1989-08-09Au
~st 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
225
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 9, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and
Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the Consent Agenda items as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of an Application
from Old Dominion Electric Cooperate for Approval of new Generation Facilities
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-234.3 and for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-265.2, was
received as information.
Item 4.2. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of an Application
from Radio Phone Communications, Inc., d/b/a Metromedia Paging Services for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Radio Common
Carrier Service, received as information.
Item 4.3. Copy of Final Allocation of FUnds for Fiscal Year 1989-90 for
the Interstate, Primary & Urban Highway Systejns, Public Transit, Ports and
Airports, and the Six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1989-90 Thru
1994-95, as Approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, received as
information. Complete copy on file in Clerk'iS Office. Mr. Bain noted that he
would like to discuss this item during the d~gcussion of Highway Matters.
Item 4.4. Letter dated July 26, 1989, f'~com Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr., State
Location and Design Engineer, Department of ~ansportation, Advising Approval
of Location and Major Design Features of the i'~%ntersection at Route 654 (Bar-
racks Road) and Route 656 (Georgetown Road) P.~ojects 0654-002-220, C-501 and
0656-002-221, C-501, received as information..
Item 4.5. Arbor Crest Apartments Month~ Bond Report
for
the
Month
of
June, 1989 was received as information. ~
Item 4.6. 1989 First Quarter Building Report as Prepared by the Depart-
ment of Planning and Community Development, received as information.
Item 4.7. Memorandum from the County Executive dated August 4, 1989,
entitled "Albemarle County Schools - Student/Teacher Ratios" giving the ratios
for all elementary and middle schools was received as information.
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
22
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: October 19(A), November 9,
November 16(N), December 7(N) and December 14, 1988; January 11, February 15,
March 8, March 29, April 3, April 5(A) and May 22, 1989.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for November 16(N), 1988, Pages 12
End, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for February 15, 1989, and found them to
be in order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for March 8, 1989, Pages 1
them to be in order with a typographical correction.
11, and found
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Route 29 North Crossover at
Maupin's Store, Discussion of.
Based on the Board's previous request, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the
impetus for closing this crossover originated with the Route 29 Corridor Study
adopted by the Board in 1979. Again, in the .recently adopted Comprehensive
Plan, this crossover was identified for closing due to inadequate sight
distance. Furthermore, closing this crossover and the next existing crossover
just south of the Airport Road intersection ware conditions of approval for
the Forest Lakes Shopping Center zoning approval. The crossover near Airport
Road has been closed and a new crossover opened at the entrance to Forest
Lakes just north of Mr. Maupin's store. The .next southern crossover is
planned for closing, but is not a condition o.$ any development approval. Mr.
Cilimberg said that although staff agrees thai the next southern crossover is
potentially less adequate than the crossover at Mr. Maupin's store, the
opportunity to close the Maupin crossover und&r a developer's condition should
be taken. He further stated that staff feels~the remaining crossovers cited
for closure under the Comprehensive Plan be ci,osed in a comprehensive manner
through the Department of Transportation's Si~ Year Primary Plan process. He
said the staff could support delaying the Mau~in crossover closing for as long
as is reasonably possible to bring that closiog as close as possible to the
closing of the remaining crossovers. Therefore, staff's recommendation is to
request the Department of Transportation to e~tend the permit to the Kessler
Group for the closing of this crossover until'!isuch time as either 1) the
Kessler Group is ready to complete work on th~ Forest Lakes project; or 2) a
comprehensive closing of all crossovers noted'~:for closing ~n the Hollymead
area is undertaken, whichever comes first. H~ added that Mr. Kessler had
,t
volunteered to delay the closing of the crossover as long as VDoT permits
would allow or until Forest Lakes is complete~'.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Maupin if he wished to .address the Board. Mr. Maupin
rose to speak and said he understands the concerns of the Board and its desire
to have Mr. Kessler pay for closing the crossover. He said he would appreci-
ate any action the Board could take to delay ~he closure of the crossover. He
would also like the Board to consider whether it is necessary to close these
crossovers. He pointed out that the decision !to close the crossovers origi-
nates from a report prepared in 1979 which stdted that crossovers closer than
1250 feet together must be closed. He said t~e report never stated a reason
for this recommendation and he would like the i~ounty's staff to provide one.
He thinks that closing this crossover will noel benefit .the public.
Mr. Frank A. Kessler addressed the Board .and said he is willing to delay
the closure of the crossover until he is ready~i to complete work on the Forest
Lakes project, or the permit issued by VDoT e~ires.
Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDoT), addressed the Board.'I He said that Mr. Kessler s
permit, which has been extended once, will expire on December 5, 1989. Mr.
