groups and recently participated in a program with classes at Walton Middle School. He made arrangements for students at Walton Middle School to visit the local Circuit Court and the JOint Security Complex. He accompanied the students as they watched a trial in progress and saw the interworkings of the local jail. The next day Mr. Landrith attended the student's classes and talked to them about the American legal system, the things they had witnessed the day before and answered their questions. Ms. Russo said Mr. Landrith knows how to listen and believes that before a good decision can be made, one must know and give consideration to all the relevant facts and opinions. He is honest and she feels that any position he takes will be based solely on whether it will improve the quality of the education the youth will receive. He is a team player and will work with other members of the School Board and the school administration to ensure that our youth receive a first-class education. Ms. Russo said that the citizens and parents in the Scottsville District with whom she has spoken, support the appointment of George Landrith as their School Board representative. They want his experience, commitment, honesty, work ethic and positive outlook working for them on the School Board. For these reasons, she urged each Board member to make George Landrith, III, the $cottsville District's next represen- tative to the School Board. There being no one else from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said State Law requires that any School Board appointment~ whether it be for the at-large member or for a district seat, be made only after a public hearing where comments are taken from citizens and applicants and people speaking on behalf of applicants. For the at-large seat on the School Board, the Board has interviewed from the people who applied. Every applicant has not been interviewed. The Board selected only some to inter- view. The practice has always been for the individual district members to interview the applicant from the district in which these applicants come. It is up to the individual Board member whether he or she decides to interview the individuals or how many to interview. He asked Mr. St. John if he was correct in his interpretation of this law. Mr. St. John agreed with his interpretation. Mr. Marshall commented that he was disappointed by some of the statements he heard from Mr. Jordan. He respects and admires Mr. Jordan. The at-large position was the only position advertised. The Scottsville District seat was not advertised and this was Mr. Marshall's prerogative. Mr. Marshall said that when he spoke with Mr. Jordan on the phone he told him this. Mr. Jordan was told this again when he was interviewed and Mr. Marshall said he believes Mr. Jordan made the statement that he was not applying for the at-large position, he was applying for the Scottsville District seat° Mr. Marshall replied that he had not advertised it and informed Mr. Jordan that this was for the at-large position but he decided to be interviewed for this vacancy. Mr. Marshall said that he picked an individual, not a particular gender or member'~of a particular race for this position. He feels that he picked the most qualified person for this position when he chose Dr. Walker. She happened to be black and happened to also be a woman. His choice had nothing to do with race. He feels that the County needs a minority on the School Board. Mr. Marshall said he does not feel it is his sole responsibility to see that there is a minority on the Board. It is the responsibility of the six people on this Board. He does not believe their choice had anything to do with race, but rather qualifications. Mr. Marshall feels that Mr. Jordan came across rather strong this morning. Mr. Marshall said that he is very sorry Mr. Jordan feels the way he does and hopes that the members of the black community will understand why he is placing only Mr. Landrith's name in nomination for the position for the S¢ottsville District. Mr. Marshall feels Mr. Landrith is very well qualified and will serve well on the School Board° Mr. Marshall stated that he would like to hear from Mr. Jordan° Mr. Jordan came forward and said that he has listened to what the Board and Mr. Marshall said about his candidacy. He respects Mr. Marshall's right to make the decision to nominate Mr. La~drith and has nothing against either of them. He feels there is a problem with the procedure for applying to the School Board. It seems to be inexact. He does not feel that he was given all of the facts as far as being an applicant for this position. He feels the procedure was "rigged" to favor one person. He believes it is incumbent on this Board and it's members to consider appointing minority applicants to all boards in Albemarle County. As a voter and a taxpayer~ he will hold this Board responsible. Mr. Jordan said that from the beginning he made it clear that he was only applying for the Scottsville District seat and was not interested in the at-large seat. He only went to the interview because Mr. Marshall encouraged him to do so. He is comfortable with Mr. Landrith being on the School Board, but is not comfortable with the fact that there will be August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) M.B. 42, Pg. 80 no blacks on the School Board. He said that he bears no ill will against this Board and bears no ill will against Mr. Marshall. He believes he has had a fair hearing but does not believe that he has received justice. Mr. Perkins said there are a number of processes used in the State of Virginia in selecting school board members. In some counties there is a committee that is selected which makes recommendations to the judge who then appoints the school board members. He believes that Albemarle County's system, regardless of its flaws and problems is probably the most democratic and best system of any in the state of Virginia. As far as elected school boards, if this is what the people want, then that is what they want, but there will be problems with this too. People will run for the school board who have "agendas and axes to grind" and this will cause a lot of problems. Mr. Marshall said he feels Mr. Jordan has a very good point as far as how to apply for this position. He feels that he generally misunderstood what was happening. This would not have happened if the Board had some published form or public procedure that applicants could go through. He believes the Board can do better to inform people. The Scottsville District seat was not advertised and therefore no other persons applied. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. St. John if he was correct in assuming that it was his decision whether he advertised the position. Mr. St. John said that the law does not address the interview or application process. It simply requires a public hearing. The process is entirely up to the Board. Mrs. Humphris said she has had the occasion to make two appointments to the school board since she has served on this Board. She found that by following what she assumed to be the process that no problems developed. She simply saw that the position was advertised and wrote letters to all of the Parent Teacher Organization's in her district. She spoke with everyone she could think of each time and asked them to have qualified people apply for this position. She let it be known and interviewed all of the applicants and picked the one she felt was the most qualified. That seemed to be a simple process. Mr. Martin said there is no procedure. He feels it would be good for this Board to discuss adopting a procedure. Even then, as long as the law allows the individual Board member to have discretion as to how they deal with their individual appointee, the only thing this Board can put together is a procedure and whether individual Board members decide to follow it will be up to that Board member. Mr. Martin responded to Mr. Jordan and said that he feels very strongly that there should be a minority on the Board and agrees that Albemarle County is not in a very good situation at this time by not having a minority on the School Board. This may not be rectified for at least two years, but he does not think that it is incumbent upon any individual supervisor to rectify this. It is the responsibility of the entire Board. Mr. Jordan said he disagrees with the latter part of Mr. Martinfs statement. Mr. Marshall said if he knew Mr. Jordan as well as he knows Mr. Landrith he would probably have appointed him for this position. He feels it is important for a Board member and a School Board member and a member of the Planning Commission to have good rapport. He believes they all need to be of the same mind in order for things to function properly. He has not had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Jordan for any length of time or to know how he and Mr. Jordan would interact with each other. He feels very strongly that the School Board needs a minority member, but feels just as strongly that he needs someone he can work with and share his ideas with. He does believe the system needs some input. He apologized to Mr.'Jordan that things worked out the way that they did. Mr. Bain suggested the Board have a work session when all members are present to look at a procedure for the appointment of both at-large and individual board and commission members. He feels the Board needs some consistency in procedures. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:10 a.m. and reconvened at 10:26 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-86-82 - Caleb Stowe Village Limited Partnership. Amendment of a Condition of Approval. Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report of July 23, 1992: "Location of Site: Property, described as Tax Map 61U-02, Parcel 4, is located on the northeast side of Berkmar Drive approximately 1300 feet northwest of Route 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Petition: The applicant is seeking a modification of Condition 6 of SP-86-82. The applicant's request is included as Attachment Ao The approval letter for $P-86-82 is included as Attachment B. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) M.B. 42, Pg. 81 Staff Comment: On February 4, 1987, the Board of Supervisors ap- proved SP-86-82 permitting a kennel. Condition 6 of that approval stated "This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder is issued for a commercial kennel operated by Michael Cronk and is not transferable." A new operator has stated that the site will run in a manner similar to its previous operations and in compliance with all conditions. The current applicant proposes alternative language to existing Condition 6 restricting the permit to "Crea- tures Great & Small, Incorporated". Staff can identify no specific grounds to limit the use to a particular operator. Other conditions exist regulating the physical characteristics of the site so as to prevent the use from becoming a nuisance. The Zoning Department has reviewed the history of the site and has found no evidence of either complaints or violations. Staff recommends the deletion of Condi- tion 6 with no new language being included." Mrs. Humphris moved for approval of the deletion of condition 6 of SP-86-82 as requested by the applicant. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. There being no further discussion,.roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 10. Road Signs; Contract Costs and Private Road Signs. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report of July 31, 1992: "BACKGROUND: In adopting the "Road Naming and Numbering of Proper- ties" ordinance on July 8, 1992, the Board requested that staff provide recommendations on how to identify rural private roads in order to preclude motorists from entering private properties. In addition to presenting alternatives to address this issue, an update on the costs to install the E-911 system signs is provided. DISCUSSION: (1) For Action: Staff has reviewed numerous alternatives for designating private roads and offers the following options as discussed in the attach- ment (filed in the Clerk's office): An additional "PRIVATE" ~ign, to VDoT standards, on the same post as the E-911 road name sign; A "PRIVATE" decal on all E-911 road name signs on private roads located in the place reserved for the state route number; A "PRIVATE LANE" sign with additional identifi- cation, installed on a separate post outside the state right-of-way, when requested by affected property owners. Sign maintenance options are also discussed on page 3. (2) For Information: Staff is proceeding with the award of a contract to manufacture and install the E-911 road signs. The contract price is on a unit basis and is expected to cost $296,489. This is greater than the initial estimate of $100,933 from 1991. Although the signs now have to meet a higher design standard, the change in costs is attributable to an almost three-fold (2.6) increase in the number of signs required. The initial estimate was 746 signs and the actual quantity is 1971. Additional funding will not be required nor will an extension in the surcharge period be required as the surcharge collections are higher than initially estimated. RECOMMENDATION= Approve Option 2 ("Private" decal on the E-911 road sign) and Option 3 ("Private Lane" on a separate post when requested by affected property owners). If approved, the decal installation and maintenance would be at County expense as part of our road sign maintenance responsibilities. The "Private Lane" signs should be initially provided by the County, but installed and maintained by the property owner(s), as these signs are on private property intended to serve the interests of these owners.