Loading...
2001-04-04April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 4, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. John Martin from Free Union said the free speech implications of the Ivy Landfill settlement are brought to a head by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) public meeting scheduled for April 17. He said that by State regulation, the RSWA is required to solicit public comment and is required to consider community concerns raised at the public meeting in the final preparation of a corrective action plan for the Landfill. As things presently stand, because of the constraints upon free speech imposed by the Ivy Landfill settlement, some members of the public who live directly in harms way will be denied the right to speak = freely. What motivated the Ivy plaintiffs to settle is beside the point. They represented only themselves in this litigation against the entirety of local government. They had no obligation or ability, financial or otherwise, to represent the public at large. However, the Board has a higher obligation. The Board is required at all times to represent the public interest. The real question is why the Board agreed to provisions which operate as restrictions on free speech and whether the Board considered whether such provisions were consistent with the overall public good. Mr. Martin asked why these provisions were important to the Board as a whole. What governmental interest was being served by agreeing to them? Why was it found valuable to the Board and the general public to obtain from the Ivy plaintiffs a concession of their First Amendment freedoms; to prohibit them from speaking at the April 17 meeting of the RSWA and to their fellow citizens; to prohibit them from participating in a State regulatory permitting process for a permit application for a new Cell #5; to dictate to DEQ the nature of the testimony it may receive from this community regarding the permit application; to intrude upon the freedom of the press to deny media access to these individuals regarding matters of considerable public importance; to deny these people the right to speak privately with their friends, neighbors and family in opposition to government plans to construct cell #5; to deny the public access to facts and opinions relating to the health and safety of this community; and, to deny the public the right to read in the newspaper the views of some citizens as to why it would be best to close down and cleanup the landfill now rather than to pass this mess along to another generation. If the Board thinks about this, they will find that there is no value in speech restrictions which inure to the benefit of the public at large, and that these restrictions can only operate to harm the public good. These provisions interfere with normal public discourse in a process lined with public hearings, opportunities for public comments, and regulatory requirements that citizen concerns be solicited and addressed. The better course during the settlement negotiations, when constitutional rights were first placed on the table for barter, would have been for local government to say no, thank you. We are not interested in settlement terms that contemplate A surrender of constitutional rights. This offers no value to the public at large and actually bartering constitutional rights would be detrimental to the public interests. It is just something the government will not do. If any of this concerns the Board, the solution is easy. The City, County and Rivanna can exercise their @ right under Paragraph D.1. of the settlement agreement to waive the offending contingencies, that is, the gag provision and the provision which makes the entire settlement contingent upon actual approval of a new Cell #5. Mr. Martin said what if local government, or one of its elements, has had a plan for years for the future of the Landfill, and it really does not matter to them one way or the other what the public might think or want, and that the settlement was actually viewed as an opportunity to silence and sweep away outmatched landfill dissenters in order to squelch public controversy that might obstruct the governments = plans, and this was the perceived value to the government of these settlement terms? Mr. Martin said this is a nightmarish thought and a motivation he is not prepared to attribute to the Board. This Board made a mistake about taxes last year, and by the manner in which it handled the matter, heads up and forthrightly under intense criticism, a potential debacle was turned into what he believes is one of local governments = finest moments. He hopes this Ivy Landfill controversy will lead to another such moment. Mr. Charles Martin said he would like to comment. To him as an officer of the court, he constantly sees people making deals or signing contracts where one of the things they give up is their right to speak about what happened. That works both ways. Prior to this settlement, everybody spoke about whatever they had to say. Those people were outspoken so he would like to ask, when they give up the right to speak in order to get something, why does everybody look at it as if the Board is trying to hide something, that it is doing something wrong? It was a choice that both sides made. It could be said that their speech prior to the settlement was wrong, and they did not want that to come out. The assumption that the Board would sign an agreement where someone gives up their right to speech is ridiculous. It happens every day April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) here in Charlottesville, and millions of times across the United States. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Board Presentation. Ms. Humphris said that during the years when she was chairman of the Board, the Senior Weatherbusters Program was initiated. It was important to the growing number of senior residents in the community. It served to inform them about weather emergencies which have been many in the last several years (hurricanes, floods, snow storms). She said many seniors have special needs and need to be prepared for such events since many live alone and are not able to get out and about. In recognition of that program, staff was surprised recently to have received an award for the program. The award was presented in Washington, D.C. in March at the National Association of Counties meeting. It was presented by the director of FEMA, the President of the National Association of Counties, Secretary Martinez, and a United States senator. Ms. Humphris had the award and a letter. She read from the letter of congratulations for receiving a 2001 Building Disaster Resist Communities Award from NACo and FEMA. She said that no Board member was able to be at the ceremony. She then showed the Award and then presented the award to Ms. Lee Catlin who had done most of the paperwork involved with receiving the award. ____________ Ms. Thomas introduced Ms. Anita Ascoli from Congressman Eric Cantors office who was present = to observe the Boards meeting today. = _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve Consent Agenda Items 6.1 and 6.3 through 6.8, to accept Items 6.9, 6.11 and 6.13 for information, and the pull Items 6.2, 6.10 and 6.12 to be returned to the Board at another meeting with further information being provided (Note: Conversation concerning individual items will be shown at the end of that item). The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. __________ Item 6.1. Proclamation recognizing April, 2001 as Fair Housing Month. FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS,April, 2001, marks the thirty-third anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS,the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS,vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal efforts; and WHEREAS,illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 2001 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law. Ms. Thomas read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing. Mr. White said there is a Fair Housing display in the lobby today. __________ Item 6.2. Local Workforce Investment Board, Virginia Area VI - Draft Strategic Plan for July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2003. It was noted in the executive summary that the Local Workforce Investment Board, Virginia Area VI, Workforce Today, in accordance with the Title I Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Wagner-Peyser Act, has prepared a Draft Strategic Plan for the Program Year July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2003 (Program April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) Year 2001-02). Workforce Today's vision is to have and promote a well-trained, well-educated highly skilled and qualified workforce that is actively engaged in lifelong learning for the geographic area which includes Planning Districts 9 and 10. The Draft plan has been endorsed by the Local Workforce Investment Board of Local Workforce Investment Area VI and has been submitted to the state. The final approval of the plan is subject to public review and comment, including review by the boards of supervisors and City Council of the local jurisdictions in Local Workforce Investment Area VI. The Local Workforce Investment Board requests public comments by April 10th. Staff members have reviewed the plan and make the following comments: *Strategic Plan would be strengthened by the inclusion of a measurement strategy for level of customer service. *The six job "sectors" listed on page 16 should be more closely aligned with the high demand jobs previously listed on page 8. Specifically, "construction" is listed on page 16, but not listed on page 8. Also, "sales (retail)" is not listed on page 16, yet is listed on page 8 and is in high demand. *Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families should be included as a coordinating entity on page 24. *Definition of would be strengthened with the addition of the following self sufficiency statement: "A self-sufficient person has the means and motivation to secure economic and social necessities through a combination of public and private resources while participating to the fullest extent possible in their community." Staff recommends that the Board review and approve the reference to Albemarle County included in the plan. (Ms. Humphris said the reference to Albemarle County is included in the draft Strategic Plan for the Program Year 2001-2002. On that page there is a lot about the City of Charlottesville and only a small amount about Albemarle County. The part that concerned her is the sentence that reads, "The County may need to become more proactive than it has been in the past in attracting new businesses due to plant closings and layoffs, but will not abandon its commitment to preserve agriculture, forestry and tourism." She said the first part of this sentence does not parallel Albemarle County's Economic Development Policy at all. Although the County has had layoffs, plant closings, etc., it has not had any large upheaval in the economy due to the stability of the University, and a lot of other businesses which have been in the County for a long time. She does not think the County needs to be more proactive to attract new businesses. There are as many people and businesses moving into the community as it is able to cope with in the way of infrastructure. She does not think that statement should be a part of the Workforce Strategic Plan. Mr. Martin said what Ms. Humphris read is a direct quote from him. Basically, when the presentation was made, there were a lot of business people present, and he spoke for Albemarle County. It is almost a direct quote of what he said. At the time the Board was dealing with ConAgra, Sperry, and other closings. He said this morning it was mentioned that someone is purchasing the ConAgra property, and the County does have a stake in that so that residents may be re-employed. Ms. Humphris said she understands Mr. Martins position, but she thinks this is a public statement = that flies in the face of the Countys adopted Economic Development Policy. She thinks someone will take = over the ConAgra property and QuikFile property. She said Albemarle County never has to recruit people to come to the area, so she does not think that statement is accurate. Mr. Martin said one way to deal with this would be to use language from the Economic Develop- ment portion of the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks the intent of the statement is true, although the wording may need to be changed so the entire Board can agree to it. Mr. Dorrier said one thing stands out in that the County only becomes proactive if there is a plant closing, or layoff. That creates an emergency situation, and he does not think that would be an extreme position for the Board to take. Ms. Humphris said that usually the private sector takes care of that. Mr. Martin said he understands the potential buyer of the ConAgra property is talking about reopening that facility and hiring some people. That is what he means by proactive. He said the Board could have a big argument about this because he does not believe all Board members believe as Ms. Humphris does. When the Economic Development Policy was put into the Comprehensive Plan, there were arguments about it. Mr. Martin said his comments were made off the cuff. He did not have a prepared statement and A@ he just expressed his feelings. He does not mind toning the language down, but does not think the language as written is extreme. Ms. Thomas said the suggestion that language be extracted from the Comprehensive Plan is a good way to deal with the question. It is language which has been adopted by the whole Board. There are differences among employees and some people will be easier to re-employ than others. Ms. Thomas said the action should be to pull that item and have it redrafted.) By the recorded vote set out above, Item 6.2 was pulled, with the section concerning Albemarle County to be redrafted and put on another Consent Agenda for final approval. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) ___________ Item 6.3. Resolution to Memorialize Cancellation of VDOT Agreement for Airport Road (Route 649) Project. It was stated in the executive summary that in an attempt to expedite the Airport Road (Route 649) Project in 1997, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority agreed to administer the Project. This required the County to enter into an agreement with VDOT to assume VDOT's responsibilities and then enter into a pass-through agreement with the Airport Authority to provide that those responsibilities would be performed by the Airport Authority on behalf of the County. On November 20, 1997, the County entered into an Agreement with VDOT which provided that the County would administer the Airport Road Project. On December 15, 1997, the County entered into an Agreement with the Airport Authority which provided that the Airport Authority would administer the Project on behalf of the County. On April 5, 2000, the Board determined, with the concurrence of the Airport Authority, that the proposed administration of this project by the Airport Authority was not working as planned and canceled the Agreement with VDOT and the Airport Authority. This resulted in the project going forward as a VDOT managed Project. VDOT has now requested that the Board confirm its action of April 5, 2000, by adopting a resolution memorializing the cancellation of the November 20, 1997, Agreement with VDOT. Staff concurs. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE CANCELLATION OF AIRPORT ROAD PROJECT AGREEMENTS WHEREAS,the County of Albemarle ("County") and the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") entered into an agreement titled "Agreement to Fund and Improve Route 649 (Project 0649-002-158,C501)" ("Airport Road Project") dated November 20, 1997, to provide for the County to administer the Airport Road Project so that the County could pass-through the project management to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority ("Airport Authority"); and WHEREAS,the County and the Airport Authority entered into an agreement titled "Agreement for the Development and Administration of Route 649 By the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport Authority" [VDOT (0649-002-158,C501)] dated December 15, 1997, to provide that the Airport Authority would administer and manage the Airport Road Project on behalf of the County; and WHEREAS,the County and the Airport Authority later determined that the Airport Road Project could more efficiently be administered and managed by VDOT; and WHEREAS,the County Board of Supervisors by action at its meeting on April 5, 2000, cancelled the Airport Road Project agreements with both VDOT and the Airport Authority; and WHEREAS,the Airport Authority by Resolution on April 12, 2000, agreed to the termination of its Agreement with the County; and WHEREAS,VDOT has requested that the County adopt a Resolution to memorialize its cancellation of the VDOT agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby confirms that on April 5, 2000, it acted to cancel its agreement with VDOT titled "Agreement to Fund and Improve Route 649 (Project 0649-002-158,C501)" dated November 20, 1997, and its agreement with the Airport Authority titled "Agreement for the Development and Administration of Route 649 By the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority" [VDOT (0649-002-158,C501)] dated December 15, 1997. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is requested that the Airport Road Project proceed as a VDOT administered project. __________ Item 6.4. CPA-2000-04, Historic Preservation Plan: Priority Recommendations. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Plan, as presented, on November 1, 2000. At that time, the Board directed the Historic Preservation Committee to return with a set of priority measures, based on incentives and voluntary actions, to be pursued to implement the plan. The Historic Preservation Committee has formulated its priority recommendations. The activities associated with the priority recommendations are anticipated to be primarily staff intensive, with some April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) publication/copy costs and some potential costs associated with the coordination of historic resource information with the County's GIS and CAMA computer systems. It is anticipated that the expenditures for publication/copy needs would be accomplished within the existing budget. It is further anticipated that recent reorganization and hiring of additional staff in the Planning and Community Development Department will free 20 percent of the Design Planner's time (eight hours/week) for historic preservation activities. During that time, the Design Planner would work with the Committee to address the priority activities as presented in the list. The GIS and CAMA related costs are unknown at this time. Staff recommends that this method of implementing the priority recommendations be pursued for one year and, at the end of the first year, an evaluation be made to determine if the existing budget and staff time allow for sufficient completion of historic preservation tasks in a timely manner. The Historic Preservation Committee recommends that the Board accept the Committee's "Priority Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County (March 1, 2001)" as the action agenda to be used for the implementation of the County's Historic Preservation Plan. It is further recommended that the Board approve recommendation #1 (at top of list which follows) for implementation. PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS for HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY 1.Create a permanent Historic Preservation Committee to provide assistance and advice concerning the County's historic preservation program. 2.Compile and maintain a current and comprehensive information base for Albemarle County's historic resources. This database should include, but is not limited to, the following: Identification of all historic sites by tax map and parcel number; maintenance of a map of potential prehistoric archaeological sites, and ready accessibility to all Virginia Department of Historic Resources historic survey inventory data on Albemarle County resources. This information base should be consulted so that historic resources may be fully considered in the County's development review process, and should be made easily available to interested citizens for educational and informational purposes. This information base should also be coordinated with the County's GIS system. 3.Institute a program whereby new owners of historic properties are notified of the significance of their property and are given instructions for obtaining additional preservation-related information concerning their historic resource. 4.Establish a formal definition of the term "significant historic resource" to be used in the implementation of the County's Historic Preservation Plan. 5.In the event that demolition of a significant historic resource must occur, thoroughly document the resource prior to demolition. Also encourage documentation prior to major adaptive reuse or renovation whenever possible. 6.Promote and encourage preservation by making available information regarding state and national register designation procedures, tax incentives, historic and conservation easements, and other voluntary preservation measures. 7.Foster community pride, good citizenship, and stewardship of the County's historic resources through heritage education programs, beginning with the creation of educational/informational brochures on various County historic preservation issues, including state and national register listing, tax incentives, County policy, etc. 8.The Historic Preservation Committee should work with other organizations to initiate and implement community events for Albemarle County that recognize our historic resources. These events should be coordinated with other statewide heritage tourism activities and National Preservation Week. 9.To help protect the Monticello viewshed, adopt a more formalized procedure that begins early in the planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and developers of property within the viewshed. 10.Be prepared to take advantage of resources, as they become available, to assist in implementation of the County's historic preservation plan. 11.Continue to pursue the implementation of financial incentives for historic preservation, including the establishment of a revolving loan fund and the requisite enabling legislation. 12.Two years after the adoption of these recommendations, evaluate the County's progress on these preservation priorities, and evaluate the need for a historic overlay district ordinance. (Mr. Dorrier said he believes these are good, and far-reaching recommendations for preservation of historic landmarks in Albemarle County. He said in creating a data base of all the historic properties, there is no definition as to which sites are appropriate to place in that data base. Also, since this is an April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) important subject, he thinks it should be the subject of a public hearing or at least a presentation by the Committee to the Board rather than just accepting it as part of the Consent Agenda. He said this is a new initiative for the County, and he would like to have some interaction between the Committee and the Board. Mr. Tucker said historic preservation was the subject of a public hearing and all of these recommendations were part of that discussion. The Board, at that time, requested the Committee to simply prioritize their recommendations. Ms. Humphris said she is the Boards liaison to the Historic Preservation Committee. Regarding a = data base, and how to determine which properties would be a part of that data base, the fourth recommendation of the Committee is to establish a formal definition of significant historic resource to be A@ used in implementation of the Countys Historic Preservation Plan. That would have to be done prior to = creating a data base. This is the work plan the Committee was asked to propose. Until the Committee does some of this work, there is nothing more to say. Mr. Dorrier asked if a permanent staff person is being hired. Mr. Cilimberg said in the executive summary it states that additional staff in the Planning and Community Development Department will free 20 percent of the Design Planner's time (eight hours/week) for Historic Preservation activities. The Design Planner would work with the Committee to address the priority activities as presented in the list. Ms. Thomas said if the Board agrees with recommendation #1 it is being asked to create a permanent Historic Preservation Committee to provide assistance and advice concerning the County's historic preservation program. She thinks the Board should decide today if it wants to advertise for vacancies. Mr. Tucker said staff is suggesting that the Board go ahead and advertise. Mr. Dorrier said the town of Scottsville is taking a new survey of all the historic landmarks in the town. It was done in 1976, and they have just signed a contract with the Virginia Historic Resources Commission to reevaluate and increase the number of historic landmarks. He recommends that there be some liaison between the town and this committee to make sure there is input regarding the landmarks in the town of Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said that can easily be done, but he thinks that is already part of the staff person's responsibilities.