Echols said that nearly all the work on Route ~9 North along the Forest Lakes
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
227
property has been completed and he believes ~that Mr. Kessler is in the posi-
tion to complete the work, including the crossover, without requiring an
extension to the permit.
Mr. Bowie said he would like this crossover to be left open as long as
possible. He said he would like staff to review the necessity for closing the
crossover.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not object to Mr. Bowie's suggestion, but he
would prefer that staff review all the crossovers, rather than just one. He
said he is also concerned that the owners of property in the area know that
the crossover is to be closed eventually, so that future businesses in this
area do not expect the crossover to remain open. He said he can support
deferring the closure of this crossover as long as landowners in the area know
it will be closed sometime in the future. He asked that any businesses
planned in areas near crossovers scheduled to be closed be notified by staff
during site plan review of the eventual closure of this closure.
Mr. Bain asked for information from VDoT explaining why some crossovers
have been closed and some have not and setting out the schedule VDoT intends
to follow in closing the crossovers.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to 1) pass
the recommendation in Mr. Cilimberg's memo dated August 3, 1989, to request
the Department of Transportation to extend t~e permit to the Kessler Group for
the closing of this crossover until such time as either a) The Kessler Group
is ready to complete work on the Forest Lakes project; or b) a comprehensive
closing of all crossovers noted for closing {n the Hollymead area is undertak-
en, whichever comes first; 2) Staff to review the crossover study situation as
to why some were not closed and report back to the Board on the total policy
by the November day meeting; 3) Notification through site review or other
means to future applications for business rezonings of the crossover schedule
for closings.
?
Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Route 29 North Status Report,
Study of Expressway Alternative, EnvironmentR1 Impact Statement.
Mr. Cilimberg said the report describes ithe differences between the
rights-of-way currently held by VDoT along R~ute 29 North and the rights-of-
way that would be necessary should an expressway be built. Mr. Cilimberg said
the staff must consider other factors before ~neasuring the total effect an
expressway would have on the businesses alon~ Route 29 North, factors such as
how the access to the business is affected a~d how much lost parking damages a
business. Moreover, the Sverdrup corporatioq is still working on the design
for an expressway and the slip ramps connecting the expressway to the outer
lanes of Route 29 North. The design and loc~tion of the slip ramps, as well
as the number of lanes they will carry, will also affect the amount of
right-of-way necessary for the expressway.
Mr. Cilimberg used a map to show the existing right-of-way along Route 29
North and the right-of-way expected to be needed for an expressway. Along
nearly every section of Route 29 North that was studied, somewhat more
right-of-way would be required for an expresSWay than what is currently held
by V DoT. He said the staff also prepared a ~ist of businesses that would lose
parking spaces if the expressway were built, .and what percentage of their
parking these businesses would lose. He sai~the parking loss varies from
zero to 70 percent lost in one or two cases. He said staff also prepared a
list of businesses whose structures lie with~h the right-of-way an expressway
would require. There were two such businesses affected on the east side of
Route 29 North and six on the west side. In five of these cases, a gas pump
and island were the structures affected. Mr..~tCilimberg said the staff also
compared the effect of the existing rmght-of~way with the impact of the
eight-laning project proposed for Route 29 N~irth several years ago. For the
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
228
most part, he said, Route 29 North could be widened to eight lanes within the
existing right-of-way.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff would like to follow up this report with a
comparison of the expressway and all the alternatives suggested for a bypass
in terms of their impact upon the traffic on other roads in the County and
City.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the staff study the amount of right-of-way
that would have to be acquired for each of the bypass alternatives and the
impact of each alternative upon businesses and residences in the area. He
said he thinks the County may have only a short time to react after VDoT has
completed its draft environmental impact studies and before it makes a final
decision. He said it would be helpful if th~ Board had available the informa-
tion staff has gathered for each alternative~ particularly the amount of
travel each alternative would handle. He suggested that this information be
displayed in a matrix, to promote quick and 9asy comparisons between all the
alternatives.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Lindstrom which altern, atives he would like to have
studied Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that ~DoT is more interested in the
western bypass options. He thinks it is unlikely that an eastern bypass will
be chosen, because of the cost and topograph~ of an eastern route, and the
fact that an eastern bypass would serve less ~traffic than other options.
Nevertheless, he said, perhaps the eastern b~pass routes should be studied as
well. ~.
Mr. Bowie said any comparison should include the cost, the number of
vehicles the route would carry, the length of the route and the amount of
right-of-way necessary to build the route.
Mr. Lindstrom said the base case should also be included, because VDoT
has stated that the base case will be built on Route 29 North, even if a
bypass, not an expressway, is built. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks some people
have the impression that Route 29 North is not going to change if the express-
way is not built, which is a misconception. ~He said that grade-separated
interchanges at Hydraulic and Rio Roads, which the consultant has said must be
constructed if the base case is to work, wil~i!affect businesses and he asked
the staff to study this impact and include i~i in the comparison.
~ Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned whether staff will be able to develop
ac~rate cost projections for each of these a'i~ternatives. He said the designs
of t/aese alternatives have been reworked sinci~ data was collected on the cost
of each pro3ect. If the County has the capability to develop new cost projec-
tions, he said, he would like to see the results, because he is concerned that
the County will not have much time to react tp VDoT's estimates for each
project. Frankly, he said, he does not trust i'the accuracy of VDoT's cost
estimates for the expressway.
Mr. Agnor said that staff does not have ~he resources for such an
analysis.
Mr. Bowie said that none of the estimates has proven accurate; what he
would like is an idea of the relationship between the number of vehicles a
route would carry and the cost of that route.~ Mr. Lindstrom agreed that this
would be important. ~
Mr. Bain asked how the Meadow Creek ParkWay would fit into this kind of
analysis. Mr. Lindstrom said that VDoT preset.ted the Meadow Creek Parkway as
part of the base case, so he thinks it should~be analyzed as part of the base
case. ii
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that he and Mr. ~owie meet with staff and discuss
the routes to be investigated, since the Boar~ will not meet again for four
weeks. Mr. Way agreed that this would be a g~od idea. He asked that the
staff present a status report on the study at ~he Board's meeting on Septem-
ber 6, 1989.
Mr. Bowie said this issue is the most important matter confronting the
Board for the next few months. If the staff'si time is limited, he said, he
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
22
thinks the Board should make it clear that studying the bypass alternatives is
the top priority and perhaps other projects could be deferred until staff has
completed this study.
Mr. Lindstrom said it may also be worthwhile to study the impact of
traffic if the Meadow Creek Parkway were not built. He said he also wants to
know if building the base case will require the relocation of utilities along
Route 29 North. He said he has requested this information from Sverdrup but
has heard nothing yet.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Public Hearing: TO Abandon Portion of Route 841.
(Advertised on July 25 and August 2, 1989 in the Daily Progress.)
Mr. Cilimberg said Route 841 serves the Covesville Country Store, the
Post Office and property owned by the Moyers and the Masseys. Mr. St. John
pointed out that neither the petitioner nor the property owners affected by
the abandonment was present.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak
to this abandonment, so Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the
matter before the Board.
Motion was offered to defer to September 13, 1989, and ask staff to
inquire as to whether this petition is to be ~ithdrawn. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bain said he has some questions about the Six Year Primary Road Plan.
He noted that the Plan schedules the Route 2~42 project for FY 1990-91 and
asked if the project will be completed by the-time Cale Elementary School
opens in 1990. Mr. Echols said the plans ha~e been approved, but right-of-way
still has to be purchased. He said he think~iconstruction will begin in
either the summer or fall of 1990.
~ Mr. Bain then noted that three segments ~of Route 29 North are planned to
be~%m~proved. He asked if there had been any~dhange in the the way funds are
scheduled to be allocated to these three proj~cts since the last Six Year
Primary Road Plan. Mr. Echols said these projects have been moved back to
await the results of the Route 29 North Corridor Study.
Mr. Bain mentioned the Route 250 East p=9ject and asked if VDoT has
considered any measures for mass transit in ~his project, such as a center
lane forbidden to single occupancy vehicles, i~'~Mr. Echol said he does not thinkl
such measures have been considered. Mr. Bain'iasked if VDoT held enough
right-of-way to build such a center lane. Mr!..~ Echols said "no", and added
that the plans for the new bridge over the RiSanna River did not include an
additional lane. Mr. Bain said he thinks VDo~ and the Board should consider
mass transit measures for all major roads lea~ing from the County into the
City. He asked Mr. Echols to find out how mudh additional right-of-way would
be needed to build one restricted lane to be hsed by incoming traffic in the
morning and outgoing traffic in the evening.
Mr. Bain asked about the four-laning of ~cIntire Road from Preston Avenue
into the County. He asked if the $15 million'ireserved for this project would
cover only that 1.2 mile segment. Mr. Echols isaid the $15 million was esti-
mated to cover the cost of the City's portion?~of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Bain asked VDoT to give the Board more inf~ormation on the status of
funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway. ~,
Concerning his previous motion on the crossover near Maupin's Store on
Route 29 North, Mr. Bowie said, he would like the staff's report on the other
crossovers by November 8, so the Board can ma~e a decision by the deadline of
December 5, 1989. ~
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
23
At the Highway Department's public hearing concerning the Route 250 East
project, Mr. Cilimberg said, the representatives of several businesses in the
Pantops area requested a crossover at Newhouse Drive to allow more immediate
access to their businesses. He said the design currently proposed by VDoT
shows a median strip, and no crossover, along the segment of Route 250 East
between High Street and Route 20. He said that staff and VDoT agreed that a
crossover in the Newhouse Drive area would be too close to the intersection of
Routes 20 and 250 East and would take away some of the space available to
stack traffic along Route 250 East. For these reasons, Mr. Cilimberg said,
staff recommends that the crossover proposed,by businesses in the Pantops area
not be included as part of the Route 250 East project.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Route 250 East pCoject would also allow the County
the chance to incorporate some features of corridor design to make the RouGe
250 East corridor less obtrusive. He suggested such features as landscaping
and massed-arm traffic signals, rather than string lights. He recommended
that VDoT be asked to consider incorporating features such as these into the
project and to let the Board know if the cos~ of the project would increase as
a result.