~' August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) M.B. 42, Pg. 82 Mrs. Humphris said that under option #3 the private lane sign, installed outside the state right-of-way, states an easement would have to be acquired from the property owner. She asked what is being talked about regarding expense to the County of the legal operation of acquiring easements for hundreds of tiny pieces of property. Mr. Tucker said that if the property owner is requesting it, the County will not have to pay anything, but if it were property owners down a lane where a sign is needed and the person on a corner lot did not agree to it, the County might have to purchase easements. Mr. Martin said he feels the neighbors would have to pressure that particular property owner. Mr. Bain said that from listening to the public, he feels that if the property owner wants this, he does not see it as being an issue. Mr. Tucker said the decal would be the first line of defense. Mrs. Humphris asked for Board input because after studying it, it seemed to her that having a sign in addition to the decal on the regular sign, to be paid by the taxpayers at a cost of approximately $31,000.00, did not seem to be a good idea. She does not believe that this should be paid for with tax dollars, she thinks private owners should pay for the sign and maintain it. Mr. Martin said he was looking at private lanes, but if it is limited to only the people that request this designation, then it would not be a signifi- cant number. He asked if there was some sort of timeframe that could be set for taking these requests. Mr. Tucker said the property owner could make a request at anytime. Mr. Bain said that if they had "private" on the main sign and that did not work they could come back later and ask for the separate sign saying "private lane". Mr. Martin asked if this was correct and could the property owner come back five years later and say that they want this installed at County expense if they agree to maintain the sign. Mr. Tucker said that if the Board decides that it wants the County to provide the signs, the Board would accept the obligation for the County. Mr. Tucker urged the Board to keep in mind that if an individual property owner or group of property owners come in and want to name their private street or road, they have to pay for the sign, the County does not pay for it. The County only orders the sign and does the administrative part of getting it ordered to the proper standards. Mrs. Humphris said she feels the Board would be crossing the line if it spent this much money for something that will only benefit a particular group of people and would not benefit the public good. She thinks it is good to put the decal on the road sign to indicate that it is a private road, but does not feel tax dollars should be used beyond this. She believes the Board should make it possible for the property owner to purchase a standardized sign if this is what he chooses. Mr. Marshall said he agrees and thinks if property owners want the sign then they should have to pay for it. Mr. Martin feels that the few people who would want a sign are people who basically feel that they have been grieved by putting this huge sign at the end of their private driveway. He does not believe there will be a lot of people who will request a sign and if people do not have to pay for the sign they will not want the County's when they can get one themselves. The sign would be more effective if it were a standardized sign that people got used to seeing so they would automatically know that the drive or lane was private. He believes it would be in the best interest of everyone for the County to allow the people who want the private sign and pay for it initially, but a time limit of six months should be placed on the requests and after that the County would make the sign available but the property owner would have to pay for it. Mr. Martin feels it is important to get this standardization started. Mr. Bain said he has a problem wit~ the time limit. The property owners do not know what the consequence of just having the private decal on the main sign will be and if they have to decide within six months, they may not know whether it is needed or not. He thinks most of the roads that are private will only need the decal. If the private decal does not serve its purpose~ then he believes the County should pay the initial expense of the signe He also feels that there will be very few people that will request the signs. Mr. Marshall said he cannot make all of the taxpayers pay for what one person wants on his property. Mrs. Humphris agreed and said she understood that it may be something that is not popular but even if it is only half the anticipated amount, it could be from $15,000 to $25,000. She feels there are too many other things that need funding and she does not feel this is a necessary expenditure for tax dollars. Mr. Bain asked if the County planned to charge a fee. Mr. Tucker said that it would. He added that it i~ a cost of $30 to $50. If there is a group of individuals, they could split this for a private lane sign. It is not a lot of money for one sign. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) M.B. 42, Pg. 83 Mr. Martin feels that if people are given the option to purchase, they will not be inclined to purchase the signs the County has because they can get one of their own. This causes the loss of standardization and to some extent the effect. He believes people will get used to seeing the standardized private sign and it will become more effective. Mr. Martin said he agrees with the staff's recommendation. He feels there should be some kind of limit even if it is a year. He agrees with the recommendation that the County provide the sign installed, but private owners maintain the sign with the language "requested by effected property owners". He said that he was going to separate the recommendations. Mr. Martin then offered motion to adopt option B, "Decal placed on both sides of each sign stating 'PRIVATE' in place of the state route number decal." Mrs. Humphris seconded. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Martin then offered motion to adopt option C, "Provide a separate 'PRIVATE LANE' sign with message stating 'NO TURN AROUND' or 'NO ADMITTANCE' This aluminum sign to be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and installed three feet to four and a half feet off the ground", with condition 2, "County will provide sign, install with private owners to maintain. This sign is to be provided only when requested by the effected property owners." This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Marshall then made motion to adopt option C, which states, "Provide a separate 'PRIVATE LANE' sign with message stating 'NO TURN AROUND' or 'NO ADMITTANCE'. This aluminum sign to be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and installed three feet to four and a half feet off the ground" with substitution of condition 3 which states: "County provide sign, private owners install and maintain. This sign is to be provided only when requested by the effected property owners." This motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Humphris then made motion to adopt option C, "Provide a separate 'PRIVATE LANE' sign with message stating 'NO TURN AROUND' or 'NO ADMITTANCE'. This aluminum sign to be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and is to be installed three feet to four and a half feet off the ground" with substitution of condition 4 which states: "The private owners purchase sign, install and maintain when requested by the affected private owners." Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bain. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 11. Road Naming Manual, Adoption of. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report of July 31, 1992: "BACKGROUND: The recently adopted ordinance on "Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties" includes a separate manual that prescribes a system for naming of roads, numbering of properties, design standards for road signs, sign site preparation and maintenance requirements. This manual was included with the draft ordinance during Board work sessions and public hearings but was not formally approved by the Board when the ordinance was adopted. Once the manual is approved, it can be amended by Board resolution. Approve the Road Naming and Addressing Manual." Mrs. Humphris made the motion to adopt the Road Naming and Addressing Manual, dated April 20, 1992, with the ~orrection noted in agenda item no. 10. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) M.B. 42, Pg. 84 AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: The manual as adopted is set out in full below.) ROAD NAMING AND ADDRESSING MANUAL INTRODUCTION This manual is to prescribe a system for the naming of roads; the addressing of properties and structures; and the erection and maintenance of associated signage as provided for in Section 16.01-3 of the Code of Albemarle County. The Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development or desig- nated agent shall be responsible for the interpretation and administration of the provisions of this manual. DEFINITIONS Addressable Structure: Any building used for human habitation, or gather- ing, or for the production or sale of goods or services. Addressinq Grid: A series of intersecting lines running north-south and east-west on 1000 foot intervals which is coincident with the Virginia State Coordinate Grid System 1927 datum used to assign address ranges to road seg- ments. Bubble Street: A cul-de-sac street or road which is less than 100 feet in length measured from the point of radius of the turnaround to the centerline of the road from which it originates. Cul-de-sac: A street or road having only one outlet and having an appropriate turn around area for a safe and convenient reverse of traffic movent. Directionality: The geographic orientation of a named road segment (either east-west or north-south). Director of Planninq and Community Development: The Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development or his or her designee; also referred to ms "Director". Desiqnator: Suffix used to indicate the road type. Primary Access: A road or driveway used as the primary means of vehicular access to an addressable structure. CHAPTER I. 1. Roads Requiring Names Ail public roads and those private roads serving three or more ad- dressable structures shall be named. All new roads platted as a result of subdivision which serve three er more lots shall be named. b. Private roads which serve less than three addressable structures may be named as provided for in Section 6. c. Bubble streets do not require naming. 2. Review and Approval of Proposed Road Names ae Ail proposed names shall be reviewed by the Department of Planning and Community Development for conformance with the guidelines established herein. If a proposed road name is found to be in accordance with all provisions of this manual, the Director shall approve the name. 3. Maintenance of Master Road Names Director~ and Road Names Map ae Ail approved road names shall be listed in a Master Road Names Direc- tory to be maintained by the Director of Planning and Community Deve- lopment. be The location of all public roads and officially named private roads shall be illustrated on a master set of Road Names Maps to be main- tained by the Director. 4. Street/Road Name Guidelines a. A proposed road name which duplicates an existing or reserved road August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) M.B. 42, Pg. 85 be name in Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville will not be approved. An exception may be made for cul-de-sacs which have the same name as the road from which they originate (example: "Amberfield Court" which originates from "Amberfield Drive"). Road names are limited to three words not including the road type designator. c. A road name shall not exceed more than twenty characters including spaces and the designator's abbreviation. d. A road name shall not include numbers, dashes, apostrophes or other non-alphabetical characters. e. Compass points such as NORTH and EAST shall not be used in road names. f. Articles (the, a, an) shall not be used to begin road names. g. Road names duplicating facilities shall not be approved (example: "Bowling Alley'', ''Tennis Courts'). h. Inappropriate usage of recognized community names or inappropriate usage of names derived from geographic features shall not be approved. i. The use of commemorative names such as Thomas Jefferson, Jack Jouett, etc., shall be reserved for the County of Albemarle and the Common- wealth of Virginia. je No proposed road name will be approved which beqins with a word that appears as the first word in five or more official road names. The Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development shall maintain a listing of all such words. No proposed name will be accepted which sounds like an existing road name or may be easily confused with an existing road name (example: "Forrestview" and "Forestvue"). Where a proposed road is a continuation of or in alignment with an existing road, it should utilize the same road name as the existing road. A new road name is required if the proposed road is discon- nected from the existing road by an offset greater than sixty feet. 5. Road Type Designators Road type designations should be consistent with the roadway's func- tional classification, expected traffic use, width of right-of-way and continuity. In order to achieve some consistency of designator usage, designators shall be apprOved by the Director of Planning and Commu- nity Development and are not to be incorporated in any road name. Designators which appear on any plats or plans prior to approval may be voided or changed. Designators will be approved according to the following guidelines: ALBEMARLE COUNTY STREET AND ROAD TYPE DESIGNATIONS ARTERIALS/COLLECTORS HWY - Hiqhway: A Federal or State designated primary road. *RD - Road: Generally an arterial/collector road connecting to the primary system. *DR - Drive: A winding arterial/collector. *PKWY - Parkway: A scenic or landscaped road. Communities or Town~ *BLVD - Boulevard: Wide road with median and landscaping. *AVE - Avenue: A major road in a community. *ST - Street: A community or subdivision road. A short street that parallels another road. ALY - Alley: A narrow or minor road in a community. LOCAL ROADS *LN - Lane: Generally a narrow road. *WAY - Way: A minor road or street often which dead ends. *CIR - Circle: A road which returns to itself. *LOOP - Loop: A drive which begins and ends on the same road. TR - Trail: Generally reserved for roads through uninhabited areas. PA - Path: A short and/or narrow road. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) M.B. 42, Pg. 86 LOCAL ROADS/INTERNAL *CT NK - Court ~ C,~n~rally short,r, p~,mnent ~ead ~ts or cul-d~acs. NOOk *PL - Place: A dead end or cul-de-sac road from which other cul-de-sacs originate. GRN - Green(e) · Generally a amtral a~a with buildln~s clustcrcd arotaxl it. -- CSG - Crossing: A road which crosses a geographic feature (such as a creek or mountain pass) or, a short road that serves as a connector between two other roads. ~LF - Bluff HL - Hill HTS - Heights *TERR - Terrace RDG - Ridge PT - Point KN - Knoll Roads along high ground. TC - Trace CV - Cove AR -'~Arch RCH - Reach BND - Bend GRV - Grove Minor roads in subdivisions. SPECIAL TPK CTR PK PRIVATE ROADS FRM - Farm EST - Estate - Turnpike: Reserved for historic turnpikes. - Center: Shopping, commercial areas. - Park: Reserved for entranceways to public parks. *VDOT standard abbreviations/designations 6. Road Naming Process a. Policy on Participation in Road Naming: (1) The process of naming roads will be limited to those who own property adjacent to the road in question. Where the road occurs on property under single ownership and control (such as a farm lane serving the owner's house and farm tenants), the farm/land- owner has sole rights to the road name input. (2) Where the road traverses or serves several properties, the resi- dent landowners of property adjacent to the road will be given the opportunity to choose the name. (3) Where there are no resident landowners and a road needs to be named, absentee landowners of property adjacent to the road will be contacted to seek their views regarding the naming of the road. (4) In the event that there is no participation from either resident landowners or absentee landowners, staff will name the road in accordance with County procedures. b. Processing Requests to Name Roads: Requests to name roads by individuals shall be in writing. The request is to take the form of a petition to the Director of Planning and Community Development which includes the following information: (1) A description of the road's location giving the direction and approximate distance from the nearest intersection of two public roads. (2) A list of all landowners haying property adjacent to the road in question. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) M.B. 42, Pg. 87 (3) Certification that all such qualified landowners have been noti- fied of the proposed name. (4) Signatures of landowners or their agent representing a majority (greater than fifty percent) of adjacent parcels. The Director may approve the request upon validating that landowners of more than fifty .percent of the parcels adjacent to the road in question have signed the petition. c. Road Name Reservation Process (1) Specific road names may be reserved prior to preliminary plan or plat submittal by a written request to the Director. Names will be reserved for one year. d. Road Naming in the Subdivision and Site Development Review Process (1) Developers or their agents may contact the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to submission to check the viabil- ity of proposed names. Road names may be reserved as provided in Section 6-c. (2) Proposed road names shall appear on all preliminary and final site development plans and subdivision plats. (3) Road names and designators proposed through the development review process shall be reviewed and approved or denied during Department of Planning and Community Development staff review. (4) Names shown and approved on the preliminary plan/plat shall be reserved for the life of the preliminary plan/plat and must be shown on the final plan/plat. (5) Names shown and approved on the record plat or final plan shall~ be reserved only for the period that the plat or plan remains valid. If a project is terminated, the reserved road names will be relinquished. (6) Subdivision plats and/or plans shall not be approved for recorda- tion or building permits issued, until approved road names and road type designations are ~hown correctly thereon. 7. Final Authority of Board of Supervisors to Assign Road Names a. The Board of Supervisors may change, name or rename an existing or newly established road at any time. CHAPTER II. ADDRESSING 1. Assignment of Addresses by Department of Planning and Community Develop- ment Ail addresses for properties and addressable structures shall be assigned by the Department of Planning and Community Development following the procedures and guidelines contained in this chapter. Addresses assigned by any other person or entity will not be recog- nized. Addresses shall be developed and assigned to any new addressable structure shown on a site development plan or lot created by subdivi- sion. Addresses shall not be officially assigned until the final site development plan or subdivision plat has been approved. Addresses shall also be assigned when requested by individuals for new struc- tures that do not require site development plan approval. 2. Uniform Addressing System Established Ail addresses shall be determined by the uniform system of developing and assigning addresses hereby established. This uniform system shall utilize a grid system combined with an equal-interval numbering system. 3. Albemarle County Addressing Grid Defined ae The Albemarle County Addressing Grid shall be based on the existing Virginia State Plane Coordinate System which is a grid superimposed over the State having lines at 10,000 foot intervals oriented north- south and east-west. The Addressing Grid shall have lines every 1000 feet interpolated between the 10,000 foot grid lines. The Addressing Grid thereby establishes a series of 10,000 square foot cells or blocks covering the entire County. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) M.B. 42, Pg. 88 be The axes or baselines of the Addressing Grid shall have their origin at the intersection of the 1000 foot gridlines nearest to the actual intersection of Wertland Street and 15th Street NW in the City of Charlottesville. Numbering along the axes of the grid begins with zero at the origin and increases outward from that point with 100 numbers allotted per 1000 feet (thus resulting in a pair of numbers every twenty feet). This grid shall be used to determine the directionality and address range of a given road segment. Addressing Procedures a. Directionality of Road Determined (1) Before addressing of a named road may proceed, the directionality of the road must be determined (east-west or north-south). Generally, a road's directionality shall be determined as that of the Address Grid baseline the road in question most closely parallels. (2) Consideration may also be given to the type of development in- volved, the relationship of the road in question to other roads around it and the pattern of address numbers that result. b. Address Range of Road Established (1) The address range of a named road shall be established by the numbering along the Addressing Grid baseline which has the same directionality as the named road. (2) In the event that a named road crosses one of the baselines of the Addressing Grid, the address range of that named road shall be adjusted so that no address number occurs twice along the named road. c. Address Numbers Assigned (1) Once the directionality and address range of a particular road segment has been determined, the numbering of the addressable structures and properties along the road segment shall be done utilizing an equal-interval methodology. The numbers shall be assigned beginning at the end of the road segment nearest the origin of the Addressing Grid. The numbers shall then be evenly distributed within the established address range. 5. General Addressing Guidelines ae be Even numbers shall occur on the north side of east-west designated roads and the west side of north-south designated roads. Odd numbers shall occur on the opposite sides. Ail addressable structures and properties shall be addressed on the named road which a structure's or properties primary access inter- .sects. The specific address number shall be determined by the point at which the primary access meets the named road. The number sequence for address~ble structures or properties on oppo- site sides of a road should conform to each other as nearly as possi- ble. de se fe Half numbers shall not be used. Alphabetical suffixes are acceptable when a secondary address designation is necessary. Reverse frontage or through lots shall be addressed along the local road which provides primary access to the lot. Corner lots shall be addressed on the road which provides primary access. Where the driveway for a corner lot intersects more than one street, the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development shall make the final determination of which road the lot will be addressed on based upon such factors as the driveway's length, orientation of the structure and other relevant factors. When two addressable structures share a primary access, they shall be numbered consecutively with adequate consideration given to possible future development between the structures. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) M.B. 42, Pg. 89 he Temporary addresses will not be issued. An address may be issued to a structure that is intended to be temporary (such as a construction site trailer office). It will be treated as any address and upon removal of the temporary structure, the address will be retired. An address may also be assigned to any proposed building described on an approved site development plano 6. Mobile Home Developments Ail mobile home parks shall be treated as any other development with private access roads named, signed and street addresses issued along those named roads within the development. 7. Residential Apartments and Condominiums me Each access roadway shall be named and the County standard road name sign shall be installed. In cases where the apartment units are located near the public road or along shallow parking areas parallel to a named road, a separate name may not be required. The individual apartments shall be numbered considering the type of unit, the indivi- dual apartment entrance location and building design as follows: (1) Duplex: number the front entrance of each individual unit. (2) Townhouse: number each individual unit's front entrance - one number per unit. (3) Garden: number each individual unit entrance. If the apartment's unit entrances are located off an inside foyer, number the outside building entrance and assign an alphabetical designation for each individual unit's entrance within the foyer. The building number and the apartment unit's alphabetical designation together shall form the address. (Example: 630 Old Shady Grove Road, Apartment A.) Numerical and alphabetical characters should not be combined (as in 630-A Old Shady Grove Road). The development name may also be used in the address whenever desirable. 8. Commercial, Office and Industrial Complexes ao For commercial, office and industrial complexes, a choice shall be made by the Director of Planning and Community Development from several methods: (1) Assign the number to the main building where all of the mail is to be received. Auxiliary buildings may be assigned separate num- bers. The development name 'may be included in the address. (2) Each principal building in the complex may require a separate number, and the buildings may also be 'named. The development name and/or the building name may be included in the address. (3) For shopping center development, a separate number shall be assigned for each unit's main entrance. The shopping center name should be included in the address. Consideration should be given when assigning address numbers to provide flexibility for adding stores and redivision of spaces. In the event a space is redivid- ed and no address numbers remain available alphabetical unit designations shall be used. (4) Interior mall shopping centers should have one number assigned for the entire mall. The shopping center name and store name should be in the address° Individual stores should not be assigned numbers except for identification and utility billing when neces- sary. A separate property number may be assigned for the mall business office. (5) Where deemed appropriate by the Director, a multiple-story build- ing may be assigned one address number to its main entrance with units (such as suites or rooms) assigned numbers. The first floor shall be assigned numbers beginning with 100 and numbers on each successive floor should increase to the next highest 100 series (second floor - 200 series; third floor 300 series, etc.). A basement or floor below grodnd level may use a three digit series beginning with zero. 9. Multiple-Use and Multi-Tenant Buildings a° Each separate exterior entrance (not including service entrances) should be assigned an individual number. Developments with tenant spaces (apartments, shopping centers, office buildings) may require an additional component for an address. The individual tenant space (such as an apartment or suite) shall receive an alphabetical suffix. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) M.B. 42, Pg. 90 10. Agencies to Be Notified of Addresses Assigned ae The Director of Planning and Community Development shall notify the following agencies and departments of all newly adopted road names and newly assigned addresses as well as any changes to existing road names and addresses: Albemarle County Department of ~eal Estate Albemarle County Department of Building Inspections Albemarle County Department of Police Albemarle County Department of Sheriff Albemarle County Service Authority Albemarle County Registrar's Office University of Virginia Charlottesville-Albemarle Emergency Operations Center United States Postal Service Address Programs Support Office The Director may also notify any utility providers or other agencies or departments deemed appropriate. CHAPTER III. SPECIFICATION FOR NAME SIGNAGE 1. Materials and Physical Description for Signs ae The road name sign blank shall be made from flat aluminum sign sheet material conforming to ASTM B209 for Alloy 5052-H38 or its equivalent. The sign blank thickness shall be 0.100" and each corner of the sign blank shall be square cut. Holes shall be placed in the blank name plate as detailed in "Detail C". be There shall be two sizes of road name signs; standard and oversize. Standard signs shall be eight (8) inches in vertical length (height) while oversize signs shall be nine (9) inches in vertical length. Standard signs shall be used along secondary, local and subdivision roads while oversize signs shall be used along primary and major collector secondary roads. The letter type shall conform to Federal Highway Association "Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs, Series C or B", upper case. The size of the sign blanks; message lettering; and reserved spaces for route and block numbers for Standard and Oversize signs are as follows: STANDARD (Local/Subdivision) OVERSIZE (Primary/Collector) SIGN BLANKS Horizontal length Vertical length *Route Decal Reserved Space Block Number Reserved Space 24" min to 46" max 8" 8" x 1.25" 30" min to 48" max 9" 12" X 2.5" 8" x 2.5" 12" x 3.5'4 ME S SAGE Prefix Capitals 2" C 3" C Name Capitals 5" C 6" C Suffix Capitals 2" C 3" C Route Decal 1" C 2 ~' C Private 1" C 2" C Block Number 2" C 3" C c. The sign may be constructed using the cut letter process or the silk screen process. *For private roads, place the word PRIVATE in Route Decal Space (1) If the cut letter process is used the sign blank shall be covered on both sides for the entire length of the blank with a high intensity (encapsulated) reflectorized green background sheeting, 3M "Scotchlite" brand product number 3877. High intensity (encap- sulated) reflectorized sheeting 3M "Scotchlite" product number 3870 shall be used for the silver-white letters and numerals. The reflective material shall be applied to both sides of the blank name plate with mechanical equipment in a manner specified by the sheeting manufacturer. The sign background shall be comprised of not more than one piece of reflective sheeting° The letters and August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) M.B. 42, Pg. 91 numerals shall be applied on both faces of the sign using the cut letter process. The reflective sheeting shall have a minimum guaranteed life of ten years. (2) The Silk Screen process shall use a sign blank prepared as de- scribed above with the silver-white 3M brand product number 3870 (encapsulated) reflectorized sheeting. The green background shall be applied using 3M brand product number 848 or equivalent process color. After application and curing of the color according to 3M product specifications, a clear coat of Series 840 Transparent Colors product number 840 Clear shall be applied and cured accord- ing to 3M product specifications. do The maximum space available on a standard (8" high) sign for the road name is 34 inches and an oversize (9" high) sign has 32 inches of space for the road name. Spacing between letters within a street name should conform to the spacing dimensions shown in the Virginia Supple- ment to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways unless this will result in a sign width greater than the maximum space available. In such cases, a thirty (30) percent force factor may be used on signs greater in length than 42 inches for standard signs or 48 inches for oversized signs. The spacing between the letters using the forced factor may be reduced proportionately to a minimum of one-half inches at the closest point between two adjoin- ing letters. If further reduction is required, Series B letters may be used. If the name will not fit in the space available, a thirty (30) percent force factor may be used as above. Finally, if the approved road name will not fit on the maximum length sign with the Series B letters and a thirty (30) percent force factors the County Engineering Department may submit for a variance from the Virginia Department of Transportation. Se ft At the end of the road name there are three spaces either eight inches (for the 8" sign) or twelve inches (for the 9" sign) in length which are stacked one over the other. These spaces are reserved for the route decal, the block number and the road type suffix. If the block number is to be affixed in decal form, the decal will be of the same material as the main sign sheeting as specified above. The direction- al triangle, an 1.25 inch equilateral triangle for the eight inch sign or 1.5 inch equilateral triangle for the nine inch sign of silverwhite "Scotchlite" material, is to be affixed in front of or at the end of the block number to point in the direction of increasing numerical values. See "Detail B" for location of spaces. The route decal shall be non-reflectorized with a black message on a white color field. The decal shall be provided and installed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. Post and Hardware Specifications aJ The sign post shall be a standard dimension pressure treated (ground contact quality in conformance with the requirements of American Wood Preservers Association C2) 4" x 4" wood post cut with a minimum ten (10) foot straight section. The sign must be embedded a minimum of 27 inches in the ground, which may require some sign posts to be longer than ten (10) feet. The top of the post shall be cut flush with the signs. The signs should be mounted flush at the top, at ninety (90) degrees to each other, with a minimum seven (7) foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to the ground. The sign blades shall face away from the intersection on the pavement side of the post and parallel to the road alignment. The soil shall be tightly tamped around the post to prevent removal of the sign. The disturbed soil shall be graded to drain away from the post. The post shall be plumbed vertically and horizontally. be The sign mounting hardware shall consist of four (4) stainless steel hex-head lag screws (3/8" diameter x 3" length) or an approved equiva- lent per sign. The lag screws are to be installed in the manner illustrated in "Detail C" with four (4) 3/8 inch #18-8 stainless steel flat washers with a one inch outside diameter or an approved equiva- lent. Location of Post and Sign The sign post shall be placed in the road right-of-way a minimum of three (3) horizontal feet from any utility line. The installer shall be responsible for contacting "Miss Utility" before installing signs (1-800-552-7001). At the intersection of a primary and secondary road, two (2) sign locations are to be used. The sign post shall be located on the right hand side of the street as you turn right onto the secondary road. The sign shall be a minimum of five (5) horizon- tal feet on the centerline radius of the curve from the outer edge of the pavement for roads without ditch lines. Those roads that have August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) M.B. 42, Pg. 92 ditch lines less than three (3) feet from the edge of pavement will have signs placed two (2) horizontal feet back from the ditch line. See "Detail A" for diagram. For urban road sections with curb and gutter, the sign post will be placed directly behind the edge of the curb. If a sidewalk is adjacent to the curb, then the sign post will be placed behind the sidewalk. At the intersection of two secondary roads, only one (1) sign location is to be used. This is to be the right hand corner of the intersec- tion for inbound traffic to the subdivision. See ''Detail A" for diagram. The guidelines above are to be applied to the installation of signs at the intersection of.two secondary roads. In the event a road name changes at an intersection of two secondary roads, a second sign location is required. A variance in location may be obtained if these requirements cannot be met due to existing site conditions. This must be confirmed with the County Engineering Department prior to installation of the sign. DETAILS A. PRIMARY SECONDARY ROAD 5' min. THAN 3 FEET FROM~'' ~1~4'1~ ~ EDGE OF PAVEMENT · INTERSECTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ROAD INTERSECTION OF TWO SECONDARY STREETS I~ECCND,~Ry L STREET .~ LNWARD TRAFFIC FLOF¢_~ DITCH LINE LESS THAN 3 FEET FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT SECONDARY STREET ~ ~ ~.__. 2'1~' SIGNS & POST PREFIX k"'-~'$TREET NAME SPAC~ ' ¢-~ ~t ~ ~_2r-FBLOCK NUMBER ~ ~STATE ROUTE / NUMBER S~CE S1GN NOT TO SCALE 1'O BE USED AS A REL'ItF.$EN'I"ATiON ONLY -13- August 5, (Page 21) 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 93 .9 ® , e ® ® ® CUT POST FLUSH WITH SIGNS X' MA RK,S LOCATION } I--- FOR LAG SCREWS 4 x 4 POST 0 ~D uJ © I_1_ 'L I -14- August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) M.B. 42, Pg. 94 CHAPTER IV. DISPLAY OF ADDRESS NUMBERS 1. General Guidelines for Display of Address N,,mhers be Address numbers shall be displayed at the primary access entrance on a mailbox, post, fence or other suitable location that is easily dis- cernible from the road. If the structure is 100 feet or less from the road, the entrance door of the structure is clearly visible from the road, and there is no mailbox, post, fence or other suitable location at the primary access entrance, address numbers shall be displayed on, above, or at the side of the main entrance door in a manner that is clearly visible from the road upon which it is addressed. The address number shall be displayed as numerals and shall not be spelled out. de The numerals displayed shall be.at least three (3) inches in height on a contrasting background (dark numbers over a light background or light numbers over a dark background). If the mailbox is not located on the named road (public or private) from which the number has been assigned, the entire address (number and road name) shall be shown on that mailbox to avoid confusion. In these cases, it will be necessary to also display the number on the property as stated above. ee On corner lots, only one number will be assigned. To avoid confusion, the number must be displayed to face the street which is a part of the address. fe Any numbers previously displayed, which could be confused with or mistaken for the assigned address number are to be removed from the mailbox and property. g. Address numbers are to be properly maintained by the property owner to ensure they are clearly discernible. Display of Address Numbers for Multi-Unit Buildings and Multi-Building Complexes be If a building is divided into multiple units with separate entrances, and each unit has been assigned an individual address number, then each should display their number on or next to their main doorway. The address range of all individual unit numbers within a multi-unit building shall be displayed in a manner that is clearly visible from the road upon which the units are addressed. If more than one building shares a primary access, then the address range shall also be displayed on each building. 3. Additional Signage Required When Necessary ae The Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development may also require addresses or address ranges to be posted in addi- tional locations as deemed necessary. Agenda Item No. 12. Zoning Enforcement, Report on. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report dated July 31, 1992: "BACKGROUND: At your July 8, 1992 meeting, you requested staff to provide information on our zoning enforcement policies, practices and procedures. The attached staff report from the Zoning Administrator and County Attorney provide this information. In summary: Zoning Department enforces the "junk car" ordinance, the illegal dumping ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. Enforcement of "junk cars" and illegal dumping occupy the majority of their enforcement time in addition to complaints of illegal basement apartments. By policy, anonymous complaints are not processed in order to avoid "sic-em" calls and to have documented testimony if court actions are necessary. Enforcement goal is compliance and not punishment except in cases of violation. As such, staff procedures focus on August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) M.B. 42, Pg. 95 working with the violator to get voluntary compliance. This has been County policy. Eighty-three to ninety-seven percent of violations are re- solved without litigation. This is time consuming: 60 to 90 days to investigate and get compliance with five to seven field visits; may extend to a year if legislative action is involved. Trend has been a more aggressive use of the courts when warranted; where less than one case per year went to court, the current Zoning Administrator has used the courts an average of seven cases per year. Numbers of complaints are increasing and are not expected to decrease. In the past five years, complaints are up 269 percent (48 to 177) and violations are up 24 percent (54 to 67). Enforcement is done by three Zoning Inspectors. Changes in current policies or procedures may have staffing implications that would need to be considered. Suggestions for changes have been submitted to staff to include civil penalties and issuing summonses. These changes are not considered beneficial to the process and lack of legal authority as discussed by the County Attorney in the attach- ment. None, provided for information and discussion." Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, said zoning enforcement cases that do not result in voluntary compliance involve pursuing litigation. The statistics show that seven cases per year end up in court, while this year there have been seven so far with another nine cases pending. Mr. Bain said if staff is trying to work through the complaints before pursuing action, that is the appropriate way to handle it. Agenda Item No. 13. Tax Exemption Request for Our Lady of Peace, Inc.~ Deferred to September 2 because Mr. Bowerman was not present on this date. Agenda Item No. 14a. Appropriation: Pre-Trial Diversion Grant. Mr. Tucker said this grant is from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice. The period runs from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. The grant will be administered by Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) of Charlottesville with the County designated as fiscal agent. The grant is for $61,548 and there is no local match required. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the following resolution of appropriation. Mr. Martin seconded the motion approving the request. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. FISCAL YEAR: NUMBER: FUND: PURPOSE: 1992/93 920001 General OAR Pre-trial Diversion Grant Funds. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100039000566110 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION TOTAL DESCRIPTION $61,548.00 $61,548.00 AMOUNT 2100024000240421 OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION TOTAL $61,548.00 $61,548.00 August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) M.B. 42, Pg. 96 Agenda Item No. 14b. Appropriation: Pre-Trial Diversion Grant - Addi- tional Funds. Mr. Tucker said the grant is from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice. The period runs from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. The additional funds have become available since the original grant of $61,548 was approved. The grant will be administered by Offender Aid & Restoration (OAR) of Charlottesville with the County designated as fiscal agent. The total grant is now for $62,753, an increase of $1205. There is no local match re- quired. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the following resolution of appropriation. Mr. Martin seconded the motion approving the request. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. FISCAL YEAR: NUMBER: FUND: PURPOSE: 1992/93 920006 General OAR Pre-trial Diversion Grant Funds. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100039000566110 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION $1,205.00 REVENUE 2100024000240421 TOTAL $1e205.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION $1,205.00 TOTAL $1,205.00 Agenda Item No. 14c. Appropriation: Occupant Protection Grant. Mr. Tucker said that this grant is from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The grant period runs from May 1, 1992, through June 30, 1992. The grant is for $500. The local match will be paid out of the General Fund and with a merchant donation. The purpose of the grant is to inform motor vehicle drivers and occupants of the importance of wearing seat belts. Albemarle County continues to experience a high percentage of fatality crashes involving occupants not wearing seat belts. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to adopt the following resolution of appropriation. Mrs. Mumphris seconded the motion approving the request. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92 NUMBER: 910059 FUND: Grant PURPOSE: Occupant Protection Grant. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1122831120350000 1122831120601700 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PRINTING & BINDING COPY SUPPLIES $350.00 150.00 REVENUE TOTAL $500.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2122824000240780 DMV GRANT REVENUE $500.00 TOTAL $500.00 Agenda Item No. 14d. Appropriation{ Fire/Rescue Grant. Mr. Tucker said that in May of 1992 the County of Albemarle received a grant from the Department of Fire Programs in the amount of $1,891.10 for the purchase of a computer and printer to operate an incident reporting system provided by the State. This computer will be located in the County's Fire/Rescue Coordinator's office. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to adopt the following resolution of appropriation. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion approving the request. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) M.B. 42, Pg. 97 There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. FISCAL YEAR: NUMBER: FUND: PURPOSE: 1992/93 920003 General Fire Programs Grant 'for the Purchase of a Computer. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100032031800700 REVENUE 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ADP-EQUIPMENT $1,891.10 TOTAL $1,891.10 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL $1,891.10 $1,891.10 Agenda Item No. 14e. Appropriation: Metal Detectors. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report of July 29, 1992: "~ACKGROUND: Judge Jannene Shannon (Juvenile Court) and Judge Paul Peatross (Circuit Court) have requested that metal detectors be installed at the entrance to their respective courtrooms. The City will share in 50 percent of the detector for the Juvenile Court. Each piece of equipment will cost approximately $3000 with a total cost to the County of $4500. Funds are available in the Courthouse Mainte- nance Account which was set up to receive fees from each action filed in criminal court, at the present, and dedicated to use for mainte- nance and capital items for court-related facilities. RECO~4ENDATION: Staff recommends that an appropriation be approved to cover the cost of installing a metal detector in both Juvenile Court and the Circuit Court with the understanding that the equipment in Juvenile Court will be shared on a 50 percent/50 percent basis with the City of Charlottesville.', Motion made by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the following resolution of appro- priation. Mr. Martin seconded the motion approving the request. Mr. Bain asked why the request did not include the County's General District Court. Mr. Tucker said that the Judge in this court had not request- ed a detection, but if he does it will be looked at separately. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. FISCAL YEAR: NUMBER: FUND: PURPOSE: 1992/93 920005 General Purchase of Metal Detectors for Circuit Court and Juvenile Court. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100021010800100 110021050700004 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CIR CT-MAC &EQUIP JUVENILE COURT $3,000.00 1,500.00 REVENUE 2100051000510105 TOTAL DESCRIPTION APPROPRIATION FROM THE RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE $4,500.00 AMOUNT $4,500.00 TOTAL $4,500.00 August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) M.B. 42, Pg. 98 Agenda Item No. 14f. Appropriation: Citizens in Virginia Jails Program Grant. Mr. Tucker said that the Grant is from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice. The period runs from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. The Grant will be administered by Offender Aid & Restoration of Charlottesville (OAR), with the County designated as fiscal agent. The County will receive the funds and immediately pass them on to OAR. OAR will perform the required services and file all applicable State reports. The Grant is for $67 585. There is no local match required. ' Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the following resolution of appropriation. Mr. Martin seconded the motion approving the request. Mr. Martin then asked how this Grant would be used. Mr. Tucker responded that volunteers would come in and provide help to inmates in getting their GED, with counseling, family support, and other transitional issues. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93 NUMBER: 920004 FUND: General PURPOSE: OAR Citizen Volunteers in Virginia Jails Grant. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100039000566120 OAR-CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS $67,585.00 REVENUE 21000240002404'22 TOTAL $67,585.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OAR-CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS GRANT $67,585.00 TOTAL $67,585.00 Agenda Item No. 15. Recycling Study Update. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report of July 31, 1992: "BACKGROUND: The Board requested staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the County's recycling initiatives and to develop a program for Board consideration. Ms. Andrea Trank was retained to assist in this effort and her status report is attached (on file in the Clerk's office) for your review and discussion. The review and program recommendations should be completed in September and will incorporate any recommendations from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority's ongoing Materials Resource Recovery.(MRF) feasibility study. DISCUSSION: Ms. Trank's report presents an overview of the goals of the project, a brief review of the current program, and identified problems, a review of the preliminary results of a business community survey, and a detailed description of other localities that have successful recycling programs using the services of private haulers. ~CO~4~DATION: None; presented for information and discussion." Ms. Trank was present and said her report includes many sectors of the Albemarle County community as well as a survey of other communities. A recycling committee was formed and she has met with this committee every two weeks to update and receive input while information was being collected. The survey showed that the County's return rate is over 30 percent; 1,033 surveys were returned. This indicates a sufficient level of interes~ on this subject. She tried to find the most representative communities around the country that have successful programs using private haulers. All of these communities indicate that there is a certain level of governmental involvement that must be obtained. Haulers would have to be licensed and required to offer recy- cling. The County would need to help recycling by promoting it through educational means. This could be done by public service announcements, brochures, meeting with businesses or working with private haulers. Seventy percent of businesses that responded said they are doing some sort of recy- cling. Fifty percen~ said that they are recycling to protect the environment° Almost sixteen percent are recycling to save on disposal costs and about thirteen percent are recycling because %heir customers or employees want them to. Of 311 businesses who said they are not now recycling, fifty percent said they would if the County or the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority would help them° August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) M.B. 42, Pg. 99 Of those recycling, forty-five percent said that they could still use the help of education. Ms. Trank added that the common misperception is that recycling is free or should pay for itself, but in the current economy it is not happening. Ms. Trank then offered to answer questions° Mr. Marshall asked where the recyclables go. There are huge piles at the dump. Ms. Trank said the recyclables are going to a couple of local proces- sors. Of the materials being collected, they are legitimately being recycled unless they are contaminated. The problem in Virginia is that most manufac- turers who are heavily into the recycling business have moved into states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida which have better recycling methods. Virginia has to ship products further to have them used properly. The more that is collected the more likely the manufacturers will come into this state to accept materials. Mr. Martin said he feels there is a.market for these materials, but having to pay a higher price because of transportation and transporting to other states is keeping the market from coming to Virginia. If the amount of recycled material increases, the market will come to us. Ms. Trank agreed and said that industry moves to places where there is a guaranteed market. (Mr. Marshall left the room at 11:21 a.m.) Mr. Tucker said the haulers have fixed costs for collecting the recycl- ables, so the County has to deal with the haulers. Mrs. Humphris said there is enabling legislation which would allow the County to ban certain products from going into the landfill. She believes members of the public think that the County is able to do this. (Mr. Marshall returned at 11:25 a.m.) Mr. Bain asked if the Board will discuss this question again with the Materials Resource Recovery (MRF) study before