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the report and directed staff to advertise for three vacancies on the Historic Preservation Committee. __________ Item 6.5. Resolution to accept Lewis & Clark Drive in the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following Resolution was == adopted: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the street in the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 28, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 28, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street ' Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. * * * The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1)Lewis & Clark Drive from the intersection of Route 29 (Station 1+00 meters) to the intersection of Quail Run Road, Route 1666, (Station 1+650 meters) as shown on plat recorded 11/24/99 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1875, pages April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 642-650, with a 30 meter (98.4) foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.404 mile. Total Mileage - 0.404 mile. __________ Item 6.6. Set public hearing for April 25, 2001, on budget amendments. It was noted in the staffs report that Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must =' hold a public hearing to amend its current FY 2001 budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code applies to all funds, i.e., Capital, E-911, School Self-sustaining, etc., not just the County's adopted operating budget. This proposed FY 2001 Budget amendment totals $2,544,096.43. The chart below breaks out the estimated revenues and expenditures for the amendment in both the General and School Funds. ESTIMATED REVENUE General Fund/Other Funds Local Revenues$ 43,253.75 State Revenues45,250.25 Federal Revenues137,402.68 General Fund-Fund Balance20,835.55 Other Funds-Fund Balances202,859.52 General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenues$ 449,601.75 Education Funds Local Revenues$ 392,401.06 State Revenues496,462.47 Fund Balances610,584.02 Education Funds Estimated Revenues$1,499,447.55 Emergency Communications Center Fund State Revenues$ 130,000.00 Fund Balance465,047.13 ECC Estimated Revenues$ 595,047.13 _____________ TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE$2,544,096.43 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Operating Fund Judicial$ 25,408.30 Public Safety242,740.63 Engineering/Public Works25,180.00 Community Development156,272.82 General Operating Expenditures$ 449,601.75 Education Operating Fund$1,499,447.55 Emergency Communications Center Operating Fund$ 595,047.13 _____________ TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES$2,544,096.43 This budget amendment includes 17 appropriations totaling $591,766.22, which have already been approved by the Board at various meetings since December 1, 2000. These appropriations and the dates of approval are shown on Attachment A (on file). Eight appropriations totaling $1,952,330.21 are also included in the budget amendment and will need approval subsequent to the public hearing. The pending appropriations are: Approp # FundPurpose of AppropriationAppropriation Total 20047ECCPhone system & consultant/radio sys 595,047.13 20054EducationVarious School Programs544,015.94 20055EducationVarious School Programs117,315.39 20056EducationVarious School Programs126,041.54 20057EducationVarious School Programs256,543.76 20059GrantReapprop of Section 8 Housing Grant156,272.82 20060GrantReapprop of Public Safety Grants27,817.16 20061GrantFederal and State Drug Seized Assets124,126.47 20062GrantFire/Rescue Advertising Grant5,150.00 $1,952,330.21 A detailed description of these appropriations has been provided to the Board members. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on April 25, 2001, to amend the FY 2001 Budget in the amount of $2,544,096.43 and then to approve the eight pending appropriations subsequent to the public hearing. By the vote set out above, the Board set a public hearing for April 25, 2001, to amend the Countys FY 2001 Budget. == __________ April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) Item 6.7. Appropriation: Simpson Park, $220,000 (Form #20058). It was noted in the executive summary that Simpson Park construction bids were opened January 23, 2001, with the low bid of $1,084,743 submitted by Parham Construction Company. Current available funding for construction is $640,000, which includes the $592,000 contribution from the Dave Matthews Band and an anonymous donor through the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation. Therefore, initial projected funding for Phase I is $444,743 below the lowest project bid. To address the funding shortfall, Parks and Recreation staff met with the project architect and John Redick, Director of the Foundation, to reduce the initial scope of the project. The goal of the meeting was to develop a plan which would result in a fully functional multi-facility park in the first phase with completion of the ultimate master plan as incremental County funding is appropriated. A subsequent meeting was held with Parham Construction to explain the reductions and to request adjusted bid prices. The funding necessary to proceed with the reduced Phase 1 is $860,000, which is $220,000 more than available funds. The Parks and Recreation Director is recommending that $102,000 be diverted from five other Parks and Recreation projects so this project can proceed. The Assistant County Executive is recommending that the additional $118,000 be funded from the $2.0 million FY 2000 carry-over funds that were placed in the Capital Reserve Fund. Specific details of the first phase reductions and plan for proceeding are outlined in the letters dated February 8 and February 26 (on file). The donors are satisfied with the plan and Parham Construction has agreed to extend the acceptance period for their bid prices to allow the Board time to consider this request. Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $220,000 to the Simpson Park project with $118,000 coming from the Capital Reserve Fund and with $102,000 being transferred from the five Parks and Recreation projects as detailed on Appropriation Form #20058. (Mr. Perkins said he thinks there need to be better estimates made on project costs. He does not know how to do it, but when something comes in at cost which is 40 percent higher than the cost projected something was not calculated right. Mr. Tucker said he shares the same concern. He thinks it comes down to market conditions; a lot has to do with the demands for services. Estimates probably need to be updated before a project is bid. Mr. Perkins asked how extensively projects are advertised. He knows it is good to keep the business in the community, but there might be a better response from outside of the community. He suggested that some things might be better done on an hourly basis. Mr. Tucker said projects are usually advertised regionally, but there may be an opportunity to expand that advertising.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board appropriated $220,000 to the Simpson Park project with $118,000 coming from the Capital Reserve Fund and with $102,000 being transferred from five Parks and Recreation projects, by adopting the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01 NUMBER: 20058 FUND: CIP-GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SIMPSON PARK EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1 9010 71000 950121 SIMPSON PARK$220,000.00 1 9010 71000 800665 ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES-10,000.00 1 9010 71000 950028 RED HILL RECREATION -7,000.00 1 9010 71000 950033 WALNUT CREEK RECREATION-35,000.00 1 9010 71000 950064 IVY LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT-10,000.00 1 9010 71000 950118 SCOTTSVILLE ROOF-40,000.00 1 9010 11010 999979 CAPITAL RESERVE-118,000.00 TOTAL$.00 REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT TOTAL$.00 __________ Item 6.8. Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1 (Height Limitation- ' exceptions- excluded from Application) and 30.6.8 (Appeals). ' It was noted in the staffs report that Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1 prohibits structures, including =' telecommunications facilities, from exceeding one hundred feet in height in a residential district. Zoning Ordinance 30.6 requires that projects within the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District obtain certificates ' of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Zoning Ordinance 30.6.8 authorizes the ' Board of Supervisors to consider appeals from decisions of the ARB. The 800 MHZ emergency communications system will include two facilities on University properties that are in residential zoning districts. The heights of the proposed facilities are 105 feet (Klockner Stadium) April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) and 110 feet (ECC site) and are therefore prohibited by Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1. Although taller ' facilities could be allowed by variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals if a legal hardship is demonstrated, staff recommends that a zoning text amendment is the more appropriate means to address this issue. The proposed amendment would allow telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the County in a residential district to have a height exceeding 100 feet. Such facilities would continue to require a special use permit. The ECC site is also within the EC Overlay District, and the proposed 800 MHZ facility must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB under Zoning Ordinance 30.6. The ARB issues certificates ' of appropriateness after it determines that a proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the Board. The ARB's decision may be appealed to the Board under Zoning Ordinance 30.6.8. Although 30.6.8 does not expressly so state, it is implied that the scope of the Board's review on '' appeal is similar to that of the ARB - whether the proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines. It may not be possible for a telecommunications facility such as a tower to clearly meet these guidelines. Given that the proposed 800 MHZ facility is an essential element of a vital public safety telecommunications network, the Board should consider expanding its scope of review on appeal to clarify that it may issue certificates of appropriateness when it finds that a public safety facility is a public necessity. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution of intent setting this process in motion. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent: RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1 provides in part that certain structures, ' including telecommunications facilities, may not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district; and WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance 30.6.8 authorizes the Board of Supervisors to ' consider appeals from decisions of the Architectural Review Board arising from applications for certificates of appropriateness, and its scope of review is limited to determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted for projects within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. WHEREAS, certain public projects located on publicly owned property may be of such paramount public importance that the restrictions of Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1 ' and the limited scope of review implied in Zoning Ordinance 30.6.8, both identified ' above, should not apply. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1 to ' allow public safety telecommunications facilities owned or operated in whole or in part by the County in a residential district to have a height exceeding one hundred (100) feet; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance 30.6.8 to ' authorize the Board of Supervisors, on an appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board, to issue a certificate of appropriateness upon a finding that a public safety facility is a public necessity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. __________ Item 6.9. Visitors Assistance Center, Overview of. = It was noted in the executive summary that as early as 1994, County staff began discussing the possibility of creating some sort of visitors' assistance/welcoming center for the County Office Building. This center would provide basic customer service functions such as answering questions and directing building users to appropriate departments, meeting rooms, etc. In October, 1999, the County's Customer Service Team established a subcommittee to study this issue and make specific recommendations as to the need for and viability of such a center. After interviewing staff and other building users, as well as visiting several municipalities to research different types of customer assistance efforts, staff developed a proposal for a Visitors Assistance Center which was proposed to and approved by the Board last October. The Visitors == Assistance Center opened for service on April 2, 2001. The Visitors Assistance Center is located inside the Visitors Entrance on the first floor of the == County Office Building. The Center is staffed by a full-time employee who has undergone extensive training to be able to offer the following services to building users: *Greeting visitors to the building with a welcoming and professional presence. *Directing visitors to departments and meeting rooms within the County Office Building. *Directing visitors to other county government sites. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) *Responding to inquiries from the public via telephone and in person. *Answering the County's Information Telephone Line. *Distributing pamphlets, handouts and maps. *Alerting police or proper emergency service workers in the event of an emergency situation. The Center is intended to work in concert with recent parking and building access location changes to provide enhanced customer service and security functions for the benefit of all building users. This report was presented for information only, no action was required by the Board. __________ Item 6.10. Memorandum dated March 19, 2001, from Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA), re: Review of Water and Wastewater Matrix. In his memorandum, Mr. Petrini stated that the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authoritys Citizen Advisory = Committee (CAC) created a matrix to help them determine which water and wastewater responsibilities belonged to the RWSA. As the matrix evolved, it developed into a community-wide information document that was reviewed by citizens, citizen organizations and some regulatory agencies. At this time, the matrix is a general planning and information document as opposed to exclusive responsibility. The RWSA Board of Directors is asking how this matrix might best be used and what group or entity might be charged with the task or carrying the process forward. The RWSA Board asks for comments from the Board of Supervisors before making any final recommendation. (Ms. Humphris asked how the Board would provide input into this matter. To her, the matrix looks complete. She does not know how this Board would decide who should be in charge of completing the tasks. Ms. Thomas said one of the people who worked hard on this matrix had a conversation with the Countys Water Manager and they are thinking in terms of a committee to look at more water issues. She = thinks staff could be asked for an opinion since a lot of work went into this matrix.) Mr. Tucker said he would ask the Water Resources Manager and the Watershed Manager to review the matrix and make a recommendation to the Board. __________ Item 6.11. Copy of letter dated March 5, 2001, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Mr. Spencer F. Young, re: Revised Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 35, Parcels 26, 26B, 26C and 43 (property of Spencer F. Young) Section 10.3.1, was received for information. ____________ Item 6.12. Copy of public notice, in accordance with Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, re: Issuance of VPA permit No. VPA01570, ConAgra Frozen Foods-Crozet. (Ms. Thomas said she asked late yesterday if anyone knew what is in the ConAgra Frozen Foods sludge that they are proposing to use for land application. She said Mr. Stephen Bowler, Watershed Manager, worked on the question and sent her an E-mail in which he discusses phosphorus, oil, grease, pathogens, odor, metals and stream buffers. His conclusion is that phosphorus, oil and grease are okay. He said DEQ assumed there are no pathogens, but she suggested the Board ask for more information on that question. She said there will be an unpleasant odor, similar to other land applications. Metals are well below the limits for repeated application, and this is a one-time only application. As to stream buffers, DEQ requires 50 feet and the Countys ordinance requires 100 feet. She said the Board can request that staff = find out more about pathogens, and do whatever the Board can do to require the 100-foot buffer, or take some other action. She asked for comments. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowler has indicated that he will follow up on pathogens and some of the other issues. He said the Board will get additional staff information about the question. At that time, the Board can ask DEQ to require a larger stream buffer or just request the additional 50 feet. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board has the option to request a public hearing. She would like the citizens to know that everything has been taken into consideration. Mr. Bowler said he believes his questions can be addressed in writing. If the Board feels there is an interest in the community to discuss it ahead of time, that is an option available to the Board. He said it is not guaranteed that a public hearing would be held, the facts to be addressed must be stated, and then DEQ will decide if the facts justify a hearing. Ms. Thomas said she spoke with some neighbors, but it was the Scenic Route 250 Committee which gave her information. The properties involved are located near Newtown where the Countys = Superfund site is located. The people in the area are very aware of such issues and she thinks they would have lots of questions. She asked if it is the consensus of the Board to try and get a public hearing. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board should ask to have a public hearing so that the public is fully informed, even if the Board has no power to do anything about it. Mr. Martin said he heard something on the news this morning about the potential sale of that property. He does not want to put the Board into a situation where it creates a forum where people provide input into things over which the Board has no control, and it interferes with the sale of some property where April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) the County would have a stake in the plant reopening under some circumstances. He thinks a letter might be the way to approach the question, rather than have people ask the Board for things it cant do. = Mr. Perkins said most of the dumping site is east of Newtown. Some of it is close to the Crozet growth area, and some toward Miller School. He said this is something DEQ has to look at since they are the experts. Mr. Bowerman asked about the quantities to be spread. Mr. Bowler said he did not know the numbers, but the material is in three lagoons, each of which is half the size of a football field, and they are several feet deep. They will take the material, about four percent solid, out of those lagoons. The lab director at RWSA said that it is about the consistency of a milkshake. They will spread it over a minimum of 42 acres. He said the majority of what he addressed with a person from DEQ had to do with oil and grease. He said the material is about 17 percent oil and grease (food-based oil and grease, not petroleum). He said the way DEQ permits this application is that the volume they permit is 20 to 30 times higher than the proposed spreading activity. Ms. Thomas said land application can be a good way to amend the soil. Mr. Bowler said DEQ considers this as recycling a product and they have few concerns because it is a one-time application and the standards they are applying are for multiple applications. Also, ConAgra, under its permit, had to separate human waste from industrial waste. Therefore, DEQ feels there are no pathogen concerns. His only concern is that the lagoons were never sampled. He would like to see some data to be sure there is nothing that should concern the County. Mr. Bowerman suggested waiting to get that report before deciding if the Board wants anything other than DEQ review. As long as the Board knows exactly what is going on, and DEQ is satisfied that there are no pathogens of concern, it seems to be a benign type of dispersal. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to get this information to the neighborhood. Mr. Tucker said once the information is received, staff can notify all of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Bowler said under State law, Mr. Lloyd was required to notify some of the neighboring property owners. Mr. Martin said if the County does notify the property owners, the notice should be factual so nothing is being created where there is nothing. Mr. Bowerman said out of that should come a concern from the neighborhood as to whether they want a public hearing Mr. Tucker said there is a certain time restriction on requesting a public hearing. If the data is not received in the right amount of time, the time line may close for requesting a public hearing. He thinks 30 days are allowed for that request and the notification letter was dated March 28. Mr. Bowler said the 30 days actually started on the first day The Daily Progress ran the advertisement for DEQ, which was two days ago. (Ms. Thomas said the consensus is that Mr. Bowler will request more information on the pathogens, and the 100-foot buffer. The neighborhood is to be notified giving some of the information presented to the Board today. Then, the Board will go from there.) __________ Item 6.13. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 27, 2001, were received for information. (Note: Ms. Humphris advised Mr. Cilimberg that in these minutes there is a reference to the "Capital Road project" and it should read the Catterton Road project.) A@ _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Introduce Visitors' Assistance Associate. Mr. Tucker said the Customer Service Team recommended that a Visitors Assistance Center be = established in the County Office Building. That has been done and as of last Monday is in operation. He then introduced Ms. Loretha Dixon who transferred from another County department and will be working at this desk. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List. It was noted in the staffs report that on February 21, 2001, the Board held a public hearing on the = Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List. The majority of the public comments that night concerned the Catterton Road (Route 667) paving project. The Board did not vote to remove Catterton Road from the unpaved road priority list, instead requesting staff to work with VDOT to develop a spot improvement project to address issues related to Catterton Road. Staff has met with VDOT and a resident to determine the type and location(s) of spot improvements along the road, and it has been agreed that VDOT will: *Lower the hill on Catterton Road at a location approximately 315 feet from the intersection of Buck Mountain Ford Road (Route 776). *Lower the bank from the Ashcom mailbox to a location approximately 260 feet south. *Lower the bank where the road narrows for a distance of approximately 100 feet. VDOT estimates that these improvements would cost approximately $50,000. The County's maintenance fund would be used to fund this project with the improvements starting as early as the April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Summer of 2001. All improvements could be done within the existing right-of way. With Catterton Road removed from the priority list, staff recommends that the Board adopt the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List as shown on Attachment A to the staffs report (on file). = Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, noted a couple of errors in advertising dates: Priority #17 (Route 744-Hunt Club Road) should show as August, 2001; Priority #18 (West Leigh Drive) should be listed for October, 2001; and, the Catterton Road project has been removed from this plan. Ms. Thomas noted that Priority #19 should be listed as Dick Wood(s) Road, not Dick Wood Road. Ms. Humphris asked what the meaning of the "RS and the number in brackets is in the Description/ @ Comments column. Mr. Cilimberg said the RS stands for "Revenue Sharing" and the number in brackets is the traffic count on that road. Mr. Bryan said he read the staffs recommendation for the situation with Routes 22/231. It is a good = recommendation, but will still require enforcement. He said the signs are up and the evaluation will probably begin in a couple of months until traffic is acclimated to the new signs. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bryan agrees with the origin/destination study. Mr. Bryan said he believes it was good for the study to show all types of vehicles, and not just trucks. He said there are three alternatives, and none of them are very good. The other alternative is to designate a secondary road as the alternate, and there are pluses and minuses for that also. Enforcement and voluntary measures are probably the best thing in place at this time. Mr. Perkins mentioned that certain things were listed to be done for Catterton Road. He asked if there is any surface treatment plan, such as a road bind. Mr. Bryan said he will have an answer to that question by August. If it is endorsed, he will try to get some. He also owes Mr. Perkins an answer as to the use of calcium chloride. They will try to get that installed this summer. Mr. Dorrier noted Project #25, the Southern Parkway from Avon Street to Fifth Street, and said it contains a question mark for the date. Does that mean it is scheduled so far into the future, that it cannot be determined when it will occur? Mr. Bryan said it probably means that VDOT is still evaluating the project and more data is needed. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has just recently been told the Southern Parkway is an eligible project under the Secondary Road program. He believes this was heard through the MPO. Mr. David Benish said the question mark was based on its not being eligible, and the County does not have it programmed as a capital project. If it is eligible, next year it will be given further consideration in the Six- Year Plan. Ms. Thomas said the Fire/Rescue people have written a letter saying the Southern Parkway will be an important link for them in that area. Mr. Bryan said that after evaluating the purpose of the project, its timing, future and current traffic patterns, VDOT has recommended that the Free State Road connector be the location closest to the railroad tracks (Alternate B). Mr. Bowerman said staff recommends that the Board endorse Alternative B. He asked what effect this decision would legally have on the Comprehensive Plan and land use. There was also an Alternative A. Mr. Martin said there were a lot of attempts to compromise, but no conclusions. He asked what an endorsement means as opposed to just receiving a report. Mr. Bryan said that once an alternative is endorsed, VDOT can begin planning for the project. Mr. Bowerman asked how Alignment B will affect land use in that area. Mr. Cilimberg said Alignment B, from the standpoint of the land that is undeveloped, brings the road to the west side of that area until it gets close to Free State Road and then it swings back into Free State Road. Mr. Bowerman asked if that means the County can require the dedication of easements. Mr. Cilimberg said that is not something that can be done in Virginia. Through a zoning process, the County could pursue the alignment as a proffer. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County can keep houses from being constructed on that alignment. Mr. Cilimberg said that is possible under the zoning approach. This same thing came up when Dunlora was approved. The County does not have strong control under Virginia law for preserving alignments. Mr. Bowerman said when the plans for Dunlora were first presented for approval, there was no line on a map. Mr. Cilimberg said there was an alignment shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman said at the time the Board looked at the Dunlora plans, it was felt that unless the road was shown for the future, land use decisions could be severely impacted. He would like to know what the effect will be on land use consequences if the Board endorses Alignment B. Mr. Davis said that once there is a corridor, from a planning perspective, it is easier to design the master plan for the subdivision. If the land is already zoned, and the corridor is not specific enough to require dedication of right-of-way, it is difficult to force developers to dedicate right-of-way at that point. Mr. Bowerman asked about the location of lots. Mr. Davis said the same applies to lots. Once the road plans are actually identified, the County can require that land be reserved so that when the road is designed, dedication and right-of-way preservation can be required. If the road is substantially generated by the subdivision, no compensation is required. If not, there may be acquisition issues. Mr. Bowerman said on the map furnished to the Board there is a dotted line, with two lines going off of that line. One is a development road, and the other is Alignment B. Since Alignment B beyond that point probably has an 18-year time frame, when will the Board be able to determine with some certainty the actual road design? Mr. Cilimberg said that is the first step of a two-step process in getting plans for this road from Rio Road to Free State Road. The second step is the design process and the design public April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) hearing. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know what this designation does to land use issues. Mr. Tucker said until there is a design, staff does not know what to recommend. Until there is an actual design showing the centerline of the roadway, there is no way to require dedication of land. Staff can only try to accelerate that planning. Mr. Martin said the County tried to accelerate this project several years ago. There are people opposed to both Alignment A and Alignment B. As far as he is concerned, he would prefer to just accept the recommendation of VDOT and staff for Alignment B. Mr. Bowerman said the private sector has an opportunity to come up with some mutual agree- ments or not. He believes that could affect the ultimate alignment of the road. Mr. Cilimberg said in the Six-Year Plan, this project is listed for an advertising date of July, 2005. The centerline is needed for the project before it can be constructed, but is also needed for any property interests to be able to use it in their planning. Mr. Martin then moved that the Board endorse Alternative B for Free State Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. A RESOLUTION ENDORSING FREE STATE ROAD CONNECTOR IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY WHEREAS, Free State Road is a dead end road that traverses a one-lane railroad bridge that is in poor condition, and the bridge must be replaced or an alternative route found to provide access to the residents of Free State Road; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a Location Public Hearing to solicit input on the location of an alignment to provide access to the properties along Free State Road, (Project R000-002-0259C501), located in Albemarle County, Virginia. Two alternative alignments were presented for consideration at the public hearing. WHEREAS, the public hearing was attended by approximately 60 citizens with written comments received from 27 citizens, and recorded comments received from six citizens. The majority of persons expressed a preference to Alternative "A", although Alternative "B" and the "No Build" option each received an equal amount of support; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the alignments and considering all aspects of the proposed project, VDOT recommends Alternative "B" for the following reasons: · it addresses and eliminates safety issues of the railroad bridge; · it avoids possible archeological impacts (possible Sally Hemmings ties to the area); · it creates a transportation corridor with railroad and roadway within the same area; and · it meets transportation needs in this area for future development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, does hereby endorse Alternative "B" as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. __________ Mr. Cilimberg said he needed to correct one thing he had said. The County has not gotten an answer concerning the Fifth Street Connector. Staff has talked with VDOT about it, so by next year there may be an answer, and the project can be put into the Six-Year Plan. Mr. Tucker said several different things have been discussed. There is some action needed on the Six-Year Road Plan. Mr. Perkins moved for adoption. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Ms. Thomas said she has to abstain on Item 3 (add West Leigh Drive from Route 250 to 0.4 mile north of Route 250 as a Rural Addition). She is part of a large group of landowners who are similarly affected, and although she does not have a legal conflict of interest, she prefers to abstain. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas (abstaining on Item No. 3 in the Plan), Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. (The adopted Six Year Plan is set out on the following pages:) _______________ April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters: Routes 22/231 Truck Traffic Restriction. It was noted in the staffs report that the County has been working with VDOT and the residents = along the Routes 22/231 corridor for many years to improve the safety for all vehicles. VDOT has compiled a "Briefing- Through Tractor Trailer Traffic Issues" (on file). In this short briefing, VDOT offers an historical account of all past actions taken by VDOT, business along the corridor, and action taken by local governments to improve the safety of trucks traveling along the corridor. In an effort to address continued community pressure to restrict tractor-trailers on Routes 22/231, VDOT offered three Alternate routes in the Briefing. Alternate Route AAlternate Route BAlternate Route C Route 250Route 250 (or I-64)Route 20 From: Route 22 (Shadwell)From: Route 22 (Shadwell)From: Route 250 To: Route 29 (Charlottesville)To: Route 15To: Route 33 City of Charlottesville/Albe CoAlbe/Fluvanna/Louisa CoAlbemarle/Orange County Length 6.73Length: 10.40Length: 15.07 Route 29Route 15Route 33 From: Route 250 (Chville)From: Route 250From: Route 20 = To: Route 33 (Ruckersville)To: Town Gdnsville SCLTo: Town of Gdnsville WCL Albemarle/Greene CountyFlu/Louisa/Orange CountyOrange County Length: 14.09Length: 11.45Length: 5.60 Route 33 From: Route 29 (Ruckersville) To: Town of Gordonsville WCL Albemarle/Orange County Length: 12.41 Tl Length Alt A: 33.23 miTl Length Alt B: 21.85 miTl Length Alt C: 20.67 mi Total Length of Routes 22/231 Corridor: 14.89 It is staff's position that VDOT's alternate routes do not acknowledge that much of the truck traffic on Routes 22/231 does not originate in the Gordonsville area. Staff believes that many of the trucks originate from the northern Virginia area and from out of state. The Routes 22/231 corridor seems to serve as a short cut between several state STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act) routes. Because there is no comprehensive origin-destination study, it is difficult to map an alternate route more indicative of the through truck traffic movements occurring. A thorough origin-destination study is necessary before the County can offer a recommendation to VDOT on an alternate route. The County has also requested information from VDOT on the possible implications of transferring a primary road to the secondary system to determine if it would improve the chances of getting approval for a truck restriction. VDOT has ultimate approval for restrictions on primary and secondary roads. VDOT responded to the County's request for information by indicating that the County would have to consider, "the costs for improvements to, and maintenance of, these roads would have to come from the County's Secondary Road allocations, rather than the Culpeper District-wide allocations for Primaries. This could have direct impact on improvement and maintenance needs for other Secondary Routes within the County." Again, the County has not requested a transfer from VDOT, but it is an option. There are several steps that staff can take to improve truck safety on Routes 22/231 while VDOT is considering undertaking an origin-destination study. These include speed enforcement and advisory signs along the corridor. The advisory signs would be similar to those the County is requesting on Earlysville Road. The signs would indicate that Routes 22/231 are not recommended as a route for large trucks. Staff recommends that the Board request VDOT to conduct an origin-destination study of trucks using the Routes 22/231 corridor. Based on this study, staff will offer an alternate truck route for the corridor to VDOT. In the meantime, the Board may want to consider more speed enforcement and advisory signs on Routes 22/231. Ms. Thomas said this matter was completed during the above discussion. Mr. Tucker said no vote was taken. Ms. Thomas said the Board would finish this item later. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8c. Transportation Matters: Free State Road Connector Alternative. It was noted in the staffs report that on January 25, 2001, VDOT held a Location Public Hearing to = solicit input from the public on the location of an alignment to provide access to the properties along Free State Road in lieu of improvements to the existing Free State railroad bridge. Two alternative alignments were presented for public input - Alternative A and Alternative B. According to VDOT, approximately 60 citizens attended the hearing. Thirty-three participants submitted comments. The majority of those expressing a preference chose Alternative A. The preference for Alternative A seemed to be due to a large number of comments received from the Fairview Swim Club members, who feel that this alignment will least affect their facilities which are on the north side of Free State Road. VDOT is recommending Alternative B for the following reasons: *It addresses and eliminates safety issues of the railroad bridge. *It avoids possible archeological impacts (possible Sally Hemmings ties to area). April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) *It creates a transportation corridor with railroad and roadway within the same area. *It meets transportation needs in this area for future development. Staff supports VDOT's recommendation for the reasons listed above. As proposed, this alignment will not impact the Fairview Swim Club facility as it will turn east to intersect with Free State Road. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors endorse Alternative B. Vote on this agenda item was taken during discussion of another matter listed above. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8e. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Bryan said he looked into the matter of the Triton poles at Ms. Thomas request. He has no = reason not to be optimistic. Ms. Thomas said this is a situation where it may work out to be best to have a pole in the VDOT right-of-way, and Mr. Bryan was looking into this question to be sure it would not open Pandora's Box. This location is in the VDOT right-of-way at the Ivy Interchange on I-64. __________ Mr. Tucker asked that the Board go back to Agenda Item No. 8b. concerning Routes 22/231. He just wants to be sure the Board supports the staffs request for an origin/destination study by VDOT. Mr. = Martin said he would move to ask VDOT to move forward with an origin/destination study, and that in the meantime, the County should increase enforcement and signage to try and correct the problems. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. __________ Mr. Bryan said VDOT continues to work with residents in the Earlysville area concerning the through-truck traffic issue. __________ Mr. Bryan said he and Mr. Dorrier had spoken about the VDOT right-of-way on Route 20 in the Carters Bridge area. The Culpeper Office found some plans from 1974 that showed right-of-way, but the = plans did not show houses. Mr. Dorrier said the Carter's Bridge replacement will start in 2003. The plan is to move the bridge slightly to the east. In looking at Route 20 South, he talked with some Highway Department engineers about the fact that in the 1970s, there were improvements between Keene and Scottsville on the agenda. The money had been budgeted, and fences moved back. Now, 20 years have elapsed since those plans were approved, and there has been no action by the Highway Department to make those improvements. He would like to have this Board endorse the concept of improving Route 20 in these spots so that action can be taken. Mr. Bowerman asked if this project is in the Countys plan. Mr. = Dorrier said it is in the Primary Road plan. He asked how the Board can insure that this project will happen. Mr. Bryan said it was not done because it was not funded. Ms. Thomas said this Board would have to make this a request at the next Preallocation Hearing. Mr. Bowerman said VDOT has done major spot improvements from time to time. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board needs to consider his request in a formal way. Mr. Bryan said it is too early to do so at this time. Mr. Tucker said staff will be making recommendations to the Board about the Primary Road Plan, and that will be the time to include this request. __________ Mr. Perkins asked the status of the Durrett Road (Route 605) project near Greene County. Mr. Juan Wade indicated that the improvements are underway at this time. __________ Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Bryan had indicated that the Culpeper Office is working on software for the traffic signal at Old Brook Road and Hillsdale Drive. He asked the status of that work. Mr. Bryan said he only knows that they are working on it. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8d. Transportation Matters: SELC Report on Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection, Presentation by Bruce Appleyard. Mr. Bruce Appleyard, Transportation Land Use Planner for SELC, came to present a copy of Intersection Alternatives and Complementary Improvements: Route 29 and Hydraulic Road, March, 2001 A@ prepared for the Southern Environmental Law Center by Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. Mr. Appleyard said this intersection is near grid-lock and is ranked by VDOT as a service level of E. It has been recognized by both the City and the County Police Departments as having serious safety A@ problems. It is virtually impassable by bicyclists and pedestrians. There has been recognition at all levels of the community that the traffic problems needs to be addressed. SELC asked Mr. Walter Kulach (he is a member of the consulting firm of Glatting Jackson) to look at this intersection to see if he could develop alternatives to improve safety, find a remedy for the traffic congestion, and provide some economic and community vitality to the surrounding area. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Appleyard said the report contains three primary recommendations. First, build a grade- separated intersection on Route 29 and Hydraulic Road by slightly depressing Route 29 beneath Hydraulic Road. This would provide many alternatives to the drivers on Route 29 and a better connection to businesses in the surrounding community. The second recommendation is to make complementary improvements to the local road network by extending Hillsdale Drive to Hydraulic Road in order to provide better connections between the businesses and the surrounding community. Third, is to foster smart A growth development in the area in order to create better community environments, and also basically @ protect the investment being made in these transportation improvements. Mr. Appleyard said these improvements would transform Route 29 and the area around it, reduce traffic congestion, improve traffic flow on local streets, promote economic development, and improve overall access to the businesses in the area. It would also improve safety and promote walking and biking. Mr. Bowerman asked how this proposed intersection differs from that which was proposed when Route 29 was looked at as an expressway. Mr. Appleyard said in 1994, VDOT proposed a modified tight urban diamond interchange for the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 location, with Route 29 depressed under Hydraulic Road, keeping Hydraulic at its current grade or very slightly elevated at some points. Those plans did not take advantage of any space to make it a refuge for pedestrians and bicyclists. He said SELC asked Walter Kulach to look at how the businesses in that vicinity could adapt to such an improvement. Basically, it is not their forte to see how businesses adapt to access restrictions. They assumed the worse case scenario where some parking was taken. He said there was also a tighter geometry on the off-ramps. Mr. Martin noted relocate gas station on a map. He asked if that is the relocation taking place A@ now, or will there be another relocation. Mr. Appleyard said what is shown is the current location, the station will not need to be moved again. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a traffic count for that intersection and a cost estimate of the project. Mr. Appleyard said he does not remember the traffic count at this time. The cost estimate is between $20.0 and $30.0 million. Mr. Martin said he thinks this is a nice design. Mr. Bowerman said it does not have the impact that other proposals have had. Mr. Tucker said VDOTs proposal from 1994 was a typical tight diamond, and = some of the businesses were completely impacted (removed or relocated). Mr. Martin said this Board has been in favor of extending Hillsdale Drive out to Hydraulic Road. He asked where Hillsdale Drive would enter Hydraulic. Mr. Appleyard said it would be to the east of the current intersection at K-Mart. Mr. Tucker asked if this design has any potential impact further along Route 29 in the City. Mr. Appleyard said they did not get into that level of detail in this study. Mr. Dorrier asked if this report will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Appleyard said they will present it at every level possible. Ms. Thomas asked if this study shows enough detail so that County staff can ask the people who are thinking of an activity on the Sperry property to include this report in their traffic analyses. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will provide them a copy. The County has not received a copy of any traffic study from these people at this time. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Bryan had any comments. Mr. Bryan said it looks great. A@ Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Appleyard for SELCs report. = __________ (Note: At 10:50 a.m., Ms. Thomas called for a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:55 a.m., with Mr. Martin not present at this time.