Mr. Way asked if members of the Board objected to Mr. Cilimberg making
the above request to VDoT. There were no objections.
Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to prepare a report on what the state enabling
legislation allows localities to do in the area of corridor design and to
consider how an ordinance embodying this information might be worded.
The Board recessed at 10:24 A.M. and reconvened at 10:40 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 23a.
appointment was made.
Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging. No
Agenda Item No. 23b. Appointment: Com~unity Services Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and sedOnded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mr.
Lloyd E. Barrett as a County representative, i~erm to expire June 30, 1991, to
replace Ms. Kathleen Kennedy. Roll was call~i~ and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote: il
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. i
Agenda Item No. 23c. Appointment: Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mr. Bain to appoint
Mr. Jason I. Eckford, Jr. to the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the followin~ recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 23d. Appointment: Jeff,~rson Area Board for Aging.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint
Mr. A. J. Baglioni, Jr. to a full term to expire March 31, 1991. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the followin~ recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrJ. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Agenda Item No. 23e.
Directors.
Appointment:
Piedmont Community College Board of
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
231
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mr.
Bruce D. Norris to a full term which will expire on June 30, 1993. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to appoint Mr. Donald J. Firster to the Jordan Development Corpora-
tion term to expire August 13, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to reappoint Mr. Dan M. Maupin to the Agricultural and Forestal
District Advisory Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr~ Perkins and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to reappoint Mr. Dan M. Maupin to the Land Use Classification
Appeals Board term to expire September 1, 1991. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to set a Public Hearing to Amend the
Albemarle County Code, Section 9-23.3, to Adopt by Reference the Regulations
of the State Air Pollution Control Board Concerning Open Burning.
Mr. Agnor said the current County code has a provision in Section 9-23.3
that adopts by reference the regulations of the State Air Pollution Control
Board concerning open burning. At one time,~these regulations required a
notification procedure. This procedure has been removed from the State
regulations and the Jefferson County Firefighters' and Rescue Association have
asked that the County code be amended to align it with State regulations.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set a
public hearing on September 13, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request to set a Public Hearing to Amend the
Albemarle County Code, to Provide that Dogs and Cats be Licensed at Four
Months of Age. ·
Mr. Agnor said the current County code p~ovides for dogs to be licensed
at slx months of age, and dogs and cats to be~ivaccmnated against rabies at
four months. State code now provides for the~age to be four months for
licensing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set a
public hearing on September 13, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
232
Agenda Item No. 17. Adoption of Resolution Requesting Funds from the
Virginia Outdoor Foundation Grant for the Southern Regional Park.
Mr. Agnor said the Board is requested to adopt a resolution requesting a
$200,000 grant for the Southern Regional Park from the Virginia Outdoor
Foundation. These funds are provided through State general appropriations and
from Federal funds for the acquisition and development of parks. He said this
grant will be for construction of the beach area and bath-
house/concession/restroom facility. The resolution pledges matching funds
from the County for the project as well as sufficient County funds to complete
the project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the
following resolution as requested. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Wqt~NIFAS, The Virginia Division of Planning and Recreation
Resources provides funds to assist political subdivisions of the
Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and developing open space and
park lands; and
W~REAS, the County of Albemarle has recently acquired land
for a recreational facility currently referred to as the Southern
Park; and
W~, there are urgent needs within the County of
Albemarle to develop park land; and
Wqt~REAS, this area is deemed of high development priority by
the County of Albemarle; and
WI~qIEAS, in order to attain funding assistance from the
Virginia Division of Planning and Recreation Resources, it is
necessary that the County of Albemarle guarantee a proportionate
share of the cost thereof; and
Wqt~REAS, the proportionate project share is funded fifty
percent by the County of Albemarle; I
NOW, T~I~,RFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by~ the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Codnty Executive is hereby
authorized to cause such information or imaterials as may be neces-
sary to be provided to the appropriate ~tate agency and to enter
into such agreements as may be necessarM to permit the formulation,
approval and funding of the Southern Pa~k Project;
AND, BE IT FURT~RR RESOLVED, the !Board of Supervisors gives
its assurance that the funds needed as Che proportionate share of
the cost of the approved program will b~l provided, up to $200,000,
and if additional funding is needed to c;6mplete the facilities for
which this funding assistance is requests&d, that additional funding
will be provided for in full by the County of Albemarle;
AND FURTNERRF~OLV~D that the BoaMd of Supervisors gives its
assurance that the General Provisions or,the Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund and the Virginia Outdoor Fun~ Fiscal Procedures will be
complied with in the administration of this project;
FURT~RRRESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors gives its
assurance that all other applicable state and federal regulations
governing such expenditure of funds provided by Virginia Division of
Planning and Recreation Resources will be complied with in the
administration of this project; ~
AND, ALSO RESOLVED, that the Natidnal Park Service, U. S.