the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority acts on it. Mr. Tucker said this report is scheduled for presenta- tion to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board at the end of this month, whether action will be taken then or not he is unsure. As long as the report has been presented to the Rivanna Board, this Board can discuss it and make recommendations. Mr. Martin asked if there were things that could be separated from trash and collected separately that could be put somewhere other than landfills. Ms. Trank said there are processes for separating materials so that very little actually goes to the landfill. Mr. Martin said obviously a mountain could not be made out of just old trash; It can be separated, it could also be put in a compost center without taking leaves and yard wastes. He asked if there was something that could be separated out of trash, whether it is newspaper or brown paper bags, etc., that a person could separate and recycle as opposed to having it put into a landfill. Ms. Trank said for pure con- struction debris with nothing else in it, there is already a separate site at the landfill and a lesser tip fee is charged. When most of this is collected~ it is only visually inspected when it gets to the landfill. The issue is getting clean separations. Mr. Bain thanked Ms. Trank for her presentation. (Not docketed: at 11:35 a.m.) Mr. Bain noted that the Board needed to go to the meeting with the School Board. He said that all of the Board members had received certified letters on August 4, 1992, from Dr. Worthington G. Schenk, III on something that was acted on earlier, during approval of SP-92- 06 Blaise Gaston Woodworking Shop. He asked Mr. St. John and Mr. Tucker to comment. Mr. Tucker said he believes this matter has already been concluded from the Board's perspective. If Dr. Schenk wishes to pursue this, his recourse would perhaps be to the Circuit Court. Mr. Tucker said he believes that unless this Board wants to set a precedent by rehearing this petition, this Board is finished with the matter. He discussed this with Dr. Shank indicat- ing it would be brought to the Board's attention since each member had received a copy of his letter. The Board has to determine if it wants to do something with it. Mr. St. John agreed~ Mr. Bain asked if the Board members present would agree to the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman, sending Dr. Schenk a letter stating that action of this Board has already been completed and Mr. Schenk's only recourse would be to the Circuit Court. There was such a consensus. (Note: The Board recessed at 11:37 a.m. to go to joint meeting with School Board and reconvened at 11:40 a.m.) August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) M.B. 42, Pg. 100 Agenda Item No. 17. Joint Meeting with School Board: SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. William W. Finley, Clifford W. Haury, George C. Landrith, III, Michael J. Marshall, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore, and Mrs. Karen L. Powell. ABSENT: Mrs. Sharon Wood OFFICERS PRESENT: Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, Dr. Robert A. Paskel, Superintendent and Mr. L. A. Reaser, Director of Building Services. Agenda Item No. 17a. Discussion: Capital Improvement Items. Mr. Tucker gave the following summary: 1. Murray High School: The School Board would like to discuss the renovation of the current site and also the possibility of new construction. A feasibility study for a new County High School is included in the School Division's capital improve- ments requests and this study could also include examining the needs for the alternative high school program. Ms. Patsy Moore, School Board Chair, said the School Board approved the 1993/94 to 1997/98 CIP on July 13, 1992, (Mr. Martin returned at 11:41 a.m.) and requested a joint hearing with the Board of Supervisors to get input and feedback on three potential projects. The School Board has gone through lengthy discussions and evaluations of Murray High School and the existence of Murray High School is now a part of the School Board's educational program. The School Board feels Murray should be provided with the mos~ adequate facilities. Mr. A1 Reaser, Director Building Services, said the School Board approved a roof replacement for Murray High School. There are three options to choose from. The first is a new alternative high school facility which would be approximately 32,000 square feet and cost approximately $3.3 million, exclud- ing the land. To replace the roof, which is the option the School Board chose, will cost approximately $315,000. The decision that has to be made is whether to raise the ceiling in the gymnasium to make it a regular height before the roof is replaced. Putting on a metal roof was anticipated, but a decision as to whether to leave Murray in its present location will be an important part of this decision. The third option is the renovation of Murray. This would cost approximately $2.1 million, plus the roof cost which would make it $2.3 million. There is approximately a $1.0 million difference in the cost of building a new facility or renovating Murray since it is a complete renovation. The renovation will not disturb the asbestos walls except for where it is a "have to" situation, but it would remove the asbestos floor tile and air conditioning on the inside of the building. The projection is that the capacity will be 150 students in this building whether a new school is built or the present building is renovated. The high school feasibility study showed that a new school could be put on the same site which would save cost. It is also important to decide what to do with the addition- al capacity that will be required for the high school. Mr. Marshall said he would like to see any new school located where Murray HighSchool is currently located. The children in his district are traveling further than other children in the County. The children in the eastern area are also traveling a good distance. Mr. Bain said the new school being discussed is simply a replacement for the alternative high school, not a new high school. Mr. Reaser said if a new high school site is bought there is the possi- bility of adding the alternative high school on the new site. Mrs. Humphris asked if there was any site acquisition cost in the cost of the new building. Mr. Reaser replied that there was not an amount included at this time. Mr. Martin asked if using the CA-Tech site as a possibility had been looked into. Mr. Reaser said that this is what the additional high school capacity study shows. He feels the study and the site need to be looked at in detail. Mr. Bain asked if this had been looked at by Staff. Ms. Moore said there is a certain direction in which the CA-Tech center wants to go and although this is a possibility, the Joi~t Board is trying to revamp CA-tech at this time. Dr. Paskel said he believes there were discussions about how the site could be used for expansion. Mr. Reaser said that staff has not looked at the site. Mr. Finley, speaking as a representative of the CA-Tech Board, said he thinks the Joint Board would be very apprehensive if it did not look first into what is being planned for an expanded CA-Tech program. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) M.B. 42, Pg. 101 Mr. Perkins said he feels Murray High School is a special project and is an alternative education problem. He does not feel Murray has to have a special building and if a new high school is built, other high schools will have to be changed as well. He thinks there could be places in those schools for an alternative educational program and this would save administrative costs and pupil costs. He realizes that the School Board has decided that Murray High School, in its present location, is what they want to approve, but he believes this will change. He is concerned about the number of students, the lack of social contacts, the inability to compete in sports, and a number of other things. He thinks this program ultimately needs to be a part of the County's regular high school program. He feels these students should be offered the special assistance that they need, but in a regular high school program without having a special site set aside. He believes this would make a stronger program for the County. Mr. Marshall said he agrees because when the changes in curriculum for CA- Tech were discussed, one of the things that was thought necessary was to bring more academics in with the industrial arts and get rid of the stigma of students being bussed over to CA-Tech for half days. This is exactly what is being done with the alternative educational school. Mrs. Humphris said she disagrees. The students need to feel a particular pride in where they are. She feels that students at Murray take pride in their high school, are glad to be there and thankful for the program. The whole philosophy of minds has to enter into the equation, not just the dollars and cents. The School Board needs to relate to the Board of Supervisors how important it is or is not that this high school be physically separate for another site. Mr. Finley said that in the evaluation, that really was not evaluated. The alternative program carried out within high schools was not included in the evaluation that was received. There was nothing on economics or cost included. Mrs. Humphris said she is curious to know if it would be perceived that the program could be carried out within the same building. It was her understanding that these students needed to be in a separate facility. Ms. Moore said this was discussed at the School Board's work session. There was a lengthy work session about the direction of Murray and whether or not the students should be placed back in the high schools. The Board felt it needed to be a separate entity. Mr. Martin said that there are alternative programs in all of the high schools and students can still "fall through the cracks". Murray is just one of many alternative programs available. The concept behind Murray which makes it distinct from the others is that it is conducted in a separate building. He feels it is important that it be kep~ separate whether it is in a renovated facility where it is now located or somewhere else. He believes there will be better results if a new site is found as opposed to continuing to put money in the existing building. He feels very strongly that if it comes down to dollars and cents, as to whether Murray stays a separate entity or not, the students as well as staff and administration of Albemarle County would prefer to be in Murray High School where they are currently located with water dripping from the roof on top of them, rather than try to put this program into another school because it will not work. If the Board is concerned about money, then repair the roof, but the students need to be separated. Mro Bain said when the Board starts looking at a third county high school he feels a campus model should be looked at. A campus where there is a separate building with a separate staff and separate people for alternative education, but let it be a part of a new high school complex. It would do what Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins said which is to put the students back into one school, bit as a separate facility within the campus of the new high school. It would not require a lot of land, the County already has the land for the new high school. Mr. Marshall asked why CA-Tech and alternative education could not be in the same building. Mr. Martin said part of the problem is the uniqueness. One of the things that benefits the students at Murray is having ownership of their school. If you put them in one wing of a high school, they lose a lot of the ownership. The students at Murray make decisions as to how their day runs. What would be done about the bell system that would ring at different times. An adjacent building would be fine but it would have to be separate° Mr. Marshall said when he was on the CA-Tech Board he got the feeling from the students and teachers that these kids have a stigma of being bussed there and, if they have this kind of stigma, other kids in alternative education programs also feel that they do not fit into the regular schools. There has to be some similarity between those two types of students. Mrs. Humphris said guidance counselors discourage good students from going to CA-Tech. They tell them that they belong in college whether they want to go to college or not. The adults that are guiding them are putting the stigma on CA-Tech. It was not so much the kids not wanting to go there, but they August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) M.B. 42, Pg. 102 were discouraged and told that their parents expected them to go to college so they should stay in regular high school. When it is said that CA-Tech does not welcome or need another type of school on their campus because of future plans, everyone should be prepared to discuss a whole new type of high school program. Mr. Martin said the program at CA-Tech and Murray are two completely different kinds of programs. The stigma is a big issue with one facility, but is not an issue with the other. Ms. Moore said the Joint Board is working hard with business and industry in the community to establish the kind of image that is needed to make CA-Tech a business and education partnership. Right now she feels that putting Murray on that site is not an option. Ms. Moore said Murray has been through a tremendous amount of "ups and downs" since it was established. The School Board has gone over the program in detail and one thing that is most important to them, at the present site, is their own identity. She