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation of Easement Maps - Conservation Work in Albemarle County, Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council. Ms. Thorpe said she is the conservation field officer for the Piedmont Environmental Council. She had come to talk about PECs easement promotion campaign in Albemarle County. After seven years of = work, Congress finally passed the American Farm and Ranch Protection Act, which is an important state relief tax package initiated by PECs Board and Mr. Tim Lindstrom. With that legislation finally enacted, = PEC has concentrated on easement promotion talking to hundreds of Albemarle County landowners. PEC has an easement promotion committee composed of landowners who have donated easements on their own property. PEC stepped up its outreach to the local real estate community, and joined the Charlottesville Association of Realtors. They invited two real estate brokers to join their easement promotion committee and they have been very effective. Last year, CAR underwrote the cost of bringing Mr. Steve Small to Charlottesville to teach a seminar on conservation easements for lawyers, accountants, appraisers and real estate brokers. She said that over 50 people attended that seminar. Ms. Thorpe said PEC initiated a GIS system and mapped all the easements in Albemarle County. Through a donation, they now have the ability to produce easement maps at any scale to show a variety of conservation layers. She then noted a sample of a map which was posted on the wall. She said a April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) landowner is more amendable to dedicating their land permanently to farming, forestry or open space if they can see that other landowners have done the same thing. Ms. Thorpe thanked Mr. Gus Column, a member of Albemarle County staff, who gave PEC advice about structuring the project, scanned the 1994 base maps for PEC who had the maps smartened up by A@ an intern from the University of Virginia. She said the project would not have happened without Gus work = early in the process. Ms. Thorpe said PEC worked to create options for landowners who want to protect their land, but who need money to do it. PEC established the Albemarle Land Conservation Fund in 1999, and their first project was the purchase, protection and sale of 105 acres near Free Union. Their second project, which was to assist in the protection of Seven Oaks on Route 250 in Western Albemarle, was completed late in 2000. Ms. Thorpe said PEC currently has over $1.0 million available in the fund for land and easement acquisition in Albemarle County. She said this is a revolving fund, so PEC has to raise funds to replenish the fund each time funds are spent. She said all of this effort paid off last year when Albemarle County led the Commonwealth in terms of new acres under easement, over 5100 acres. She said most of these easements protect land that the Board and the community have designated to be significant conservation lands, either in the Open Space Plan or the Comprehensive Plan. She said that most of the easements were dedicated to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, but other easement holders were also active in Albemarle County last year. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation protected the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson, an acreage of about 200 between the Rivanna River and Route 250 East. The Nature Conservancy accepted its first easement in Albemarle County with the protection of Mount Warren farm on the James River south of Scottsville. Ms. Thorpe said this addition of 5100 acres brings the total number of acres in Albemarle County to over 29,000. She said this method of protecting land is very cost-effective. It is less expensive than acquiring land outright. The land stays on the tax rolls and because it is never developed, the County saves money in services. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 10:58 a.m.) Ms. Thorpe said this year will be good. There are the same number of easements on VOFs spring = agenda as last year. Thousands of additional acres are in the pipeline. Given the strong conservation partners in this area, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, The Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Albemarle County, and the help they have had from the real estate community and the stewardship of Albemarle County landowners, they may set a new record this year. She thanked the Board for listening to this report and then presented to each Board member a map similar to the one posted on the wall. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to announce that he has been appointed by the Governor to the Virginia Outdoor Open Space Advisory Committee, which is the advisory committee to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. School Board Presentation. Mr. Steve Koleszar, Vice-Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present to make this months report. He said that after the struggles with the budget, the School Board took a breather = during March, so he did not have a lot to report. They have approved the Burley Middle School design development. They are trying to expedite this process and save money by having more time for construction. He said this project will bring Burley up to the same standard as the other middle schools and yet retain the distinctive flavor of the building. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board had a joint meeting with the Planning Commission where they discussed how the two boards should relate. He felt it was helpful to all members since the Planning Commission did not know that their staff had a great deal of input into site selection for a new school. Mr. Dorrier asked if the DISC model foresees smaller schools for neighborhoods. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has not discussed this question. Smaller schools are more expensive, but some research says children do better in the smaller schools. He said that is not something for either the School Board or the Board of Supervisors to arbitrarily decide when it becomes involved in the DISC process. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board is reviewing the overall evaluation process of the Superintendents position. He said that redistricting for the Baker-Butler Elementary is an ongoing process. = The Redistricting Committee will presents its proposal to the School Board at its April 12 meeting. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has passed, on first reading, a proposed 2001-2002 School Calendar. They will discuss whether to set spring break for the same week every year rather than having it as a floating date. Having essentially the same date each year would be a help to parents. Mr. Koleszar said when the FY 2001-02 Operating Budget is returned to the School Board by the Board of Supervisors, they have a lot of work to do to finalize it and make sure it is balanced. He said that Mr. Madison Cummings, Dr. Castner, and himself, went to the National School Boards Association = convention in San Diego. There were approximately 15,000 people in attendance. He said it was very valuable to him. There were some major speakers who were very inspirational, there were very good work sessions, and he thinks they learned some things which can help improve Albemarle Countys School = System. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Koleszar said that on a personal note, Ms. Thomas called to tell him that the Board would be discussing redistricting this afternoon, and one of the plans to be considered would move him to the Samuel Miller District. He said that he has served the Scottsville District for five and one-half years, and he has a lot of ties with people in that district, and he would personally like to stay in the Scottsville District. Mr. Martin noted that the School Board did not set Memorial Day as a makeup day this year, and he appreciates that. Mr. Koleszar said that the first year he was a member of the School Board, the students missed 13 instructional days due to snow. There were only five makeup days on the calendar. Seven days of instruction were lost, and he found that unacceptable. He said that for the past five calendars, he has fought that battle. Mr. Martin said his complaint was that the School Board used Memorial Day for a makeup day and left Spring break intact. Mr. Koleszar said some members of the School Board feel Spring break to be sacrosanct. Mr. Bowerman asked how the School Board members feel about the budget the Supervisors recommended. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has not yet discussed it; they thought they sent the Board of Supervisors a "needs-based" budget. But, the Supervisors have the tough decision to make, and he personally respects those decisions. Dr. Kevin Castner, School Superintendent, said he thinks the School Board will be very pleased. He knows the Supervisors gave the Schools extra money in the way of one-time revenues, but compared to the $2.6 million gap of three weeks ago, that gap is down below three- quarters of a million dollars. He thinks they can find ways to get the job done with that money. They anticipate no relief coming from the meeting in Richmond today. He said the Leadership Team breathed a sigh of relief when presented with the options sent to the Schools. Mr. Koleszar said he speaks for the whole School Board when saying they appreciate the support and cooperation, and the friendly working relationship they have with the Supervisors. They want to be sure that relationship continues. Mr. Dorrier asked when there will be another joint meeting of the two boards. Mr. Koleszar said when the matter of school sizes is discussed it may take several meetings. Mr. Bowerman asked that the School Board be very deliberate in its review of its salaries for classified employees in terms of commonality. With no further comments, Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Koleszar for the report. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2000-64. David Weber (Triton PCS) (deferred from March 21, 2001). Mr. Cilimberg said that on February 14, 2001, the Board deferred action on this request and asked that Triton PCS explore alternatives regarding the ground equipment for a communication facility to mitigate its visual impact from Route 708. The visual impact of the tower base and ground equipment was the primary reason staff originally recommended disapproval of the application. The Planning Commission has recommended conditional approval of the application. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant originally proposed a structure for the ground equipment. After further discussion with the applicant, there is the possibility of an alternative structure more in keeping with the rural area. He said staff recommended that additional information was needed about the structure and that a further deferral might be needed. Based on some new photographs provided by the applicant, it may be possible to arrive at something today that is appropriate and which fits the applicants needs. = Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, said they looked at three options for screening the ground equipment more fully from the road. Her letter to the Planning Department was included as an attachment to the staffs report for this meeting, along with a sketch of what they propose. They prefer the = option for a shelter. She showed a computer drawing showing the proposed structure from three different sides. The structure would have one side enclosed, two sides partially open, and one side completely open. The ground equipment used by Triton is designed to be used in the open air, but the associated maintenance and repair requirements require air circulation, and there needs to be room for a maintenance technician to access all sides of the radio cabinet. They tried to design a facility that would provide adequate screening and the necessary air circulation and room for working. Ms. Long said the dimensions of this facility are actually smaller than originally proposed. They had allowed for four-feet on either side of the concrete pad for air circulation, but the engineers now say that three feet will be adequate. The roof will be painted a flat, dark brown color. The structure will otherwise be made of rough, unhewn siding, unpainted wood. There will be no glass on the sides. Originally, they proposed a lattice, and the architect suggested that standard fencing would blend in better with other structures in the area. Ms. Thomas said the cars moving along the road will never get the full-on side view, but an oblique view. She asked if this structure will keep the metal equipment from being seen. Ms. Long said that is the applicants goal. = Ms. Thomas said her thought had been that metal equipment looks out of place in a cow pasture. A house also does not look right in the middle of a cow pasture. She pushed, and people who had never seen a run-in shed have had their horizons expanded. She said if the siding is truly rough-sawn, it might A@ April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) be okay. Mr. Perkins said the letter says rough-hewn. That might be better changed to say rough-sawn. A@A@ He said the applicant might want to stain the wood, rather than leaving it natural. Ms. Long said the applicant would be happy to do that. It would help it to blend in with the brown color of the cabinet. She said there were a few conditions recommended by the Planning Commission that the applicant would like to have changed slightly. The application was for a steel pole painted brown, instead of a wooden pole. In the conditions of approval, it says wood pole. The applicant can do either, A@ but would prefer to use a steel pole painted brown for several reasons. It is more stable and safe. They can be engineered to have a much smaller fall zone radius than a wood pole. They are stronger. Also, there are transportation issues with moving the long poles. The pole can also be a smaller diameter. Ms. Thomas asked if the base of the steel pole is bigger than the base of a wooden pole. Ms. Long said it is the same base to provide stability. Ms. Long said in Condition 2d there was a typographical error. It references an Alltel facility A@ application. They propose that be changed to refer to the Weber property plans. A@ Ms. Long referenced Conditions 11 and 12 which refer to landscaping. She said No. 11 refers to landscaping around the leased area. She said that is inconsistent with the shelter because the way the conditions were crafted there would not be room for both the shelter and the landscaping. She proposes eliminating Condition No. 11. Condition No. 12 talks about four-foot high rhododendrons which the applicant had proposed planting prior to knowing the Boards interest in the shelter. She proposes = eliminating the reference to the rhododendrons. Ms. Thomas said the Board members dont have a copy of = those conditions before them this morning, but there was to be some landscaping along the road and some landscaping at the pole site. She asked if the applicant proposed to remove that condition. Ms. Long said they do not. Mr. Cilimberg said No. 12 referred to landscaping along Route 708, and the lease area. With the shed landscaping of the leased area being substituted by the shed itself, they want to remove the references in No. 11 and No. 12 to anything that would be landscaping in the lease area. Ms. Long said in Condition 3A, there was a statement that the facility would be constructed in reference to the applicant's plans. They propose to reverse the pole and the ground equipment so it more effectively screens. They can fit the shelter in and actually screen the ground equipment and the pole using that shelter. Ms. Thomas asked if the ice bridge mentioned comes directly out of the open part of the A@ shed to the pole. Mr. Long said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to see the revised wording of these conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said under that last condition, staff would want a plan showing that it is being reversed. He suggested that this matter be deferred for two weeks so staff can get the conditions reworded, get the plan from the applicant and have it referenced in the conditions, and then place all of this on the Boards consent agenda. = Motion to defer SP-2000-64 until April 18, 2001, was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda item No. 12. Appeal: SDP-00-154. Seminole Plaza Site Plan Amendment, Critical Slope Waiver Request. To amend Garden Patch site plan allowing 8205 sq ft bldg dedicated to retail sales on 1.017 acs znd HC. TM 45B1, Sec 5, Block C, P 4A. Located on Rt 29N, frontage approx 1/8 mi S of Rivanna River bridge. Rio Dist. (Applicant requests withdrawal.) Letter, dated April 2, 2001, was received from Mr. Robert Brugh of Montebello Property & Investment Co., withdrawing his appeal of the Planning Commissions conditional approval for the critical = slopes waiver for this project. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development on the Whitewood Village Apartments Community Improvement Project. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 26, 2001.) Mr. Ron White said that on March 21, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to solicit public suggestions for a CDBG application. One citizen spoke regarding her housing at Whitewood Village Apartments on Whitewood Road. The Housing Office has been looking at this complex for some time trying to preserve the existing housing and to improve some of the liveability in the community. Mr. White said they intend to submit an application for $1.0 million to do two projects. First, to support the renovation of the housing units, and then to construct a community center on the Whitewood property. He said the County executed a just-in-time planning grant in January which also uses CDBG A@ funds to do a feasibility study for this project. For the past two years, there have been efforts aimed at preserving the property, including converting it to a tenant-owned cooperative, or a tenant-managed rental April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) complex. Through the market analyses, feasibility studies, and meetings with tenants, it was clear that the property needed to remain in private ownership as rental stock. The ability of the tenants, at this time, to take on these responsibilities does not seem feasible. He said the owners have indicated an interest to sell the property, partly because the HUD contract which provides rental assistance expires next year. That is also a concern of the Housing Office because there are 94 families who reside in Whitewood Village. Mr. White said Whitewood Village Apartments has 96 units with 94 being rented at this time, one serves as an office, and one houses the resident manager. The project has eight buildings, with 12 units in each building. It was built in the 70s. In the mid-80s, it was renovated using HUD Moderate Rehabilitation Funds which gave them project-based rental assistance for all units in the property. Mr. White said that currently there are 241 individuals residing at Whitewood Village, 129 of which are children. Of the 112 adults, 15 are elderly/disabled, 79 are single parent households and 78 of these are females, and of the other 59 adults, only 50+ percent are employed. On the average, families pay about one-half of the typical $594 monthly rent, with the balance of the rent being subsidized. He said Ms. Theresa Tapscott from AHIP is present today and can describe some of the renovations proposed, and the addition of services through a community center. He said there will be a number of funding sources in addition to what are being requested through the CDBG. The project is expected to cost about $8.0 million. For 100 units of housing, the cost sounds large, but the renovations proposed along with the community center are expect to cost about $75,000 per unit. Mr. White said some of the other funding sources are highly competitive, particularly the low-income housing tax credits which AHIP proposes to apply for next year. The ability of the Housing Office to go ahead for a block grant, and hopefully to receive commitment of those funds or a letter of intent to receive the funds in the next year if not awarded this year, is very important to the other application AHIP will make for funding sources. Mr. White said he has not been with the County long enough to have a lot of definitive answers to housing needs. In looking at the objectives of the County, he thinks two objectives would be met. One is the preservation of affordable housing stock and the other is the enhancement of the liveability of the community. He went to a tenants meeting last night and found that two of the tenants have lived at = Whitewood for twelve and ten years respectively, so there are long-term residents of the property. It definitely is a community. He said this is a three-year project. It will have to be done in phases. Mr. Bowerman asked the square footage of the total livable area. Mr. White said he did not know because AHIP is just getting information from the architect. They will be trying to create some three- bedroom apartments, which will be the biggest cost item. They found it would not be cost-effective to add additional bedrooms outside the perimeter of the building, so instead they will create some three-bedroom units at the expense of losing some two-bedroom units. Mr. Bowerman asked if the basic shell of the buildings and the parking lots are being retained. Mr. White said it is possible there will be a change in some traffic patterns. Mr. Bowerman asked if all the units will be gutted. Mr. White said no. Mr. Bowerman said $8.0 A@ million seems high for units which just need renovation. Mr. White said the renovation costs are close to $1.6 million. The total cost is acquisition ($4.3 million), renovation ($1.7 million), construction of the community center ($800,000), and then there are legal costs, and soft costs dealing with tax credits and other funding sources (all totaling $7.7 million). Ms. Thomas asked if in putting together the different sources of funding, will the County get only a portion of those funds, or none of those funds? Is Mr. White assuming the County will be the next source of funding if all of competitions for funds are not won? Mr. White said this is an unique situation in that this property is livable as is. It meets Section 8 guidelines for safe, decent housing. If some of the funding being applied for is not received either this year or next year, but AHIP acquires the property, AHIP can continue to operate the property as it is and continue to apply for the funding they need for the renovation. Mr. Dorrier asked if this is the first time the County has done this sort of thing. Mr. White said the County has done a lot of block grant activity, but it has been more associated with renovation of owner- occupied housing. This will be the first time the County has done something at this level to preserve rental housing. The County is involved in some direct support to the retirement housing being built at Woods Edge. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to commend the Housing Office and AHIP for its action; he thinks this is the right direction for the County to take in this matter. Ms. Humphris said she is not sure this is the right direction. In the end, who ends up being the owner/operator of Whitewood Village? Mr. White said it would be AHIP. The County would not have an ownership interest. Depending on how funding comes through, and some of the needs of the project, it could be a partnership, of which AHIP would be one of the partners, particularly with use of low-income tax credits. Mr. Bowerman asked how this differs from a housing authority. Mr. White said it is private ownership, rather than quasi-governmental ownership. Mr. Bowerman said AHIP is not private. Mr. White said AHIP is a private non-profit corporation. Mr. Bowerman asked if they were created by Albemarle County. Mr. White said he does not know that. Mr. Davis said the County funds AHIP. Mr. White said one of the items in the budget is $300,000 which they hope to leverage with the Housing Initiative Fund which already receives budget funds on an annual basis. Those go to Piedmont Housing Alliance which April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) leverages these funds. As the budget stands, the request does not come back to the County for a direct allocation, but uses the existing Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund and funds leveraged by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund to support this project. Mr. Dorrier asked if there has been any opposition to this project. Mr. White said no. A@ Ms. Thomas asked if anyone wanted a description of what the renovation will look like. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, from AHIP, is present to provide details. Mr. Tucker said a formal public hearing is needed. At this point, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Ms. Tapscott, AHIP, said they have been working with the Residents Association of Whitewood = Village for over two years. AHIP conducted independently a comprehensive needs assessment which included both the physical needs of the building and the needs of the families living there. The first survey was conducted two years ago, and at that time, the AHIP Board of Directors decided this was an appropriate activity for AHIP. At about that same time, AHIP entered into an agreement with the County to carry out the activities, which was the right time to apply for a planning grant of $25,000 which was used for preliminary architectural studies. The Ivy Group did a second independent survey of the needs of clients. As to the physical needs of the site, there are no recreational opportunities for children or adults, so part of the project would be to create recreational areas. Also, there are currently 88 two-bedroom units and eight one-bedroom units, and there are 129 children. Rather than take up the limited space on the site, it was decided that it would be better to reconfigure the inside of four of the buildings and add three-bedroom units, while the other four buildings would be left as is with the exception of system upgrades. The third physical improvement is to add handicapped accessible units. They plan on having five of the units handicapped accessible. Mr. Bowerman asked if AHIP evaluated the potential of having a hybrid with some units for sale to the residents, and the balance being rentals. Ms. Tapscott said the actual construction of the units is not conducive to that idea. There are certain fire walls and more expensive renovations would be required to divide the units for sale. Mr. Bowerman asked if the units will have fire sprinklers. Ms. Tapscott said they will not be sprinkled. Mr. Bowerman asked if AHIP has any other ownership of property where a like activity takes place. Ms. Tapscott said AHIP has twelve scattered site units. Some in the City and some in the County. Their staff is undergoing extensive property management training. Mr. Dorrier said the staff report talks about Albemarle Housing Initiative Funds. He asked how much of those funds would be used. Ms. Tapscott said they hope to leverage about $300,000. There are a number of other direct grant sources to which they plan to apply. The Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta has an affordable housing program to which they propose to apply for $594,000. The property as it is now realizes a positive cash flow. If their financial projects came to fruition, they would enjoy a positive cash flow and propose to invest the proceeds back into the service enriched environment they hope to create. Ms. Thomas asked how many years it would take to get the project into a positive cash flow; what is the pay-back period? Ms. Tapscott said with the multiple funding sources, the compliance periods are different. The project must have a positive cash flow before funding sources will be forthcoming. Mr. Bowerman said that is cash-on-cash because AHIP would have no depreciation. They would have expenses, servicing the debt and in order to have positive cash flow, that is money in addition to the very real cash expenses. Mr. Martin asked why there is no depreciation. Mr. Bowerman said there is no tax advantage for AHIP. Ms. Tapscott said there is a tax advantage in that AHIP is proposing to fund a large portion with a low-income housing tax credit. They will form a limited partnership with a for-profit entity and the tax advantage is part of the incentive for the for-profits to invest the equity. Mr. Bowerman asked how big a portion that will be. Ms. Tapscott said early projections are about $2.5 million. Mr. Bowerman said that makes sense. Mr. Dorrier asked if Ms. Tapscott is optimistic about receiving a grant. Ms. Tapscott said yes. A@ AHIP has been working with DHCD for three years on the preliminary investigative work for this project. She is confident that if they do not receive approval this year, they will receive it next year. She said the service-enriched component of this project makes it more marketable to the funding sources. It is an innovative concept. Mr. Bowerman said there is a pay-back on things like sprinkling in terms of insurance costs and the safety of the residents. If that is a limiting factor in being able to make it into condominiums, he is not sure enough exploration has taken place concerning that aspect of the project. In other areas, people are trying to privatize these facilities. Where private ownership can be given to individuals, he thinks the County should work in that direction. If one-third of the people living there were owners, there would be a core group who had an interest in the maintenance and livability of the facility. Ms. Tapscott said they can look into the legal requirements for equipping it for future condominiums. Ms. Thomas said one of the first actions taken by the former housing director, was to see how to turn over the ownership totally to the tenants of Whitewood Village. Mr. Bowerman said he wasnt involved = in that procedure. Ms. Thomas said there must be a lot of information on file that was gathered at that time. Ms. Tapscott said they are dealing with a very, very low-income population. They will look into the structural feasibility of doing that, but AHIP has a lot of work to do with the existing tenants before that can April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) take place. Mr. Martin said he did not participate in that first study, but that was one of the first charges to the housing director. He knows the situation there, and the only way to get owner-occupancy in that facility is to kick some of those folks out. He does not think there is a situation there where that can take place. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Thomas said staff has recommended approval of a resolution to apply for up to $1.0 million in Community Development Block Grant funding from the Department of Housing and Community Development. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Ms. Humphris. Mr. Martin said this is not the beginning of the process but just another step in a long series of steps. Some of the Board members have concerns about this proposal, and he personally does not want to see the County get into the business of having block rental housing that the County owns. Mr. Bowerman said he would seriously suggest looking at sprinkling in terms of a long-term investment. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION WHEREAS,the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent, affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and WHEREAS,the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all neighborhoods; and WHEREAS,the County of Albemarle is committed to preserving, to the extent possible, all existing affordable housing stock; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Public Hearings held March 21, 2001, and April 4, 2001, the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $1,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for a Comprehensive Community Improvement Project for the Whitewood Village Apartments; and WHEREAS,other resources estimated in excess of $6,000,000 including, but not limited to, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, and funds leveraged by the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund will be invested in the project; and WHEREAS,one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Whitewood Village Apartments is very-low and extremely-low income, all receiving rental assistance through project-based vouchers; and WHEREAS,the project-based contract expires beginning in early spring 2002; and WHEREAS,the current owners have indicated a desire to sell the property and have executed an option with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as purchaser; and WHEREAS,the projected benefits of the project include *Rehabilitation of 96 affordable rental units benefiting approximately 350 persons, one-third of whom are children; *Construction of a community center; *Provision of services including day care and after school. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for applying for this Virginia Community Development Block Grant application. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Lighting Ordinance Provisions, Status of. (This item will be heard after lunch.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program, Status of. Mr. Cilimberg introduced Mr. Ches Goodall, ACE Coordinator, said he is learning as the program goes along, and has been working with the ACE Committee. Mr. Cilimberg referred to the staffs report = April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) which is on file. It states that the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received eleven applications by its initial January 1, 2001, deadline. Since then, staff and the ACE committee have met once a month to discuss the ACE program and the status of individual applications. Per the County ordinance, properties were ranked by a series of objective criteria including: open space resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, cultural and scenic resources; and County fund leveraging from outside sources. To be eligible for acquisition of a conservation easement, an applicant must score at least fifteen points under the established "ranking criteria." From the initial pool of eleven applications, nine remain eligible for funding - one voluntarily withdrew and another did not qualify. Applications came from nearly every part of the County and were scored on a variety of criteria. The average income of the applicants is less than $50,000 per year - the threshold at which ACE pays 100 percent of appraised value. Most applicants considered farming their principal occupation and source of income. The primary reasons for applying to the ACE program include economic hardship and a strong belief in conservation and the protection of open space and farmland. Because of limited funding and a need to earmark some of the funding ($350,000 from the transient lodging tax) for properties which have values promoting travel and tourism, there will not be enough money to purchase easements on all of the eligible properties. Depending on the value of the easement, the County may be able to purchase only three to five easements. If some of these properties qualify for outside funding (through VOF and USDA), ACE would be able to purchase an additional easement(s). As a result, the Board must consider how many appraisals to order in the event some applicants do not accept the County's offer. The ACE Committee recommends five or six appraisals. While the County ordinance enables ACE to rank all properties objectively using the "ranking criteria" system, it does not define how to rank properties eligible for money from the transient lodging tax - those with unique travel and tourism values. As a result, the ACE Committee passed a motion recommending the following criteria be considered in qualifying a property for this portion of ACE funding: adjoins protected open space; provides mountain protection; contains historic resources; lies in the primary A Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; adjoins a state scenic river. The Board must determine on a case-by-case basis whether an easement is purchased with money @ from this special funding source. To assist in making this decision, the "General Description of Year 2000 ACE Applicants and Property" provides valuable information about the individual applications. Since most of the ACE applicants own property in fee simple, the ranking procedure has been clear and straightforward. One application, however, is complicated for several reasons: most of the parcels under that application are under option; some of the property is encumbered by outstanding mineral rights; and several dump sites (tires and car gas tanks) are present. The ACE Committee believes there are too many unresolved and troublesome issues regarding this application and recommends that the Lloyd application not be purchased. If the applicant is able to remove the above-mentioned impediments in a timely manner, the ACE Committee feels the application should be reconsidered in a future year. The Committee also debated what would happen if ACE does not have enough money left over (from prior acquisitions) to entirely pay for the next easement on the ranking list. Should this money trickle down to the next highest scoring applicant whose easement ACE can purchase (in its entirety) or should it be carried over into the next fiscal year? The ACE Committee believes the money should be carried over to the next fiscal year unless an applicant is willing to accept what is left of the funds. Mr. Cilimberg said because of time constraints today, he would go directly to the recommendations of the ACE Committee: 1)The Board should approve the final applicant ranking priority list - "ACE Applications for Year 2000" which is Attachment A (on file) to the staffs report for this meeting. = 2)The Board should approve the use of transient lodging tax funds for the purchase of those parcels identified in Attachment A with Travel/Tourism value. To assist in making the decision, the "General Description of Year 2000 ACE Applicants and Property" provides valuable information about the individual applications. 3)The Board should approve proceeding with appraising for the top six recommended applications. 4)The Board should approve carrying forward into the next fiscal year any funds which remain after the purchase of easements, unless the owner of the next highest scoring property is willing to accept the remaining funds for purchase of their easement. Mr. Martin said the report was good, and very detailed. It leads one to agree with the Committee and staffs recommendations. = Mr. Perkins had a question about the sentence which reads: The ACE Committee believes the A money should be carried over to the next fiscal year unless an applicant is willing to accept what is left of the funds. Why not, instead, say the applicant would be paid the additional money the next year? He said @ that sounds as if it would be more fair to the applicant. Mr. Davis said that there may be a situation where the tax advantages would outweigh the shortfall in purchase price. He said the hesitation of the committee in carrying the purchase over to the next year is that it cuts into the amount of money the next year has, and then there will be a new batch of applicants. That applicant might not be as highly ranked as an applicant in the next batch. Mr. Martin said as it gets down to the last bit of funding, they would be looking at properties which April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) are at a lower priority, so to make it fair, they could compete with the next batch of applicants in the next year. Mr. Davis said that property might be fully funded in the next cycle if it competed well in that cycle. It was felt that there will be enough applicants to make it a competitive process. Mr. Dorrier asked the total number of points a property could achieve in this ranking. Mr. Goodall said he did not determine what a perfect applicant score would be. He can say that 56.15 points, which Mr. Young scored, would be high in any applicant pool. Mr. Cilimberg pointed to a map posted on the wall showing all the properties which had been subject to these applications. It was a very good geographical distribution of properties. Mr. Dorrier asked if the plan is to have these properties spread all around the County. Mr. Cilimberg said it is not something the program was explicitly trying to do. Ms. Thomas said some of the applications are for properties in very crucial locations. The staffs = report brought out this fact very well. She said this matter deserves a lot of discussion since it is a very important topic, but she does not sense that there are a lot of hanging questions. She asked for a motion. Mr. Martin offered motion to approve the final applicant priority list (Item No. 1 on the list of recommendations set out above) for the Year 2000 which is Attachment A to the staffs report today. Mr. = Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. __________ Mr. Martin moved to approve Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as recommended by staff and the appropriate attachments including Attachment B (on file). The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. __________ Mr. Martin said he thought they did well with how they decided to use the Tourism money and putting together some guidelines for the Tourism money. He thought it was a fantastic job. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is important not to have the Transient Lodging Tax money drive the program. She liked the way the points were applied first, and then they went back to see which properties would be eligible for these funds. _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 12:15 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; and, under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a public use site and a public safety facility. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Session. At 2:12 p.m., the Board reconvened into open space in Room 235. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open = meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 2:17 p.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Lighting Ordinance Provisions, Status of. Mr. Cilimberg said the Albemarle County Lighting Ordinance was adopted on August 12, 1998. At the time of adoption, the Board requested that a review of the waiver provisions be completed after one April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) year to determine if any changes were warranted. Since the ordinance was adopted, three applications for waivers have been received by the County. Two of the waivers were for sports lighting (SDP-98-156: Western Albemarle High School, and SDP-99-02: St. Anne's Belfield School). One request was for "pedestrian" lighting at the Crozet Convenience Store (SDP-99-100). All three requests were granted. Also, since the ordinance was adopted, staff has conducted a review of the waiver provisions and a review of troublesome lighting-related issues that have arisen repeatedly since adoption. These reviews have resulted in the identification of several areas that staff would like to study further, with the potential of making recommendations for ordinance amendments to improve plan review and enforcement procedures. Identified areas include, but are not limited to, threshold lumens and foot candles, light spillover, shielding, sports field lighting, overall lighting levels on individual sites and light pole heights. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the lighting ordinance. Staff further recommends that the Board provide staff with direction regarding inclusion of members of the public on the team that reviews lighting ordinance issues and ordinance amendments. If the Board desires non-staff representatives on the team, staff recommends that the Board be as specific as possible regarding their wishes for representation. Mr. Bowerman said there was a person from the Chamber of Commerce and a person from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders on the original Lighting Ordinance Committee. That seemed to work well. Mr. = Tucker said that was before CALAC was organized. Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board needs to draft criteria for non-staff members of the team mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg. She does not know that the Board is ready to do that. Ms. Thomas asked if staff would prefer to work on the ordinance first and then bring in a starting document. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be workable for staff and the Planning Commission. What staff normally does with ordinance work is to take its draft to the Development Roundtable before taking it to the Commission. Ms. Thomas suggested that the process go through the staff, the Roundtable, and at that point decide if a committee needs to be appointed, and if not, take it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said that would work well for staff. Ms. Thomas asked if anyone wanted to discuss any of the recommendations without getting into great detail. She was glad that staff had picked up on the issue of glare. She said she hates to give up on sports lighting, although the recommendation is to get more specific. Mr. Perkins asked the name of the full cut-off sports light. Ms. Thomas said it means that no light A@ goes up into the sky. There is one firm in Seattle which claims they can almost do it. Mr. Davis said it is similar to the lighting on St. Annes baseball fields. Ms. Thomas said those lights are near state-of-the-art. = She and Ms. Humphris got a chance to view their lights, and as they approached the fields there was no indication that they were there because there was no light spill-over into the adjoining flat fields. Mr. Cilimberg said he saw the same thing in Portland when talking to the consultant there. They actually went to a park which had fixtures about 10 years old which were very bright and very exposed. Then in a separate area, a softball field where there was very little light except what was directly on the field. He said that when it comes to baseball fields, because of their size, it is very difficult to cut-off light because the entire field has to be covered. Mr. Perkins said recommendation No. 1 includes a sentence which says: Because the spillover A requirement is a safety issue, as well as a nuisance issue, it should not be waivable. Then in @ recommendation No. 6 it says: Spillover regulations only applied to fixtures emitting over 3000 lumens. A@ He asked if that is a conflict. Can there be spillover with less than 3000 lumens? Mr. Cilimberg said anything below 3000 lumens is not regulated by the County. The spill-over regulations suggested in these recommendations are for fixtures which emit less than 3000 lumens because of the nuisance factor. Mr. Perkins said he remembers going out to the UREF Research Park and looking at their lights which were so bright that no matter the angle from which they were viewed, there was a glare. They have rows and rows of those lights. Then the County had a lot of trouble with the lights at the Crozet Convenience Store. Mr. Cilimberg said a lot of the regulations have to do with enforcement. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, asked if Mr. Perkins had questions or suggestions. Mr. Perkins said no. He mentioned UREF because the lights they installed complied with ordinance A@ requirements, but are very bad. Then, the Board argued about the foot-candle spillover in Crozet, and a waiver was finally granted. Ms. Humphris said she remembers that the lighting installed at the Research Park was not what was shown to the County. Mr. Bowerman said the measurement of the lumens was okay, but the visibility of the light source was what caused the glare problem. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the whole question of whether the fixtures have true cut-off optics. Ms. Thomas said both Recommendation No. 9 which deals with glare and Recommendation No. A@ 8 which deals with full cut-off optics might get to that problem. Mr. Perkins said he does not know what it A@ is, but he knows it when he sees it. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) Mr. Bowerman asked if the Zoning Office would like to have regulations which require as little measurement of light as possible, and regulate fixtures and their distance from property lines instead? Ms. McCulley said there is a loophole now in the ordinance with the exemption for decorative fixtures. As concerns the UREF Research Park, some of that lighting predates the Dark Skies regulations. Staff A@ would like the lighting ordinance to be more far-reaching and eliminate the exemption for decorative fixtures. Mr. Perkins suggested that safety issues may need to be addressed in this rewrite of the ordinance. He said that is something brought up by service station owners who need a certain amount of light for their customers using the self-service gas pumps. He does believe their lighting needs to be bright enough to eliminate shadows. Ms. Thomas said if staff had no questions of Board members, she would ask for a motion to adopt the resolution supplied with the papers for this meeting. Motion to adopt the following Resolution of Intent was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Section 4.17, Outdoor Lighting, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations pertaining to outdoor lighting; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 4.17 to address numerous issues including, but not limited to, those related to threshold lumens and foot candles, light spillover, shielding, sports field lighting, overall lighting levels on individual sites, and light pole heights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4.17 and any other related regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. Mr. Martin offered motion to appoint Mr. Kurt B. Goodwin to the Joint Airport Commission for a term to run from April 4, 2001, to December 1, 2003, to fill out the balance of the term of Mr. Michael R. Matthews, Jr. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Ms. Humphris offered motion to appoint to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Advisory Committee, Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Ms. Shirley Midyette, Mr. Milton B. Moore, and Mr. Nickolas J. Sojke with terms to begin on April 4, 2001 (expiration dates will be established later). The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. __________ Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to reappoint: Mr. Donald R. Crosby and Ms. Martha R. Tarrant to the Regional Disability Services Board with terms to run from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2004; and Mr. Richard L. Jennings to the Jail Authority with a term to run from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 18. 