Department of the Interior, and the Virginia Division of Planning
and Recreation Resources are respectfull~ requested to assist in the
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
233
prompt approval and funding of the Albemarle County Southern Park
Project in order to enhance the standard of recreation enjoyment for
all our citizenry.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request to Extend the Albemarle County Service
Authority Service Areas for Water Service Only to Property Known as Tax Map
55A, Parcel 45 in Yancey Mills.
Mr. Cilimberg said this request ms beln~ made by Mr. Clifford Fox on
behalf of Mr. Grant Rogers at Yancey's Mill. i' He said the area is designated
for rural development in the Comprehensive Pian and is currently zoned VR,
Village Residential. The property lies within the watershed of the South
Rivanna River Reservoir and does not drain to the proposed Lickinghole Creek
impoundment. Adjacent parcels to the east and south are included in the
service area for water only to existing structures. There are no structures
on the parcel in question. He said staff is .not aware of any quantity or
quality problems with water on this property.~ Therefore, staff's opinion is
that extension of water or sewer facilities to this property would be incon-
sistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with '~!past actions by the Board to
limit utility extensions into areas outside ~he designated growth areas.
Approval of this request would set a signifidant precedent for extension of
utilities into the rural areas, and staff recommends denial for these reasons.
Mr. Fox addressed the Board and said th~.t Mr. Rogers would like to have
water service extended to his property so that he can have a clustered devel-
opment built on the parcel.
Mr. Lindstrom said this request is nearly identical to one made by the
developer of Roslyn Ridge several years ago.. He said the Board denied that
earlier request for public water and the dec{sion was upheld in the courts.
He said he agrees with the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Bowie said he sees no reason to apprlove this request, since the
parcel does not lie in an area in which the Board wants to encourage growth.
He said he also supports the staff's recommendation.
No action was taken by the Board; theref~ore the request was denied.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appropriation: Planning District Commission,
Legislative Liaison.
Mr. Agnor said an appropriation of $5,420 for the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission's Legislative Liaison position is being
requested. This additional funding would continue the Legislative Liaison
position on a year-round basis.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the
following resolution appropriating funds from the Board's contingency account
instead of the fund balance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
FY 89/90
Purpose of Appropriation (Transfer): Additional funding for the
Thomas 3efferson Planning District legislative liaison position.
Expenditure
Cost Center/Category
1100089000562500
1100095000999999
Revenue
Description Amount
T J Planning District $5,420.00
B0S Cont±ngen4y Fund (5,420.00)
~otal $ 0.00
Description I Amount
$ o.oo
iotal $ 0.00
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
234
Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Resolution Pertaining to Advertising
for the State Lottery.
Mr. Bowie said the lottery was established and is regulated by the
General Assembly and it should be left to the General Assembly to decide if
the advertisements for the lottery go beyondl informing the public to inducing
the public to participate in the lottery. He does not think the Board should
pass a resolution pertaining to advertising for the lottery.
Mr. Bain agreed and said that since thelAttorney General and several
legislators have begun to study the advertisements, he no longer feels the
need for the adoption of such a resolution.
Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom requested that staff investigate a large
pile of burning rubble at a church on Route 601 near Free Union.
Agenda Item No. 19. Chesapeake Bay PreServation Act, Report on.
Mr. J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Watershed Management Official, reported
that the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board had recently adopted the final
regulations for designation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. He provided
a preliminary analysis of similarities between the designation and performance
criteria of the regulations and existing ordinances in Albemarle County. He
also outlined the organizational structure of the regulations and possible
ways in which they could be incorporated into the County's land use policies.
Mr. Robertson said one significant difference between the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act and the County's ordinances is the amount of land disturbance
that must occur before soil erosion and sediment controls take effect.
According to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, "any land disturbing activi-
ty that exceeds an area of 2500 square feet (~including construction of all
single family houses, septic tanks and drainfields) shall comply with the
requirements of the local erosion and sediment control ordinance". Mr.