feels committed to their retaining that identity. Mr. Marshall said as a business man he went to Dr. Paskel and talked about the alternative high school program. Dr. Paskel showed him a list of all of the people that were employed and he was impressed. Since then, he hired one person who worked six weeks, came in at his own convenience and left at his own convenience. It is nice to have your own identity, but you still have to conform to the rules of society. These children have got to learn to compete and survive. Surviving is getting a paycheck and supporting yourself and getting off of the welfare rolls. This is what he wants to see happen. Alternative education is fine but one bad experience made him skeptical. Ms. Moore said she knows the program at Murray is not withOut its prob- lems. The feedback they get from business people is important because they have a "long list of bugs" that must be worked out. The goals to be estab- lished from Murray are on-going and each year is a new step. It has only been in existence a very short time, but in the end a lot of things Mr. Marshall is talking about will be worked out. The school is aware of these things. They have so many things to accomplish with these kids. Ms. Moore said parents that are good, honest, hardworking people in this community, have tried to raise their children in a certain way, and if it were not for Murray their child may not have graduated from high school, or gone on to community college in a lot of instances. Mr. Marshall said he is not implying that it is not working or is not a good thing, in all probability it probably is. He does not think it is as good as everyone perceives it to be. Mr. Martin said he thinks a lot of what comes out is based on what goes in. These are kids that would not have graduated from regular schools. Mr. Marshall said he does not care whether a person graduated from schocl or not. He does care if he/she can add, subtract, read, write or perform a task so as to justify the way he/she is being paid. He said to just pass kids and give them a diploma when they cannot work is the problem of this nation today. He has kids of his own who have graduated from college and cannot find a job because they took what they wanted to take and did what they wanted to do and not what society said had to be done. This school system has to get it across to all children that a living has to be earned and they must be competitive. Mr. Finley said the very things that Mr. Marshall is saying is what CA- Tech is oriented for. The students are taught a vocation so they can go out and earn a living. He does'not feel the CA-Tech Board would agree that alternative education and a very traditional vocational education should be merged. They are learning a lot about teaching the so-called non-traditional student and it is very possible that some of the methods they are beginning to use, and have used, may move over into {raditional high schools. Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board of Supervisors will probably support the roof replacement project for the existing Murray building when the CIP is discussed later in the year. Discussion of the feasibility studies can occur later. Mr. Reaser said that the long range plan for Albemarle County schools has recommended for three years that Brownsville Elementary be the school to enlarge in the western part of the county to deal with the growth. The School Board thought it would be best to bring to the Board of Supervisors another option which includes adding eight classrooms onto Crozet Elementary. Both schools would end up having a capacity of 550 students. Crozet would have 175 seats added and 225 seats would be added to Brownsville. There is a million dollars difference. The School Board wanted to discuss whether to pursue the Crozet expansion. The primary reason for that million dollar difference is because the administrative areas and the media center would have to be expanded, oversight work, and the addition of two classrooms to Brownsville. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) M.B. 42, Pg. 103 Mr. Bain asked if he understood tha~ the plan would be to add two class- rooms and three special media rooms. Mr. Reaser said yes. Mr. Bain asked if the media rooms could be used for combination purposes. Mr. Reaser said yes. He said the media rooms were resource rooms, but can be used for speech, emotionally disturbed students or students with learning disabilities, etc. Mr. Martin asked why Brownsville was recommended. Mr. Reaser said because of the location of Brownsville, students can get into this larger area easier. It is a 25-year old building which needs the library and other spaces renovat- ed anyway. The Crozet school originally was intended to be a community school and is one of the reasons it was sized that way. Mr. Perkins said he thinks it was the consensus of the committee to build Crozet for 400 students. When more capacity was needed in that part of the County, then Brownsville would be added onto. If more capacity were needed, additions could be made to Crozet. Crozet was supposed to be built so there could be additions. Mr. Bain said Mr. Perkins is correct. Brownsville was the school selected for an addition. One addition was the extra land needed for the middle school. Even though Crozet has 20 acres, all of it is not as usable as the land at Brownsville. Mr. Martin said the students that would fill that capacity line closer to Brownsville than Crozet. Mr. Reaser said it would require redistricting to get students to Brownsville but that is one of the advantages of adding onto Brownsville. You have the ability to redistrict Red Hill, Murray, Crozet or Meriwether Lewis. You can go wherever to bring them into Brownsville. This would be difficult with Crozet. Dr. Paskel said he would like to reemphasize that at some point in the near future Brownsville will need to be brought up to the present standards of the other schools. The School Board had looked at the two options and de¢~ided it made sense to expand the school that needed to be upgraded. Though it costs more money to get that capacity it does not bring another one of the school buildings up to proper standards. Mr. Michael Marshall said this is purely a decision of which to do first. Ms. Moore said the School Board wanted to let the Board of Supervisors know that the Brownsville project is estimated at $2.3 million and Crozet is estimated to be $1.4 million. She feels the School Board looked at all of~the options. Mr. Perkins said he thought the Crozet cafeteria was built to service a full-sized elementary school. Mr. Reaser said he thought this too, until he got to looking into it this year and it had only one serving line. You cannot deal with 550 to 600 people with only one line. Mr. Perkins said Brownsville's cafeteria is probably as large as Crozet's. Mr. Reaser said it would expand to two serving lines. Dr. Paskel asked if redistricting would take students out of Crozet. Mr. Reaser said that it could. The old Brownsville line was changed and quite a number of students were redistricted to the new Crozet school. Mr. Bain said at the same time some were brought from Red Hill to Browns- ville. Agenda Item No. 17b. Schools/General Government Cooperation - Information Services. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report of July 15, 1992: "As mentioned before, for the past year schools and general government have been reviewing areas of duplication and ways of sharing resources to more efficiently accomplish the purposes of providing services to the citizens of Albemarle County. As a result of these discussions, a combining of computer technology services is planned for FY '92-93. The County's Information Services Department presently provides many services for the school division including the coordination of microcomputer training, management of the school's administrative computer system as well as producing a number of management reports for various school-related functions. The school division has agreed to transfer three positions in the FY '92-93 budget from the School Divisionto the General Government budget to be supervised by the Information Services Department. These three positions will place responsibility for repairing all microcomputers, maintaining an inventory of all computer-related assets, providing instructional technology support and administrative computer support for all school-related functions under the umbrella August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) M.B. 42, Pg. 104 of one department with common supervision for all technology related issues. As with any reorganization, there are some details which need to be dealt with, therefore, in an effort to address the concerns of users of the services, an advisory committee will be established which will be charged with providing input on all of the coordinated servic- es that are being provided. This will provide a direct mechanism to air concerns as well as suggestions for improving the process." Dr. Paskel said he looked at ways to develop cooperation between the schools and the general county government. Efficiency and effectiveness have been the objectives. The benefactors of those are very numerous and include every citizen in the county. This is a means of not only providing the same services that have been available with the expansion of the three positions Mr. Tucker recommended being put into the area under Mr. Kruger's supervision. There will be a lot of benefits that will come to the school system as well as the County. One of the major concerns raised was who will make the education- al decisions. This will be integrated into the Director of Curriculum and Research position. The schools have matured far enough in the technology arena that a separate department is not needed. There is much technology now that relates to every subject area, grade level, etc. The Schools want their teachers and educators making the decisions of how best to use the software or equipment identified by information services as well as its own staff. The School Board is committed to having an evaluation during the year of whether the services are meeting the expectations and this has been developed with Mr. Kruger's staff, principals and teachers. These evaluation results will be available in the Spring. Ms. Moore said that Ms. Wood could not be present today, but she asked that Ms. Moore ask a few questions for her. She wanted to know who will make the final decisions for teachers under this new plan. For instance, if a teacher were to request a certain program or software she/he feels is really important to the curriculum, who is responsible if the equipment is not available? Dr. Paskel said that there will be no control from the County operation as to whether the schools purchase software or not. If the teacher and principal feel it is appropriate, then they should continue to purchase it as they have before. Ms. Moore said that one of the other questions is if a teacher is getting ready to go into a new unit and does not feel comfortable with the information that is available under existing technology, who does that teacher call to say "I need someone to help me become more familiar with what is available here." Is the initial call made through the school division or general government? Dr. Paskel said that it could be either, and both should be able to help. Mr. Kruger has plans with the educational staff as proposed to keep them current as to what is available in technology and he also expects the school curriculum people to know that as well. Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is a good idea. Mr. Bain Said he is concerned if we have administration on one hand and education on the other, at times this may be a fine line, but the instruc- tional technology support for education is an education function and not something that is an information services function. Information services should be looked to for technological aspects but not to control the educa- tional aspects. He would like to see a breakdown on how this will be delin- eated from the School Board or school administration standpoint. This is a key because if it interferes in any way with the needs on the education side from the teacher, on teacher or a group of teachers, these needs should be met without interference from the technology, information services side. Mr. Paskel said this is the intent and if interference begins or continues there will have to be a position to say this was a good idea but it is not working the way it was intended to and it can be restructured in another way. Mr. Bain did not think the work program of information services should be adversely affected in terms of the development tracking system and other things needed for general government. If this means that Mr. Kruger and his people will be spending more time on administration, even though there is extra staff to do this, he is concerned.that it will slow things doWn from a general government perspective of what needs to be done. Mr. Tucker said he would like to publicly thank Mr. Kruger and his staff for working with the school division for the past year without any additional staff. This has delayed some of the programs that general government attempt- ed to do this year. This was done in the realm of cooperation. Everyone knew the need was there. What is being proposed is to continue providing a lot of the things that have been provided for the past year. In some ways, this will actually help by Mr. Kruger now having staff that he can work with to provide the services the schools need and the issues that Mr. Bain has mentioned can now be dealt with. The long range plans for Information Services as they relate to the entire department and the plan for the next five years will be discussed next month. August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) M.B. 42, Pg. 105 Agenda Item No. 17c. Other Matter Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters presented. (Note: The Board adjourned from the joint meeting with the School Board at 12:31 p.m. and reconvened at 12:40 p~m.) Agenda Item No. 16a. Work Session: ZTA-92-05. Miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: -Amend 1.4, 1.4.8, 1.4.9, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 4.2.1, 4.2.4.2, 4.2.5.1, 4.4, 4.6.1.2, 4.6.1.3, 4.6.3.2, 4.10.3.3, 4.11.1, 4.14.8, 5.1, 6.2.