2001 Redistricting Plan, Work Session. Mr. Davis said that on March 7, 2001, the Board approved a schedule and guidelines to be used in preparing the 2001 redistricting plans and a 2001 Redistricting Ordinance. Census block data has been received and reviewed by staff. Staff did find problems with the Census data. The published Census April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) information reflects the County population to be 79,236 people. Upon inspection of Census block information relating to University of Virginia property in the County, it has been determined that there has been a counting error of at least 4886 persons. These persons have been identified in six Census blocks where dormitories and other housing units exist. Additional undercounting may actually exist, but until the Census Bureau releases residence data in May, it is impossible to identify the exact number of persons not counted. A review of the City Census data indicates that the undercount in the County has been over counted in the City. A census block in the City within the Alumni Hall precinct and adjacent to the undercounted blocks in the County reported 374 people in 1990 and reports 5394 people in 2000. This increase of 5020 people is reported even though no new structures have been built in this Census block since 1990. County staff has adjusted the Census data by 4886 persons for purposes of proceeding with redistricting. A correction of the Census count will be pursued as soon as possible to officially correct the Census error; 2503 people have been added to the Jack Jouett District numbers and 2383 have been added to the Samuel Miller District numbers. The adjusted County population is 84,122. It is likely that the Jack Jouett numbers are still undercounted. The adjusted number is still less than the 1990 Jack Jouett population of 11,710. Staff had projected a significant population increase in the Jack Jouett District. Additional Census data will be scrutinized as soon as it is available. The Census data, adjusted for redistricting purposes, shows the population by district, as follows: Rio District12,451 Jack Jouett District11,484 (adjusted by +2,503) Samuel Miller District13,632 (adjusted by +2,383) Scottsville District14,226 Rivanna District18,904 White Hall District13,425 The population range for redistricting based on a County population of 84,122 is plus or minus five percent of 14,020. The range, therefore, is 13,319 to 14,721 people. Because most population growth is anticipated within the Rivanna, Scottsville and White Hall districts, ideally those districts should be reconstituted with population counts in the lower half of the range and the Jack Jouett, Samuel Miller and Rio districts should be reconstituted with population counts in the upper half of the range. Based on these identified populations, the Rivanna District must be reduced by more than 4884 people, the Jack Jouett District must be increased by more than 2536 people, and the Rio District must be increased by more than 1569 people. The other districts have populations within the required range but may need to be adjusted to reasonably reallocate the population or to make the redistribution from the Rivanna District to the Rio and Jack Jouett districts meet the adopted Redistricting Guidelines. The staff redistricting work group is in the final stages of preparing two proposed redistricting plans that attempt to meet the adopted Redistricting Guidelines to the maximum extent possible. Those plans, prepared by Jackie Harris, Tex Weaver and his staff, have tried to make the plans meet the guidelines the Board adopted. Mr. Davis said there are two plans which substantially meet those guidelines. Plan A meets the guidelines almost entirely with the exception that a School Board member who lives in the Scottsville District lives right on the border between the Samuel Miller and the Scottsville districts. That person was relocated out of the Scottsville district and into the Samuel Miller district under Plan A and that is inconsistent with the ideal guidelines. Mr. Davis said Plan B substantially meets the guidelines, but the work group was not able to balance the districts in the lower part of the population range in the non-growth districts. Also, geography is more difficult in Plan B, but, in most parts, the plan substantially meets the guidelines. Mr. Weaver explained the proposed boundary lines of the districts. He identified the geography changes for each district in each plan. It was required that over 5000 people be moved from the Rivanna District, and a large number picked up in the Jack Jouett District. Since the districts are not contiguous, that population had to be shifted through several districts. He said the work group tried to retain the continuity of all the School Board and Board of Supervisors seats. They looked for an opportunity to keep the Samuel Miller School Board member in his district, so it picked up additional land in Samuel Miller from the Scottsville District in a more rural component which includes the majority, if not all of the Covesville precinct. That gave the Samuel Miller District the number needed. Mr. Weaver said that under Plan B, there is no change in geography of the White Hall District. Realizing that Jack Jouett still needed additional population, the Inglecress Subdivision and another development were moved from Samuel Miller district to Jack Jouett. A small area along Commonwealth Drive was also taken from the Rio District and moved to the Samuel Miller District. The same changes occurred in Plan A and Plan B for the other districts. Dunlora Subdivision and some of Rio Road went from Rivanna District to the Rio District. The straddle north and south of Airport Road went to the Rio District. The only exception was that Camelot and Briarwood were relocated to Rio District rather than White Hall District. The Earlysville Forest area stayed in the White Hall District. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Davis said that in looking at the Rivanna District, the work group tried to make the 5000 population loss make sense with good, geographical, identifiable boundaries. Both plans show Route 29 as being the boundary, but there is an anomaly south of I-64. There is an area of the Keswick precinct where in the perfect world I-64 would be the boundary, because that is a barrier and this area is separated from the rest of the district. They looked at another option. There are about 700 people in the area south of I-64 and about 1000 people in the Briarwood/Camelot area. This could be shifted so that the 1000 people April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) remain in the Rivanna District, and the other area goes to the Scottsville District. If that is done, on Plan B that requires a minor adjustment in Samuel Miller so White Hall would gain about 100 people in order to balance its population. That is a logical change that could be made in Plan A. In Plan B, that doesn't work because the Scottsville District is already at the high end of the range, and the extra 700 people would mean that another 700 people would have to be moved from Scottsville to Samuel Miller which is also at the high end, and so 700 people would have to be moved from Samuel Miller to some other district. Mr. Davis said the problem with the Scottsville District is that in the Mill Creek area there are about 6000 people in a concentrated area. It is difficult to split that population other than as suggested in Plan A which is the boundary between Neighborhood 4 and Neighborhood 5 which follows Biscuit Run. He said the area that is added to Jack Jouett from the Rio District is a small geographical area which contains about 2200 people. He said the Jack Jouett District needed to grow by about 3000 people. Given its boundaries and the lack of areas where you could meet the criteria for having a geographical feature that separates the districts, this was one of the few options available to add the necessary population to the Jack Jouett District. The difference in the Rio District between Plan A and Plan B is that Plan A added Earlysville Forest which was formerly a part of the White Hall District. For the guidelines, that gave the Rio District the urban/rural mixture that the Board wanted to have in each district. The down side is that the area may have more common interests with White Hall than with Rio. Mr. Dorrier asked who reviews this plan after the Board has finished its work. Mr. Davis said after the Redistricting Ordinance is adopted, it will be sent to the U.S. Justice Department, and they will review it for consistency with the Voting Rights Act. They will look at issues regarding whether or not any minority voting rights have been affected by the plan. The State Board of Elections will look to see that the plan meets the guidelines of the State Code and Constitution as to precincts and voting places, and the +/- five percent population balance. Basically it is the County's responsibility to see that the plan meets all criteria. Ms. Thomas asked if it would help to move the Farmington/Flordon area from the Samuel Miller District to the Jack Jouett District. Mr. Davis said that area contains about 600 people. Under Plan B, the Jack Jouett District is on the low end of the range, so that would help balance the numbers. Ms. Thomas said Samuel Miller was on the high end. Mr. Davis said that is correct. They wanted Samuel Miller to be on the high end, and that would pull that population down to the target figure. Mr. Martin said as far as Rivanna is concerned, since he lives in the northwestern part of the district, he would like to keep Camelot and Briarwood with Airport Road to the Rivanna River being the cut-off point, and lose some of the area to the south. This would also help with the minority population in the Rivanna District, which has the second lowest percentage out of four precincts. Mr. Davis said that on Plan A that adjustment can be made because White Hall was on the lower end of the range in this plan, so it can afford to lose those people and still stay in the range, but if shifted to the lowest end of the range it would need to gain 60 or 70 people in order to say in the range. The work group thought that could be accomplished by making a change in the Batesville area. In Plan B, the 700 people moved would put the Scottsville District over 15,000 people. The only area of dense population in the Scottsville District where the 1000 people would need to be found is in the neighborhood next to Mill Creek. If those 1000 people had to be found further south, it could go into the Porters Precinct. Ms. Jackie Harris, Registrar, said changes in the Porters Precinct "messes" with the one significant area of minority population. That gets into the question of diluting minority voting strength. The County has to be careful with the Esmont/Porters area because it has the one large population of minorities. Mr. Davis said that under this plan, the Samuel Miller district already has 14,600 people. He said the plan would require substantial revisions to make the adjustment. Mr. Dorrier said he basically agrees with Plan B because the numbers are close, and because he does not think it is right to redistrict someone out of their School Board seat. He thinks Plan B will work and keep Mr. Koleszar in his School Board seat, and achieve the result desired for the County. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Davis to explain again what would need to be done to Plan B. Mr. Davis said Plan B would keep Mr. Koleszar in the Scottsville District. He said that in the area where Mr. Koleszar is redistricted, there are 2000 people. Mr. Tucker asked if the White Hall District would be impacted if the area Mr. Martin mentioned were moved. Mr. Davis said that under Plan B, White Hall is not affected. But, if the shift were made, the Rio District would be dramatically impacted. Mr. Martin said he did not want to say he is against Plan B, but what he suggested was his preference. Mr. Davis said Mr. Martin's point is very logical, but is difficult to accomplish under Plan B. Ms. Thomas said the part moved into the Samuel Miller District under Plan B is the part that was moved out of the Samuel Miller District 10 years ago. It would be a very natural boundary shift because it has gone back and forth in the past. The reason she asked about moving the Farmington/Flordon area is that the one problem with Plan B is that it left Samuel Miller at the high end, and Jack Jouett at the low end, and that change would make up the difference. Mr. Davis said that adjustment can be made without affecting any other change on the map and it does bring a better balance between the two districts. Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris agreed to this change. Mr. Davis said at this time, staff is on a tight schedule to move this forward to a consensus plan. The original time schedule showed a work session for April 11. As soon as the Board reaches consensus on a plan, staff will finalize that plan by making any requested adjustments and proceed to define final precinct lines and polling places. A fully-developed plan is needed by April 18 to provide adequate time for the Redistricting Ordinance to be drafted and advertised for a public hearing on May 9, 2001. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Ms. Harris said she attended a public forum in Richmond Tuesday night on State level redistricting. One of the requests from the Privileges and Elections Committee was that any fast-track locality like Albemarle provide plans as soon as possible. Their deadline for submission of plans on the State level is nine o'clock tomorrow morning. They are having a forum again tomorrow night, and she would like to attend that meeting with some idea in mind of what is going to be approved because it appears that some of the district lines the County is drawing will definitely create split precincts unless some of the County's desired changes can be incorporated into the State plan. Otherwise, there will be significant issues with State-level redistricting creating chops right through the middle of the County's newly-created plans. Ms. Thomas said if the Board decided on one of these plans today, would Ms. Harris be able to show precinct lines. Ms. Harris said staff worked yesterday on determining precinct lines based on these plans. They have already done a lot of work, and are prepared to move quickly in developing precinct plans. Mr. Davis said the ones that would have to be looked at are those affected by the House of Delegates lines. He read in the newspaper this morning that the Crozet precinct, the Ivy precinct, and the Free Bridge precinct are the ones where the State wants changes. Ms. Harris said they are also looking at absorbing the Batesville and Porters precincts into another House of Delegates district. There are now four House of Delegates districts encroaching into Albemarle County. Based on State plans, they are splitting up some of the areas where the County would like to have contiguous precincts due to the County's legal requirement to reduce precincts because of overcrowding. Mr. Dorrier asked if Ms. Harris had said the County would go from two House of Delegates members to four. Ms. Harris said they are looking at four House of Delegates possibilities, and two State Senate districts in Albemarle County. Ms. Thomas asked if the people in Redfields Subdivision will still have to vote at Red Hill School. Ms. Harris said that under either plan, it is the intent that the polling place that would incorporate Redfields will hopefully be at Berean Baptist Church which is just outside of the subdivision. Mr. Bowerman said he is glad that the Supervisors for Jouett and Samuel Miller are happy. He likes the way the Rio District is shown on Plan A because it is a tighter district and has some more rural area in it, does not have quite as much along Route 29, and part of the district is not five miles away. He knows that the other Board members have much farther to travel. He knows that Mr. Martin is close to that area because he lives in the area. He wondered if there is a way to accommodate that and keep White Hall with as many people as it needs. The Samuel Miller and the Jack Jouett change on Plan A would keep Mr. Koleszar in the Scottsville District. He said he likes Plan A for Rio District for a lot of reasons. Mr. Davis said the switch still requires that Scottsville lose some people. Mr. Martin asked how many people are in Glenmore. Mr. Davis said it is close to 1400. Mr. Bowerman asked if Scottsville is at the lower end of the range. Mr. Davis said that under Plan B, Scottsville is at the higher end, but it should be at the lower end. Mr. Bowerman asked if White Hall should be at the upper or lower end of the range. Mr. Davis said it should be at the lower end because of Crozet. The problem with Plan B is that Scottsville starts off at the high end of the range, and any population shift from Rivanna creates a need for Scottsville to lose people. In the southern part of the district, it is difficult to find identifiable boundary lines because of geography. Ms. Thomas said neither plan comes out with both Scottsville and White Hall at the lower end of the range. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Mr. Perkins asked about leaving Glenmore in the Rivanna District, and then taking the "blue" area south of the interstate, and leave it in Scottsville. Mr. Davis said that is a difference of 700 people, and that would put Rivanna at the top end of the range. Mr. Bowerman said it would make more sense to have South Forest Lakes in the Rio District and add the part farther north to the Rivanna District even though there is a natural geographic boundary. Mr. Davis said they started with the assumption that the Hollymead neighborhoods have a community of interest and they did not want to split them, but the other complicating factor is the need to find a geographical, identifiable boundary between those neighborhoods. Mr. Bowerman said that ten years ago, Dunlora and Stonehenge were taken out of Rio and put them into Rivanna even though that had to be accomplished by going across the River, and now Rio has both of those areas back under either Plan A or Plan B. Mr. Davis said the River is a good boundary. Mr. Bowerman said he still likes Plan A with the changes to Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett. Ms. Thomas said that does not get Mr. Koleszar back into the Scottsville District. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that could be accomplished by dealing with a smaller area even though it did not have a natural geographic boundary. Mr. Davis said the work group grappled with this question, but there is not an easy, defendable boundary in the area. Mr. Tucker asked the population in the area where Mr. Koleszar lives. Mr. Davis said it is 2200. Mr. Dorrier asked if Rivanna would be over the limit if that change were made, and Glenmore was also shifted to Rivanna. Mr. Davis said Rivanna would be over the limit and it would have to lose 1400 people in some other place. Mr. Bowerman said it is hard to argue that Briarwood is part of the Rio District. Mr. Martin said it is also hard to argue that the little piece below I-64 should be in the Rivanna District. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) Mr. Dorrier said Willoughby is on the north side of Route 64 and that is in the Scottsville District. It contains between 1000 and 2000 people. Why not put it in another district, and include Country Green and Sherwood Manor in the Scottsville District? I-64 is a natural dividing line between the City and the County. Mr. Davis said it would create an unusual line for the Samuel Miller District. Mr. Bowerman asked if that total number would need to go into Samuel Miller or could it be split with Jack Jouett District. Mr. Davis said he is not sure, he will have to look at the numbers. Mr. Bowerman said he does not think Plan B shows a very natural looking district for the Rio District. He does not like Plan B at all. Mr. Davis said that under Plan B this area could go to White Hall and the Earlysville Forest area would be in Rio. They are basically a balanced population. That addresses Mr. Bowerman's issue, but Mr. Perkins has a different opinion. From a population standpoint, this would make the Rio District more compact and contiguous. Mr. Martin said he does not think the Board can figure it out now. What he hears is that the only real consensus is some sort of Plan B, which does not remove Mr. Koleszar from his district. If Plan B can't be modified to take into consideration his concerns, and those of Mr. Bowerman, then personally he will go with Plan B because he does not want Mr. Koleszar moved out of his district. He does have some concerns, but they are not strong enough to put Mr. Koleszar out of his district. He realizes that it is hardest to make modifications to Plan B. Mr. Dorrier said the Board is getting caught up on election lines. It appears that the State is going to divide the County into four separate House of Delegates districts, and the lines won't be that straight. He wonders if the Board is letting the precinct line govern what it will do more than the equity of the situation. Mr. Davis said the House of Delegates lines will deal with precinct lines and not district lines. The County is required to balance the populations within a district within plus or minus five percent. That is the constraint under which the County is working. Also, they were interested in not splitting communities of interest and having compact, contiguous territories with identifiable geographical lines. Mr. Martin said Route 29 is being used as a boundary line down through Hollymead, and this is an area where a community is being built with one concept, the town center. The County is telling VDOT not to build a road and separate this community, so he would like to see some modification made here. If that is not possible, then he is in favor of Plan B. Mr. Bowerman said it is hard for him to conceive that with the inequities and illogical things built into these plans, how in a district as dense as the small area where Mr. Koleszar lives, a change cannot be made in that area alone, allowing for the changes Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris have suggested. He said there have been illogical things in each of the plans selected in the past. Mr. Davis said that 2000 people would need to be moved from the Scottsville District to some other district. Mr. Martin asked why they do not just draw an arbitrary line. He said the State is going to be very arbitrary in its decision. Mr. Davis said that can be done, but it will require taking a big piece of geography. Mr. Bowerman noted an area on the map which contains 2000 people, and asked what it looks like if the map is enlarged. Mr. Weaver said staff has defined geographic boundaries which are acceptable to the Census Bureau. He is not sure how many people live in the area being discussed. Ms. Thomas asked how many people live in the area north of the Interstate. Mr. Koleszar said that in the Meadows Subdivision there are probably 700 people in that block. Mr. Bowerman said without seeing a map of where Mr. Koleszar lives, he cannot interpret this information. But, that is the smallest area on the whole map. He said that in the Rio District, some of the geographical boundaries were determined by streets. He asked that staff try to make the necessary changes in that area. Ms. Thomas asked if this area is being focused on because of Mr. Bowerman's interest in Earlysville Forest, etc. Mr. Bowerman said "no." Plan A is the most logical in terms of the geographic distribution of the districts, except for the one criteria. Ms. Thomas said she believes most Board members prefer Plan B. Mr. Bowerman said he understands that, but the Board has received only the two alternatives from staff. Mr. Martin said he preferred Plan B because of the one criteria, but Plan A is the recommended plan with the one problem. He believes Mr. Bowerman is saying to deal with that one problem rather than going to Plan B. Mr. Bowerman referred the members to the way the Branchlands community is cut up. Mr. Dorrier said Sherwood Manor should not contain more than 400 people. That would keep Mr. Koleszar in his district. If those 400 people are shifted into the Scottsville District, he thinks that 400 people could be shifted from somewhere else fairly easily. Mr. Martin said he does not believe the Board can do anything about it today. Mr. Bowerman said he would be willing to meet again this week to make the final decision. Mr. Davis pointed out two areas, one containing 700 people and one containing 1100 people. He said staff understands what the Board wants, but is not sure they can make the adjustments necessary. They will go back and try to develop a Plan C. There would need to be another work session next Wednesday. Ms. Thomas asked if it is important to have another work session this week. Mr. Martin said if the April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) Board does not need to take a vote on Plan C, he thinks the Board members basically agree. Mr. Davis said at some point there needs to be a consensus of the Board on the plan which will be the subject of the public hearing, so it can be advertised, so the boundaries can be described, and the precinct and polling places identified. After the public hearing, there will be a minimal amount of time to get all of this information to the U.S. Justice Department. Mr. Dorrier suggesting going to the next agenda item while staff works on Plan C. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Davis said he believes there is a consensus on most things except for where Earlysville Forest should be placed. If it can go in either district that will help with some of the problem solving. Ms. Thomas said the Board will appreciate anything staff can do, and in the meantime will go to the next agenda item. _______________ Agenda Item No. 19. Proposed Neighborhood Model, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Work Session. Ms. Lee Catlin said that in May, 2000, the Board voted to accept the work of the DISC Committee and adopt the twelve principles which form the basis of the Neighborhood Model. Since that time, the Board has seen relevant zoning and special use permit proposals in relation to that model. Also, the report of the DISC Committee was forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. Their recommendation is now before the Board in the form of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ms. Catlin said Board comments at the last work session seemed to indicate that the members are fairly well satisfied with the work of the Commission. Staff had outlined some important changes between the original document and the proposed amendment for that work session. Staff also provided Points of Discussion for the Neighborhood Model which were felt to be significant topics for the Board's attention. The Board determined that the work session would be a facilitated discussion focusing on the Points of Discussion, the relevant policy/regulatory and investment impacts associated with those points, and possible action options, with the ultimate outcome being a decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed or revised. Ms. Catlin said included with the paperwork today are work sheets containing DISC Committee comments on Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirements." This is a list of changes which A would have to be made if the Neighborhood Model were adopted in order to make sure there were successful implementation. Also included on these work sheets is a column entitled Action Options. This A@ was meant to give the Board a range of possibilities needed in order to make the neighborhood principle come about. It is not a work plan or exhaustive list of things which need to be decided today. It was intended to give the Board a sense of solutions and methods to achieve some things laid out in the model. If there is anything listed in the column with which Board members do not agree, that item needs to be flagged and a consensus obtained for staffs work on this model. It is possible that would cause changes to = be made in other parts of the document. The Board needs to stay focused on the fact that there is a Comprehensive Plan amendment which will eventually require Board action for taking this amendment on the Proposed Neighborhood Model to public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board is not to decide on implementation measures. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on that subject first. There will be a follow-up to that being adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not try to be as complete as might be necessary in listing the options. He will be talking about the recommendation, and the things that might be necessary to achieve it, and look to Board comments on the things which are not likely to happen. If anything is necessary, staff will redraft the Comprehensive Plan amendment document to reflect that. Mr. Cilimberg said the conversation will begin with Principle No. 1, Pedestrian Orientation. He A@ said regulatory changes will be needed for by-right developments to change from the developers option A@A=@ to mandatory provision of sidewalks or paths in new developments in the Development Area. Listed as A@ the action option is to change subdivision and zoning ordinances to require sidewalks and paths and provide standards for sidewalks and paths. This change would apply only to those developments which come into effect after the ordinance changes are adopted. Ms. Humphris said she was not a member of the DISC Committee and only followed it through staff reports and the media. She thinks the Board members need to remember that some of these recommended changes will involve tax dollars. The Board needs to say it is willing to impose those dollar requirements on the taxpayers when the time comes for these changes to be implemented. She has not heard that stated plainly by anyone. They may all be excellent ideas and will make for excellent communities, but someone has to pay the piper. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will point out some of those A@ areas as this discussion moves forward today. Mr. Dorrier asked who will pay for the sidewalks. Mr. Cilimberg said a mandate to the development community through ordinance provisions would mean that the developer would provide the sidewalks through their development. Mr. Perkins said that is in the development, but it would be the Countys = responsibility to make the connectivity to other sidewalks. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 3:40 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said the next Point of Discussion states County investment may be needed in the A future to add sidewalks to existing streets. Master Plans are proposed to identify locations of sidewalk improvements. The CIP identifies sidewalks that are needed now. Listed as the action option is to @ April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) continue to fund sidewalk construction at the current level; increase the level of funding; or, decrease the level of funding. He said that in the CIP which is now waiting for Board approval, there is a significant increase in the dollars going into sidewalk construction during the next five years. There will probably be a call for more dollars after the master planning is complete. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 3:42 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said she assumes that the funding for sidewalks will be increased, but the question is how fast this will occur. Mr. Cilimberg said the next Point of Discussion is Long-term maintenance responsibility for A sidewalks and paths will need discussion in the future. There are eight action options listed ranging from @ continuing sidewalks/path maintenance by homeowners associations, VDOT, and the County; inspections = of paths; determining if VDOT or the County have maintenance responsibilities; and who has responsibility for snow removal. He said VDOT has several standards and policies for maintaining sidewalks. Under its current policy, he does not believe VDOT would maintain all sidewalks. There is a maintenance responsibility which comes with the facility, and it is something which will have to be addressed as part of the implementation of this type of program. He said that most the Countys public sidewalk projects at this = time are along roads and streets which VDOT maintains. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 3:45 p.m.) Mr. Dorrier said one of the issues seems to be that there are different degrees of construction and quality in the sidewalks. He asked if staff has thought about standards which will insure that the sidewalks last for a long time. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT has a standard. Mr. Bowerman said there have been cases of trying to get a path in at a reasonable cost, and the asphalt paths have been built in VDOTs right-of-way. = Some of these are planned to be changed to concrete at a later time. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has no standard to recommend at this time. Mr. Dorrier asked how the Board can decide what type of sidewalk is installed. Mr. Cilimberg said that is part of the standards which will need to be considered as the master planning takes place, as well as while developing ordinance revisions. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the room at 3:50 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said this question comes down to whether the County would have any responsibility for maintenance, whether VDOT will be requested to maintain all the paths, or whether property owners will be required to remove snow. She said there are not clear distinctions between the action items listed. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the question will keep coming back to maintenance issues. Mr. Martin said the visual shows brick sidewalks, and those would be the responsibility of the neighborhood. The County would only be building the sidewalks to connect neighborhoods to streets, in which case they would probably be built to VDOT standards. Mr. Perkins asked who would maintain those sidewalks. Mr. Martin said the neighborhood association. Mr. Bowerman said that is an amenity, brick over asphalt concrete is special. Mr. Cilimberg said that is something the Board cannot decide now. Staff just wanted the Board to be aware that this will be an important consideration. Ms. Catlin said the standards for sidewalks are something the DISC Committee and staff both identified as being important to the implementation phase of the Neighborhood Model. That is obviously something that needs to be developed as these discussions continue. Mr. Bowerman said the sidewalks which have been installed were along road improvements, and VDOT has maintained those sidewalks. The sidewalks added by the County have generally been asphalt. Mr. Perkins asked what will happen in the development. Who owns the sidewalk after the developer builds it? Does it belong to the homeowner or VDOT? In the case of private roads, who takes care of those sidewalks? Mr. Bill Mawyer, County Engineer, said that at the present time, if the sidewalk is in the VDOT right-of-way, they have allowed the construction, but have required the County to be responsible for maintenance. The County has then transferred that responsibility to the homeowners association. = Mr. Cilimberg said staff is now working on a Comprehensive Plan amendment where the developer is talking about having the street and sidewalk system be private and maintained by a development association. Some of this is because of the special treatment and design features he wants to incorporate into this particular development. Ms. Elaine Echols said that at this time there are three groups of people who are responsible for maintaining sidewalks, VDOT, homeowners associations and the County. In considering requiring more = sidewalks there will be the question of the changes needed in responsibility of the maintenance aspects. The last Point of Discussion for this item is Greater emphasis may be needed in school design to A ensure walkability. Action options include changing the Community Facilities Plan to allow for >=@ separation of schools and recreational facilities, provided the school has the playing fields required for school needs; requiring separation from schools of large recreational playing fields not affiliated with the schools. Mr. Cilimberg said the walkability issue was considered very important. The County does not have many true neighborhood schools at this time. However, in the future, there would be more schools in neighborhoods and children should be able to walk to those schools. The DISC Committee felt that the schools being built under present standards in the Community Facilities Plan which included a core parks and recreation feature and field space, made those grounds larger, so they were less walkable. There are the questions of how walkability is provided to a school, the size of the school itself, and whether park and recreation facilities should be separated from the school. Staff does not recommend continuing building schools under the existing Community Facilities Plan. He said this is a fundamental change and one which the Board is not deciding on today, but it does set a new direction. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) Ms. Thomas said she was part of the ground breaking ceremony yesterday for the new soccer complex on Polo Grounds Road, and that is not a County project. It certainly shows a major separation of a recreational facility from a school site, and it make sense in that location. It may make sense for the County on small school sites. Mr. Perkins said there might be smaller school sites with no recreational facilities, but having recreational facilities does not make a school site unwalkable. He thinks that if there is the opportunity, recreational facilities need to be on the site. Mr. Cilimberg said it is not recommended that the facilities which are essential to the operation of the school be separated. Mr. Perkins said that will certainly be influenced by land values. Ms. Catlin asked if any Board member had a concern about anything written in that action option. Ms. Humphris said yes. She said there are two very strong statements which are very different. One is to A@ change the Community Facilities Plan to allow for and the other is requiring separation of. Those are A@A@ two very different things which require that a decision be made. Ms. Thomas said her thought is to allow for. Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris agreed. Ms. A@ Humphris said requiring is too rigid because every situation may be different depending on the land available, and the dollars available. Mr. Martin said when the DISC Committee was discussing this item, he said many times that he did not think this would become a mandate on either the School System or the Board. He is glad to hear his answer so he did not have to say anything today. __________ Mr. Cilimberg said Principle No. 2 is Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Parks. The first Point of A@ Discussion is urban road section (curb, gutter and sidewalk) would become the new road standard for the A Development Areas; the rural section would become the exception. Only a few of the action options are A@ listed today. These include: Change subdivision ordinances to require curb, gutter, sidewalks and street A trees in new developments as the standard; the rural cross-section would be the exception. With a high @A level of maintenance desires, County funds or performs sidewalk maintenance; otherwise, maintenance continues with homeowners associations, VDOT and the County (on a limited level). This introduces the @ requirement for an urban road cross-section. Within the Development Areas, that would be the exclusive way in which roads would be provided, unless it were an exceptional case. Ordinance changes will be required to make this a mandate. Mr. Cilimberg said the next Point of Discussion concerns Street trees would be expected with new A road construction. Trees would be placed in the right-of-way in most instances. Listed are some of the @ action options such as: Instructing the Albemarle County Service Authority to find ways to accommodate street trees in relation to utility lines and sidewalks; asking VDOT to find ways to accommodate street trees by allowing manholes in the street; and, changing the subdivision ordinance to require street trees. He said that certain maintenance features will be required when street trees as well as sidewalks are introduced. There are urban streets in the County now and VDOT does maintain the streets themselves, but not street trees. Subdivision and zoning ordinances would need to be changed to require street trees. The next Point of Discussion reads Fire truck size would need to be taken into consideration with A reduced street widths. The action options are to have the fire trucks remain the same size or road widths @ be established to accommodate large trucks; fire trucks be purchased to accommodate narrower streets; and fire safety officials work with other County staff to find compromises in width of roads and width of trucks without compromising fire safety. Mr. Cilimberg said the Committee discussed this issue at length. There are the extremes of designing the streets to fit the fire trucks, or buy the fire trucks to fit the streets. Also, streets can be made pedestrian-friendly, and also accommodate the trucks which the stations already own without compromising fire safety. Mr. Martin said there was a big issue with the type of equipment being based on ratings and not necessarily on the kinds of equipment which would fit better on these streets. Ms. Thomas said she has asked for some examples and was told that where parking is allowed close to intersections it can make a big difference in how fire trucks can manage that intersection. There could be relatively small streets and if parking is not allowed close to an intersection, that allows more space for turning. She did not know that there really were areas where a compromise could be reached. She does not want to see big, huge streets just because of a failure of imagination as to how to get safety taken care of. Mr. Cilimberg said that getting away from cul-de-sacs creates an opportunity that was not available before. It is not about buying smaller fire trucks. Mr. Dorrier said if on-street parking is eliminated, the size of the road is doubled. Ms. Thomas said the idea is not to get rid of on-street parking, but there may be places where parking is not desired. Mr. Perkins said this talks about the width of the trucks, but the length is the more important number. There are also other types of six-wheeled trucks that could be used instead of those which are more like tractor-trailer rigs. With this increased density of housing, the trucks that can pour the water from above the fire, are the type of truck needed. The firefighting will be done from above with this type of density. He suggested that this item be changed to mention the lengths of the trucks because the widths will be fairly standard. Mr. Cilimberg said there are the arms which are used to stabilize the trucks, and that April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) has to be considered in the widths. Ms. Catlin said that concludes the discussion of the first two principles of the Neighborhood Model. In the first principle the Board made some suggestions as to changes. In the second principle, the Board did not make any suggestions. Mr. Bowerman said the language fire trucks be purchased to A accommodate narrower streets can be deleted. Ms. Thomas suggested that instead of making that @ change the last sentence reading fire safety officials work with other County staff to find compromises in A width of roads and width of trucks without compromising fire safety be changed to say length of trucks .... @A@ Ms. Catlin said staff needs to compare this to specific language in the Comprehensive Plan amendment that will dictate lengths and widths. Mr. Dorrier suggested the firemen be invited to see and comment on this suggestion. Mr. Tucker said the Board, today, is preparing the document which will go to public hearing. There will be other opportunities to make changes. __________ The third principle is Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. The first Point of A@ Discussion is Developers will need to provide for interconnected streets within developments and to A adjoining properties. There were many action options listed, but the list is not exhaustive. Mr. Cilimberg @ said that for a long time the County had this requirement in its ordinances. Many subdivisions had stub-out roads which were meant to be connected to another development at some point in time. Then, when projects where those connections would be made came into being, the people in those neighborhoods voiced dissent with this idea. The idea was not implemented. This idea talks about making it happen. In and of itself, it does bring in how streets have to be designed and when they will be interconnected. Staff is working with VDOT on how that can be done under a scheme which assumes that not just one place is being interconnected, but ultimately there will be interconnections in a number of places so that traffic can be distributed more evenly. The concern is always that one street will attract all of the traffic, or that one street will be the only way to get to the next development. Then those roads will not be of a neighborhood- friendly design. This idea talks about a thoroughfare network where there are essentially grids for multiple interconnections. The master planning will be the place where this can be addressed. In the meantime, before master planning can be completed, there will be real developments where this question must be dealt with. The County needs to be pro-active to achieve this. Mr. Dorrier asked what Mr. Cilimberg meant by the 50-lot rule. Mr. Cilimberg said that the ordinances now state that when a development contains more than 50 lots, there should be a second means of access. The County does not always get full access, many times being only emergency access. In some cases, with the lay of the land, not even an emergency access can be obtained. This is something which staff has felt for a long time needed to be addressed for the County and the development community. Ms. Thomas said the MPO has spoken to VDOT a number of times, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board, trying to get different VDOT standards so there do not have to be gigantic roads even though they interconnect to subdivisions. She has been told that North Carolina has done a good job with this regulation. Mr. Dorrier said it is not plain who will pay for these interconnections. He asked if it is assumed to be the developer. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the assumption in most cases. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas was talking about Bullet #2 under action options, Accept a A wider road width for an urban street section. Ms. Thomas said it is actually #3, Work with VDOT to @A achieve relaxation of the width requirements where interconnected streets would increase street widths. @ Mr. Cilimberg said Bullet #2 is something the County has had for years, but he would not recommend its use. Mr. Bowerman said Bullet #3 can replace Bullet #2. He would remove #2. Ms. Catlin said it sounds as if the Board is committed to the idea of interconnected streets and networks, and working with VDOT on widths, etc., is a how-to. She asked if there is anything in the A@ principles or the options that the Board will not accept. Ms. Thomas said the Board does not want to accept wider roads for an urban street section. Mr. Cilimberg said the next Point of Discussion is: County will need to invest in road building to A ensure that interconnected roads (not anticipated to be built by developers) are actually built. He said that @ there are some street projects and interconnections that staff feels are vital, and to which the Board needs to commit. Sometimes only a portion of a road is built, and the County has to make a commitment to do the sections that do not get built as part of a development. Berkmar Drive is an example. Part of Berkmar was built by the private sector, and the rest was needed and was built with County funds. Staff is looking at that now concerning the Routes 240/250 connector road in Crozet, and Park Street in Crozet. Staff has pointed out that funding to establish major road interconnections will be needed when building by the development community would be prolonged. Ms. Thomas said the County is asking more of the developers, and the County needs to make it attractive for them to build in the Development Areas. She thinks that at some point it is going to take some County investment. Mr. Perkins asked how this is addressed in gated neighborhoods. He said connectivity is good if it serves a public purpose, but if it just serves as a short-cut, it ruins the neighborhood. Mr. Cilimberg said it is a matter of planning, so there is a system of streets where it is not just one or two ways in and out. In terms of gated communities, those are unique. He does not think the Development Area Initiatives philosophy was about gated neighborhoods. Mr. Perkins said many times when the Board has talked about interconnectivity, two neighborhoods April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) showed up at a meeting and expressed their dislike of the idea. Mr. Bill Mawyer noted that in gated communities the roads are privately maintained, not publicly maintained. Mr. Dorrier said that in order to make it attractive for developers, the County will have to provide some incentives. Mr. Perkins said that incentive comes in the density allowed. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board is facing increasing responsibility on the County as there will come a time when the interconnectivity is a bridge or something where neither developer will pay the total cost. Ms. Catlin said the implication at this point in the discussion is that the County will need to invest in roads for interconnectivity, the options being at the current level or more. Mr. Dorrier said there are different levels of investment. Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board is jumping for it, but she thinks the Board is just recognizing the facts. Mr. Martin said the Board will have to be willing to move forward and do it. Mr. Cilimberg said the last Point of Discussion states: If negotiations with VDOT are not successful A for interconnected streets at more narrow widths, County will have to consider approving more private roads or taking over road maintenance. He said if the County is not able to achieve what it wants to achieve @ using VDOT standards, it would make the private road system more extensive than it is currently. That is not the preferred way to provide for roads now. In the extreme (which is not recommended), the County takes over the street system. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 4:22 p.m.) Mr. Martin said cities get State money in order to maintain their roads. He asked if there is a cut-off point as to how many houses can be on a private road. Mr. Cilimberg said there are two counties which did not join the State Secondary System in 1932, Henrico and Arlington. They get a sum of money from the State and actually maintain their roads and streets themselves. There was enabling legislation introduced during the 2001 Session of the General Assembly to make the process easier for counties to take over their own road maintenance. Mr. Davis said he is not sure that legislation passed. Mr. Cilimberg said Fairfax County has been interested in this legislation. Mr. Davis said this bill did not address capital costs, and the change over to maintenance was left unfunded by the State. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 4:23 p.m.) Mr. Martin said if the Board talks about maintaining more of its own roads, at least there are some options. The action options listed for this point of discussion are to leave current private road standards as they are and limit their use in the Development Areas; modify private road standards to reflect desired road profile, develop standards for maintenance and deal with complaints on a case-by-case basis; County takes over maintenance of all roads requires investment in an expanded public works department and crews C (not recommended). Ms. Thomas asked if the Board wanted to leave the current road standards, or modify those standards. Mr. Bowerman said to be consistent with what the Board envisions for these communities, the standards should be modified away from the VDOT requirement that roads meet their standards. Mr. Martin said the Board has already said it will not use VDOT width standards, so that will need to be modified. Ms. Catlin said a provision for what is important about this one is to make a statement about modifying standards. Ms. Thomas said the Board is talking about Bullet #2. Mr. Bowerman said the County wants to continue to work with VDOT. Ms. Catlin said the language is important to the general intent. Staff will have to go back and see if this changes anything in the Amendment document the Board will be taking to public hearing. She wants to be sure the intent is to go with Bullet #2. Mr. Cilimberg said that North Carolina has a state secondary system which is quite large. They have a lot of state control over local streets. There are a number of new urban type projects occurring in North Carolina, so staff might look at those and see how North Carolina addressed those in their standards. Ms. Catlin said to review what was said on No. 3 (the implications of developers being required to provide for interconnected streets, implications of the County needing to invest in road building to insure interconnected roads, and considering approving more private roads if the County is not successful negotiating with VDOT), the Board said the county will not accept wider road widths from VDOT, and private road standards will be modified to be consistent with that width issue. __________ Principle No. 4 concerns Parks and Open Space. The first point of discussion is: Greater A@A emphasis will be placed on the location and use of open space rather than the quantity of open space. @ There are four action options listed. Mr. Cilimberg said to achieve this would require modifying zoning and subdivision ordinances to require a specific quantity of open space in single-family residential and duplex developments that are by- right developments; to require park amenities in new by-right developments; and to provide more specificity in the location and amenity value of parks and open space in all developments. He said staff feels it is important to move toward the useability and functionality of open space areas because of the concept of more density. This gets into how to provide amenities near the residences since these will no longer be in cul-de-sacs in a lot of these neighborhoods. April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) Ms. Thomas said she was confused about Bullet #2. She thought requiring specific park amenities was more flexible than requiring specific quantities. Mr. Cilimberg said requiring quantities is what is done at the present time. Ms. Thomas said what is stated in Bullet #3 is more extreme. Mr. Cilimberg said it is more pro-active. Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure there is flexibility in the regulations. She said that when requiring quantities, the County ends up with unusable space which is counted as open space, and she does not like that. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He suggested deleting Bullet #1 which speaks only to quantity. Ms. Thomas said the second Point of Discussion reads: Part of the responsibility to provide parks A and open space will continue to reside with developers; part will reside with the County. She said there is @ no recommended action for the Board to take on this point. Mr. Cilimberg said when introducing new things such as squares, greens and pocket parks, there will be a need to determine the best way to maintain those facilities. Ms. Echols said that in master planning, existing neighborhoods may be identified which are deficient in terms of public parkland. There might be an opportunity for the County to be involved in something that is more neighborhood and less regional in scale. The third Point of Discussion reads: Acquisition of land for recreation fields will be done differently. A Purchase of sites separate from schools could take place. Mr. Cilimberg said how land will be acquired @ for recreational fields is important. The idea is to move away from the current Community Facilities Plan approach where these facilities are only provided at schools, to some more flexible approach where in certain cases, the facilities may be separated from a school. Mr. Martin asked if Bullet #1 reading: Amend Community Facilities Plan to remove recreational A facilities associated with parks and service such as playing fields from school sites is the preferred option, @ or should it be reworded to give more flexibility. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not recommend leaving it strictly as it is. Ms. Catlin asked if the statement should say allow not require. Mr. Martin suggested deleting A@A@ the word remove. Ms. Catlin said that is inconsistent with what was said in the first statement about A@ pedestrian orientation. That language was softened to say allow for the separation. She asked if that A@ should be reflected here. Ms. Thomas said yes. Mr. Cilimberg said this again gets into the whole A@ question of maintenance which is not addressed in this document. How facilities are maintained will have to be addressed, as with sidewalks and street trees. VDOT is not a part of this one. It is simply a question of private versus public. There was a bullet which talked about the County eventually taking an ownership of more parks and open space which then means maintenance. Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board would want the County to be the first option of ownership. There may be a time when it is cheaper to have a private park, but then the purpose of having a park for the neighborhood has not been met. There may be times when County ownership is needed in order to get public access, but whenever possible, the County would not want to take on the expense. Mr. Martin said it is obvious that a homeowners association is not going to take over a public nuisance. = Ms. Catlin summarized the discussion of Parks and Open Spaces. She said the Board talked about the implications of having greater emphasis placed on location and use of open space rather than the quantity of space. It is important that issues of quantity and quality be addressed. Part of the responsibility to provide parks and open space will continue to reside with developers, part with the County. The acquisition of land for recreation fields will be done differently. Purchase of sites separate from schools is to take place. The Board wants to leave the option that any amendment to the Community Facilities Plan would be to allow rather than to require separation depending on the individual circumstances. The last A@A@ point of discussion stated: Options regarding the maintenance of the new parks are available ranging from A homeowners associations to County staff. She did not hear that this is @ something that needs to be taken care of. Mr. Cilimberg said he heard that the County would not be the first option for ownership. Mr. Perkins said it looks like the County is trying to address recreational needs in new neighborhoods, but he thinks those should be maintained by the neighborhoods. He thinks the County should be focusing on regional type facilities, as it does now. If a neighborhood puts in a playground and swimming pool, they are not going to want people coming from everywhere to use that pool. Mr. Cilimberg said in reality, there is some of that now. Some developments have field space which can be used by the community, but they also have club facilities which can only be used by members. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks County funding has to be such that it does not put money into pocket A parks in the neighborhoods, and forget the significant population in the rural areas. @ Ms. Thomas said she will repeat that it will take some County parks and some County ownership to make the urban area have urban amenities that are not just all cut-off neighborhood by neighborhood. If a new development has a place where there could be a neighborhood park, the County might choose to have it as a neighborhood park rather than be an amenity only for the new subdivision. Mr. Dorrier said this does not envision providing swimming pools. Ms. Thomas said the Board is not committing to that. Mr. Bowerman said if the bullet reading: County takes ownership of more parks and A open space and must pay for maintenance were lightened up to say may that would recognize that there @A@ may be a place where the County would need to take ownership, but it would not be the Boards first option. = Mr. Martin said he is very tired, and does not think he is functioning at a high level. He asked if the Board could go to another subject. Ms. Thomas said the Board is just waiting for a new redistricting map to April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) be printed. Mr. Davis said it is being done at this time, and will probably be ready within the next four minutes. Ms. Thomas suggested discussing the next principle while waiting. __________ The next principles are listed as #5 Neighborhood Centers and #8 Mixture of Uses. Ms. Catlin A@ said these two items have some common elements. Mr. Cilimberg said this is the place where the plan talks about general public buildings and facilities. The first point of discussion talks about having these located off of major thoroughfares with the idea of having flexibility as to location. The idea is that some public buildings can be the focal point of a neighborhood center and that can be addressed in the master planning process. Provisions should be made for planning and maintaining those kinds of facilities in neighborhood centers, where possible. In a couple of new development proposals, the question has been asked as to the type of facility needed. The County is a potential client of the private sector in the way of a library location, a fire station, or whatever. The next Point of Discussion reads: Provision of a mixture of uses in an area would primarily be A the responsibility of the private sector. The public sector may be involved if a building houses a mixture of public and private services. Mr. Cilimberg said this can be flushed out during the master planning. The @ County could make a higher investment in some of the capacity necessary to accommodate mixed uses, such as public water, distribution of water, etc. They could make it easier for developers who are looking to acquire density in mixed use by providing some of the necessary infrastructure, or could leave this to the private sector. Ms. Thomas said under the column showing policy or regulatory changes, there is the statement: Staff time will be involved in working with adjacent property owners to accept uses different from theirs. A@ She said the County has never really gotten involved in this, usually asking the developer to check with the neighborhoods. That is a new responsibility which she thinks should have been listed as an action option. Ms. Catlin said some of these things may become part of the master planning. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would become a facilitator in a sense. Ms. Catlin said it has been discussed as to the need for staff training. Ms. Thomas asked if there are problems with the water system. She said the third column on Page 10 talks about water systems. Ms. Echols said there are places in the County where the water system does not support the densities shown on the Land Use Plan, particularly the western part of Crozet. Where there is not sufficient height on the water tanks to achieve the correct water pressures for a dense, compact type of development, the developer is using different methods to deal with fire protection. She said there are places where everything is in sync to have the water pressure to make it easy to achieve the density. Ms. Thomas said if necessary, the Water Facilities plan should be amended. Mr. Dorrier said there is no place in this section which says these facilities will be built to County requirements or standards. If a neighborhood needed a fire station, who would decide how many bays to build? He asked if that is a negotiation point, and who pays? Does the County get involved in maintaining it? Mr. Tom Foley said that question is like a lot of the other issues talked about today, it is still to be determined. Mr. Cilimberg said if an area has been identified as needing a fire station, the developer of that area would most likely provide the land. What the master planning will get to is how it will fit with any other development activity occurring. It will probably be a public responsibility to get that station built and operating. Mr. Perkins said in the whole process of master planning, how do the various stakeholders A@ become involved? He has seen many meetings where only three people show up, so the community is not represented. How do you get more community involvement in the master planning process? Ms. Echols said there are some examples of how people have done successful neighborhood plans, including the City of Charlottesville. She is not advocating that plan because of the tremendous amount of work it places on staff, but the City did a good job. They did have some techniques staff can draw from as to getting some turnout at meetings. Ms. Catlin said when the Board gets to the microcosm level, people may be more motivated. She asked if there were anymore comments on this section. Mr. Cilimberg said he heard that the staff should be the facilitator in developer/adjacent owner matters, and that should be identified as an action item. Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to end this discussion today at the end of Page 10. (Note: At 4:58 p.m., Mr. Dorrier left the room. He returned at 5:00 p.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 18. 2001 Redistricting Plan, Work Session. The Board returned to discussion of this item. Mr. Davis said staff had posted on the wall a new redistricting plan called "Plan C". He thinks they were able to accomplish predominately everything the Board wanted. Starting with the Rivanna District, the Camelot and Briarwood neighborhoods were kept in the Rivanna District, and its identifiable boundary on the south moved up to I-64. That leaves the Rivanna District with 13,861 people which is in the lower half of the range. In the Scottsville District, a boundary was found. There are two neighborhoods bordered by Old Lynchburg Road to Mountainwood Road that contain about 600 people. Old Lynchburg Road is a good boundary road because it is wide and stands out visually. That 600 people, along with the 700 people April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) discussed earlier, basically offset the existing population in Scottsville, and left it with a population of 14,642 which is at the top of the range, but is within the range. That is not ideal, but it is acceptable in the +/- five percent. That left the necessity of increasing the population in the Samuel Miller District because it had not gained the 2000 people the original plan called for. The East Ivy area was added as shown on Plan A. This large gain required a shift in the Batesville area to offset the population increase. That adjustment shifted about 900 people out of Samuel Miller into White Hall. Also a slight adjustment was made to keep the Inglecress neighborhood in the Samuel Miller District. That left the Samuel Miller District with 13,819 people which is in the lower half of the range. It was still necessary to find additional people for the Rio District. A suitable line which followed Bleak House Road and Buck Mountain Road was found to form the northern boundary. This adds enough people into the Rio District to give it 13,745 people. Mr. Davis said those are the changes the Board desired, and it also keeps Mr. Koleszar in the Scottsville District. Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve for public hearing purposes on May 9, 2001, Plan C. Mr. Davis noted that the staff will bring back for Board approval next Wednesday, precinct lines and polling places. The Redistricting Ordinance must include precinct lines as well as district lines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas then presented two resolutions which need to be adopted. These will be presented by Monticello High School students who are traveling to Poggio a Caino and Prato in Italy. Since Thomas > Jefferson was born on April 13 and since the students will be playing their music to the citizens of Poggio a > Caino on the 21st, they are proclaiming the week of April 13 through 21 as the Mazzei-Jefferson Friendship. The second resolution goes along with a tree being taken by these students to be planted in front of the Phillipe Mazzei Middle School in Poggio a Caino, a tree taken from a shoot of a tree that Thomas Jefferson > either planted, or which was living while he was at Monticello. The resolutions have been translated into Italian (and a copy is on file in the Clerks Office) and she would appreciate a motion to adopt these = resolutions. Motion to adopt the resolutions as explained by Ms. Thomas was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, TH THIS 4 DAY OF APRIL 2001: WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson was born in Albemarle County on April 13, 1743, and, across the ocean, Filippo Mazzei was born on Christmas Day, 1730, in Poggio a Caiano; and WHEREAS, Filippo Mazzei became an Albemarle County resident, neighbor and friend of Thomas Jefferson in 1773; and WHEREAS, Filippo Mazzei also became deeply involved in helping our country pursue its desire for freedom in the Revolutionary War; and WHEREAS, Filippo Mazzei left Albemarle in 1785 when he returned to Europe; but the vineyard, the place-names, the descendents of his farm workers and the close associations were not forgotten; and WHEREAS, during our nation's bi-centennial celebration, leaders in the communes of Poggio a Caiano and Prato suggested to Charlottesville and Albemarle that we mutually establish a permanent twin- community relationship for the purpose of cultural association and exchange of international goodwill; and WHEREAS, in 1976 and 1977 official visits to and from Italy sealed this proposal with a pact of friendship between the twin communities; and WHEREAS, in the 1980's a lively exchange of high school students involved many families and expanded the horizons of young people in our communities; and WHEREAS, in the 1990's an exchange of visitors took place between the communities, with many homes and hearts being opened in both; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2001, Monticello High School musicians will take their music to Poggio a Caiano and Prato, welcomed and assisted by many Italian citizens and organizations; April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, on behalf of all the citizens of this community, that we do hereby express our friendship with and gratitude to our twin communities of Poggio a Caiano and Prato; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we do hereby proclaim April 13 through April 20, 2001 to be the Week of Mazzei-Jefferson Friendship to commemorate the friendship that began 228 years ago and the 25 years of a more recent relationship that we treasure and hope will endure for at least another 228 years. ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, TH THIS 4 DAY OF APRIL 2001: WHEREAS, the student musicians of Monticello High School of Albemarle County, Virginia, are today the caretakers of a transcontinental friendship that began over 200 years ago when Filippo Mazzei and Thomas Jefferson established a relationship; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Poggio a Caiano and the students, teachers, officials, and supporters of the Filippo Mazzei School are, with generosity, graciousness and creativity, giving to the Monticello High School students an unforgettable experience; and WHEREAS, Filippo Mazzei brought plants, including grape vines and other plants, from the hills of Tuscany to the Piedmont of Virginia, hoping to improve the crops then growing in the region; and WHEREAS, Filippo Mazzei also joined in the Revolutionary War effort of the country that he adopted for some years; and WHEREAS, the communes of Poggio a Caiano and Prato joined in a twin community relationship 25 years ago during the bicentennial of the United States of America; and WHEREAS, this relationship has led to delight-filled exchanges of officials, citizens and students; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, the County of Albemarle and Monticello, Jefferson's home, and Monticello High School, with great pleasure, gratitude for hospitality shown, and delight in this unique opportunity that has been given by Poggio a Caiano, do humbly offer this tree and hope it will thrive in the soil of friendship. The small tree that is being offered to you comes as a gift from Monticello's caretakers The Thomas Jefferson Foundation. It has been cared for by the gardening staff of Jefferson's home and carefully prepared for this trip. It looks small, but it is a shoot from the Tulip Poplar that stands in front of Monticello and has been growing there since Thomas Jefferson planted it. Monticello's large tree is the only one known for certain to have been there when Jefferson was alive. So, your tree's "parent" is over 200 years old. We hope this little one will do as well, drawing sustenance from your Tuscan soil, and genes from the wilds of a distant continent. _______________ Agenda Item No. 21. Approval of Minutes: December 6(A), 2000; February 7, February 14 and February 21, 2001. Mr. Bowerman had read February 7, 2001, pages 34 (Item #13) to the end. He had two typographical corrections. Ms. Thomas had read December 6, 2000 (afternoon), and had one typographical correction. Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 07/11/2001 April 4, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) Initials: EWC