Robertson said the County's existing erosion and sediment control ordinance
follows the State Code in that the disturbance of 10,000 square feet or more
requires the application of the erosion and sediment ordinances. He said
another difference between the County's ordinances and the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act is the mapping approach to ~atural resources protection
incorporated into the Act. ~
Mr. St. 3ohn said he will work with Mr. ~obertson to incorporate the
regulations of the Act into the County's ordinances. He said he will provide
a schedule outlining when the amendments will be ready for the Board at next
month's meeting.
Mr. Robertson said that he has discusse~ the formation of the Water
Resources Committee described in the Comprehensive Plan. This committee could
review the County's runoff control and water protection ordinances and recom-
mend amendments to bring these ordinances into accordance with any new State
legislation.
Mr. Perkins asked if agricultural and forestal practices were exempted
from the land disturbance regulations in the Act. Mr. Robertson said "yes".
Agenda Item No. 8. Earlysville Forest H6meowners Association, Request
Concerning the Firing Range at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport.
Mr. Whit Paris spoke on behalf of the Homeowners Association. He said he
had received a number of inquiries from home0~ners who are concerned about gun
firing in the vicinity of their neighborhood.,t He said the community was not
aware until recently that there was a police firing range in their neighbor-
hood and that it had been in existence between two and three years. He
described it as an open-air range with a dirtilmound for a backstop. A big
concern was the fact that the gun firing is aimed toward the housing
development. He said the distance from the firing range to the nearest home
is approximately 1400 feet, and within 1600 feet there are several more
houses. He said the Homeowners are concerned about safety and the fact that
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
23
this is a nuisance. He asked that the firing range be closed or removed from
the vicinity of Earlysville Forest, and asked the Board to consider the safety
and nuisance issues. He said there will be a Board of Directors meeting in
October, and he would like to have an answer'from the Board of Supervisors
regarding this matter for that meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how high the embankment is at the firing range. Mr.
Paris said because of the number of inquiries he had received, he had walked
into the woods to see for himself. He said he encountered no signs, fences or
other warning of a firing range. He said there was a barbed wire fence to
keep wild game off the runway. He said the embankment is 20 feet high.
Mr. Bowie said the County police were one of several groups who use the
firing range, including the FBI. He said it was necessary for training, but
it certainly needs to be safe. He asked staff to investigate and report back
to the Board.
Mr. Way said he is concerned that the guns are fired in the direction of
the subdivision.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about Che lack of signs and barriers
around the shooting range, particularly since the range adjoins land held in
common by subdivision residents.
Mr. Paris said the residents of Earlysville Forest are also concerned
that the growth in the County demands more police with more training needed
and increased use of this firing range. He s~id they would like to be sure it
is safe and to know what the long range plans are for this firing range.
An unidentified citizen who was present.with Mr. Paris addressed the
Board. He said that firing in the opposite ~irection from the subdivision
will not solve the problem, because the guns will then be turned toward
another development. He said it would take a~ change of only ten to fifteen
degrees in the angle at which an automatic rifle is held to send the bullet
over the embankment.
Mr. Bain asked staff to determine the total amount of time the firing
range is used during the year and the cost of meeting the training require-
ments at an indoor site possibly. Mr. Lindstrom added that the County has
other property which is more remote, and asked staff to consider that. Mr.
Perkins suggested that the Rivanna Rifle Range facility might be another
possibility for staff to consider. ~
Agenda Item No. 9. The Virginia Discovery Museum, Request for Assistance
in Relocating Museum.
Mrs. Constance Palmer addressed the Board on behalf of the Board of
Directors of the Virginia Discovery Museum. She said they are requesting
assistance in relocating the Museum to larger, more accessible quarters.
Space is needed to serve present visitors and install exhibits to appeal to
new audiences. She pointed out that the Museum had more than 40,000 visitors
over the past two years. There has been increased use of the Museum by
schools in the local area. In addition, out-Of-town visitors have increased
sharply so that the capacity of the present location is strained. She said
they are looking for a space near downtown with about 7000 square feet in a
location more convenient to the public and fully accessible to handicapped
persons. The ideal solution would be to share a building with a similar
organization. A possible collaboration location is the former Paramount
Theater Building. That could be successful o~ly if local governments play a
substantial role in purchasing and refurbishing the property as a multi-user
cultural and educational center. She said that would be an ideal long-term
solution; however in the next few months the Museum must find new quarters.
While the City and County have provided some funds for operating the Museum,
about 50 percent of revenues in 1988 came from memberships, users, or private
donations. She said they had recently obtain~!d a grant of $250,000 from the
Perry Foundation over the next five years, co~tingent upon the Museum
receiving matching funds from the City and CoUnty governments. She said
because the Perry Foundatmon ms the Museum s ~argest contributor, it is
critical that the City and County support thi~ effort. She said they are
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
236
asking both localities to increase their support to $25,000 per year for the
next five years to cover the costs of a new location and for some new exhibit
construction. That would enable them to receive the Perry Foundation's grant
and put the Museum on firm financial footing to undertake a move.