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.5.2, 6.5.4, 7.0, 8.5.1(j., 8.5.6.1, 8.5.6.2, 8.5.6.3, 8.5.6°4, 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 12.4.1, 13.1, 13.4.1, 14.1, 14.4.1, 15.1, 15.4.1, 16.1, 16.4.1, 16.8, 17.1, 17.4.1, 17.8, 18.1, 18.4.1, 18.8, 19.7, 20.8.4, 21.4, 21.6, 21.7.3, 22.1, 22.2.1.22, 22.2.2.10, 24.2.2.13, 25.2.2.4, 25.3, 25.4.1, 26.6, 26.9, 26.10.3, 30.5, 30.5.1, 30.5.2, 30.5.2.1, 30.5.5.2, 30.5.6.1, 30.6.2 30.6.3.2 31.2.3.1. · -Repeal 4.2.4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 5.1.23, 30.5.2.2, 30.5.4, 30.5.4.1, 30.5.4.2, 30.5.4.3, 30.5.4.4, 30.5.6.2, 30.5.6.2.1, 30.5.6.2.2, 30.5.6.2.3, 30.5.6.3.1~ 30.5.7, 30.5.7.1, 30.5.7.2. -Add 1.4.11, 4.3, 4.9, 6.2.2, 22.2.2.12, 23.2.1.12, 24.2.1.41, 31.2.3.2, 31.2.3.3. (Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 12:40 p.m.) Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission requested that these amendments get to the Board before staff had time to discuss the issues with the Water Resources Manager. There are three amendments that address tree cutting in proximity to streams. One, is the scenic streams overlay district, 'two, is a provision in the supplemen- tary regulations called "forestry," and, three, is the water resources protection area. These three provisions overlap. Mr. Peyton Robertson's recommendation was to delete the prohibition of cutting trees within 15 feet ofthe stream from the supplementary regulations, and furthermore, at some future date, the scenic stream provisions should be looked at for adequacy and enforceability. Currently, the Community Development section of the Planning Department is working on criteria for designation of scenic streams. Once that work is complete, the staff will be in a position to review the ordinance in that regard. One change that will be recommended is the deletion on the prohibition of cutting trees within 15 feet of a stream from the supplementary regulations because this is governed by water resources management. This is Section 5.1.23, Item B. Mr. Keeler said another change is in Section 31.2.3.1. (Mr. Marshall returned at 12:43 p.m.) This section deals with certificates of occupancy. The major change in this provision is to have a specified time period on bonds or site plans and any extension beyond that period would be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. Staff has recommended a one-year period, but the Board may want to extend that to two years. In the case of a site plan, no features that are matters of public health or safety may be bonded. At the time of occupancy, all health and safety matters must be in place and functional. This section allows the developer to bond matters that are not health and safety. Initially the Planning Commission felt a year was an adequate length of time to complete the items and felt if the time limit were extended to a two-year period, then requests for extension of bonds would seldom be entertained. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Keeler was ~alking about sidewalks or landscaping. Mr. Keeler said there is a provision for landscaping elsewhere in the Ordinance and it is a shorter period of time. Landscape planting occurs the next season. There may be improvements to Tot Lots or something similar which are not clearly health and safety items. Again, it is the Board's decision as to whether those things should be installed and in operation within a year of occupancy. In that case, the Board may see more requests for extensions° The staff feels now that aesthetic fencing can be covered in the landscape plan itself. There may be some situations, for example, where the Architectural Review Board wants a building to be a particular color and the developer builds it out of raw block. That is not a health or safety matter and the building could be occupied and the raw block building left for a period of two years. Mr. Bain said he has some specific questions and he plans to discuss these with Mr. Keeler or Mr. Cilimberg at another time. Mrs. Humphris said she needed clarification about the scenic areas. The statement "The only scenic highway requirements which could not be required under the entrance corridor regulations is a mandatory 150 foot setback for single-family detached dwellings." She asked how this would be staisfied if the scenic highways provisions are deleted. Mr. Cilimberg said the Architec- tural Review Board does not deal with single-family dwellings so they cannot do anything. Mr. Keeler said they could still require a 150 foot or greater setback for commercial and industrial buildings if they thought it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the roadways. Mr. Cilimberg said the August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) M.B. 42, Pg. 106 greatest amount of variances in the scenic area overlay are for single-family dwellings. Mr. Bain said his main concern is about the RA district. The major corridors are covered by the EC regulations. Mr. Cilimberg said a good example would be that without this provision the bank in Ivy occurred. The ARB would have been dealing with those issues. There would not have been any need for any kind of exception to allow them to move closer to the highway. It would have been the ARB addressing how they should design landscape and locate. Mr. Bain said the only reason that request came to the Board is because of the drive-in window and that would still have come to this Board. Mr. Bain asked what the Board needed to do on this item. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is prepared to move forward to the public hearing on this matter then he would recommend that it be held on September 9, 1992. Mrs. Humphris then made motion to set a public hearing on September 9, 1992, on these zoning text amendments. Mr. Martin seconded. There being no further discussion the roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 16b. Work Session: ZTA-92-07. Repeal Section 30.5.6.3. Mr. Cilimberg said the reason this is listed separately is because it got left out in the first advertisement for the Planning Commission, but is a part of what the Board has in its packet. There was a consensus of the Board that this be kept with agenda item 16a. The public hearing was set for September 9, 1992. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said he wanted to inform the Board that Mr. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Water Resources Manager, has handed in his resignation. He will be leaving effective August 19, 1992. Mr. Perkins requested that the County speed up the process on hearing the Adventure Bound request. They are trying to sell their property to Women's Way and need to get the question of use resolved as quickly as possible. He would also request that the process for'St. John's Episcopal Church be expedited. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission can hear the request for Adventure Bound/Women's Way on September 1, 1992, or even before then, and the Board could hear the request on September 9, 1992. This would be an accelera- tion of the schedule. He has related this to Dr. Donna Frantzen and she is in agreement with this date. The St. John's Episcopal Church day care request cannot be heard by the Planning Commission before September 10, 1992. The Planning Commission is meeting on September 10, 1992, because of Labor Day and this Board could hear it on September 16, 1992. Mrs. Humphris asked about the request for Women's Way. Mr. Cilimberg said they applied for a special use permit request as a Rural Retreat and that was not approved. They have resubmitted under "Boarding Camp" and have redefined some of their activities. They obtained a ruling and official determination from the Zoning Administrator that if they conduct their activities as they describe, the use will be considered a boarding camp. Mr. Bain asked if that is a special use permit request. Mr. Cilimberg affirmed that it is. Mr. Martin said he wanted to make sure Mr. Edward Strauss got a copy of the costs associated with the E-911 system. Mr. Tucker said that it has already been sent to him. Mr. Martin said that concerning the so-called "T-connectors" on the Meadow Creek Parkway plans presented by the consultants, he has had a lot of mail from people living in Forest Lakes, Hollymead and the Proffit Road area. Most of them are misinformed as to what is actually being proposed. They have been told that ~-1 goes all the way through Hollymead, back over to Forest Lakes and through Forest Lakes out to Proffit Road. This is not what is being proposed. Mr. Martin has scheduled a meeting in August with these citizens and would like to try and dispel the myths before the last week of August. Mr. Bain asked if any staff would be at this meeting. Mr. Martin said Mr. Cilimberg would be there. Mr. Cilimberg said that after Mr. Martin contacted him he went back and looked at the contract and proposal. What the consul- August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) M.B. 42, Pg. 107 tants are doing with the T-i, T-3 and T-4 connectors is, in fact, what he has previously indicated to the Board. Maybe the Board would like to go on record now as no~ wanting to do that. The T-1 connector shows in the Comprehensive Plan alignment. It goes from Proffit Road through what is now Forest Lakes, Hollymeadand to the Meadow Creek Parkway. The T-3 connector would go around Hollymead and connect on the other side of the dam and go through Forest Lakes to Proffit Road. The T-4 connector would actually go around all of that as a bypass to those neighborhoods. Any combination of these connectors could include doing spurs to a T-4 which has also been discussed. Mr. Martin said he wanted input on how other board members have gone about dispelling myths ahead of time. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes Mr. Martin will be asked what the County's position is on this proposed roadway and the connectors. Mr. Cilimberg said he will outline that the consultant has worked on a number of options including a "no build" option. Mr. Bain said part of the contract was to look at all of it. This Board has not taken any vote on the matter. Mrs. Humphris said she believes the Board should back up and realize that it made a logistical error in taking something to the public without an explanation or without this Board having dealt with it first. To post the plans at the public meeting at Woodbrook for anyone to read and panic about their own property and make assumptions was a mistake. Now the Board is in a position of damage control and that amounts to presenting all of the informa- tion that Mr. Cilimberg is talking about; why the study was done, what the consultant was charged with doing and the consultant,s plans should have been presented at the beginning of the process, not the end. Now this Board has to set its mind to looking at traffic counts, what happens and the alternatives. Mr. Bain agreed and said that he, too, feels it was a mistake and once it came back for the public information session, the Board should have had a full blown public work session. Mr. Cilimberg said he felt it was a very honest effort to get the informa- tion out to the people. It is something, hopefully, that the staff will have an opportunity to correct. This meeting coming up was requested by the Forest Lakes Homeowners' Association and Hollymead residents. Mr. Bain said the people in Forest Lakes knew all of this from the beginning, in terms of the dedication of the road and what the plans were. The county has not locked anything in. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board members felt comfortable with the way he planned to handle the meeting. The Board agreed that this was the best way to handle it. Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 1:08 p.m., Mrs. Humphris made motion that the Board go into Executive Session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.1 to discuss Personnel matters. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman At 1:39 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the following certificate: MOTION= Mrs. Humphris SECOND= Mr. Martin MEETING DATE= August 5, 1992 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE NR.~TIN~ WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act~ and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certifica- tion by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformitywith Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervi- sors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only August 5, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) M.B. 42, Pg. 108 public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certifica- tion resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. [For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the requirements of the Act should be described.] ABSENT DURINO VOTE: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall. ABSENT DURINOMEETING: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall. The meeting was immediately adjourned. Chairman