Mr. Way asked what the County's contribUtion has been in the past. Mr.
Agnor said the County budgets $5,000. Any additional funds would have to come
from the Board's contingency account. He said $25,000 would take one-fourth
of what has been set aside for this fiscal year.
Mr. Bowie said he could think of a number of other organizations in
similar situations.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is a five-fold increase over what the County has
allocated in the past. He said he understands the significance of the grant.
However, he is concerned about committing this amount so early in the year and
making a good faith commitment to appropriatSng this amount to the Museum for
the next five years. He is also concerned that there are many other needs and
the Board should have a better perspective of those needs in order to evaluate
this one.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was a time'limit on the Perry Foundation
grant. Mrs. Palmer said the only limitation is that the Museum find a suit-
able site and move. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is no deadline, then this
request could be considered as part of the regular budget preparation cycle.
Mr. Bain said he would support that suggestiqn.
Mrs. Cooke said she also believes that ~t would be in the best interests
of the County for the Board to consider this !request as part of the regular
budget cycle, rather than agreeing to the request at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that school tours add class trips account for many of
the Museum's visitors and suggested that the School Division may be able to
budget some funds for the Museum.
Mr. Agnor pointed out that the Board's qontingency fund was established
to deal with requests just like the one presented by Mrs. Palmer, requests
from agencies that lack the resources. He s~id he cannot promise that the
Board will not receive more such requests frown other agencies, but he thinks
this is unlikely.
Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. Agnor's comments clarified his understanding
of the contingency fund. Instead of postponihg this request until the next
budget cycle, Mr. Lindstrom suggested that iq be deferred until December, in
recognition of the potential match in funds from the private sector. He said
that deferring this request until December will also allow the Board the time
to learn if there will be other demands on th~ contingency fund, to explore
with the Schools staff the possibility of cooperation, and to discuss the
request with the City's staff as well.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstromland seconded by Mr. Bowie to
defer action on this request to December 13, ~989. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote!
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-45. Henry Po~e and Mary Mikkelsen. Withdraw-
al of Request for Revocation of Permit.
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administratgr, said that on July 5 the Board
had scheduled a public hearing for September §, 1989 on this matter. Since
that time, the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with zoning
requirements. Based on that, Ms. Patterson asked that the Board withdraw her
request for revocation of the permit. She th~n described the efforts the
applicant had made to comply. She said the C6unty Engineer has determined
that Ms. Mikkelsen and Mr. Pope have met the ~erformance standards required by
the Zoning Ordinance. She said a building permit for a new kiln was submitted
and approved on July 26, 1989. The new structure will measure 24 feet by 39
feet and will be covered with wood siding and ia painted metal roof. She said
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
total compliance is expected by November 1, 1989. Ms. Patterson said that Ms.
Mikkelsen is present to answer any questions and Mr. Bruton, an adjoining
landowner, is also present and would like to make a statement.
Ms. Mikkelsen addressed the Board and said that the schedule for bringing
her business into compliance with the home occupation permit is satisfactory
to both her and Mr. Pope and their builder.
Mr. Leroy Bruton addressed the Board and asked that the Board revoke the
permit. He said the applicants have been operating their business and kiln
illegally for the past ten years, in part because they gave incomplete infor-
mation when they applied for the Class A occupation permit. He said he does
not believe the applicants have acted in good faith; they began to comply with
the permit only after the Zoning Administrator threatened to have it revoked.
He said the applicants' business will use th~ new structure and half of their
home, which he thinks will overwhelm any residential use of the property.
Mrs. Cooke asked Ms. Mikkelsen how muchof her home was used for the
business. Ms. Mikkelsen said she was not sure if any of her residence would
be used for the business once the new structure was built.
Mr. St. John said the matter before the Board is whether Ms. Mikkelsen
and Mr. Pope have complied with the conditions of the home occupation permit,
not whether these conditions need to be re-evaluated.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to defer
action until November 8, 1989.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the Zoning Administrator's request not to
revoke the permit.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session. At 12:39 P.M., motion was
offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lin~strom to adjourn into executive
session to discuss the use or disposal of public property in accordance with
Section 2.1-344.A.3 of the Virginia Code.
Roll was called and the motion carried b.:y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:40 P.M. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie as follows:
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mr. Bowie
MEETING DAT~: August 9, 1989
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Boar~' of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative record-
ed vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the C6de of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in confo~:mity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matt,;rs lawfully exempted from
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies,
and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins
and Way.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the require-
ments of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MRRTING: None.
238
Agenda Item No. 14. ZMA-89-6. Mechum River Land Trust (deferred from
August 2, 1989).
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"No development impacts were included in the staff report for
ZMA-89-6 MECHUM RIVER LAND TRUST since no definitive development
scheme was available prior to Board consideration. At the public
hearing of August 2, 1989, the applicant verbally stated desire for
approval of (a maximum of) 350 dwellings whether on 117 or 149
acres. Based on a maximum of 350 dwellings, staff offers the
following comments:
Transportation: Staff has met with VDOT regarding the effect of
additional traffic on Virginia State RoUte 240 by introduction of
350 dwellings on this site:
1. Traffic generation (i.e. turns i~ and out of the development)
would be about 2450 vehicle trips per day. This number cannot
be simply added to the current +40~0 vehicle trips per day on
Route 240, but must be dispersed along desired lines. Lacking
study to the contrary, YDOT and staff assume a 75/25 split to
the east and west respectively. This would be an increase of
about 1730 vehicle trips per day t~. the east and 620 vehicle
trips per day to the west. (This distribution could change
with construction of the proposed Route 240/250 connector
together with location of shopping ~acilities on Route 250, and
additional commercial/industrial development within Crozet).
VDOT recommends a four lane roadwa~ when traffic exceeds 6000
vehicle trips per day.
However, in observed practice, traffic ~olume can approach or exceed
15,000 vehicle trips per day before improvement occurs (as a result
of funding and other considerations). I~ should be noted that most
major collector secondary roads in the UMban Area accommodate two to
three times the projected volume on Route 240 (i.e. Hydraulic,
Barracks, Rio and Georgetown Roads).
Regarding specific improvements to accommodate this rezoning, VDOT
and/or staff recommend the following:
Right and left turn lanes into the development from Route 240;
Divided entrance road for emergency access and appropriate turn
lanes;
One entering lane from and two exiting lanes onto Route 240.
Exiting lanes to accommodate right and left turns;
Relocate townhouse units adjacent to Route 240 to obtain 550
feet of sight distance. Sight distance easement will
be required.
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
School Enrollment: Projection methods for school enrollment are
more accurate on a county-wide basis than for individual school
districts and residential development. Anticipated enrollment
increases from this project based on multipliers used by staff in
site plan review are as follows:
Elementary (Crozet)
Middle (Henley)
Secondary (Western Albemarle)
67 students
39 students
53 students
159 students
It should be noted that these multipliers are based on a mix of all
types of dwelling units and are not specific to dwelling unit type.
Actual school enrollment could vary with the mix of dwelling unit
type in this development.
Population: This development would house about 900 persons.
Residential builders respond to market demand which county-wide is
~700 dwellings per year. The County government does not exercise
control over the number of building permits issued annually, and
such practice has generally been held as unconstitutional.
The County is attempting to guide the ldcation of new residential
development to designated growth areas such as Crozet which has
received substantial capital improvement funding in recent years.
Crozet has been a designated growth area since adoption of the first
Comprehensive Plan in 1971. The Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors have just completed a threeyear long review of the
Comprehensive Plan. No citizen opposition was received as to
continued designation of Crozet as a growth area to accommodate
future development."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 25,
1989, recommended denial of the petition by a vote of 4 to 3.
Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant planned to relocate the townhouses to
the portion of the property adjacent to Route 240. Mr. Cilimberg said the
applicant plans to locate the multi-family units just east of the entry into
the development from Route 240. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks these units
should be placed as far to the rear of the site as possible, given the topog-
raphy and the setback required from the stream, to insure that the sight
distance is adequate along Route 240 to the east.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Cilimberg to clarify the proposal made by the applicant
concerning the proposed Lickinghole Creek dra~inage basin. Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicant has proposed to divert dra~nage.~from about 32 acres of the site
to the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Richard Moring, County~iEngineer, to comment upon the
effectiveness of the proposed diversion of drjinage. Mr. Moring said he
thinks the diversion would be effective, but he is concerned about the prece-
dent it would set.
Mr. Lindstrom said that this developer, ~raig Builders, has built some
outstanding residential developments in the County, such as the Mill Creek
subdivision. He said the Comprehensive Plan designates Crozet as a growth
area and the County has invested substantial ~amounts in capital improvements
to provide the infrastructure for this growth~ Mr. Lindstrom said he has no
problem extending the eastern boundary of the!~Crozet growth area as far as it
can be extended and have the drainage still flow into the Lickinghole Creek
impoundment. He thinks this is as far as thei~boundaries should be extended.
He said he has heard the applicant argue that~his drainage basin will work as
well as or better than the Lickinghole Creek impoundment, but he cannot
support extending urban residential zoning to?the 30 acres the applicant
proposes to drain into the Lickinghole Creek impoundment. If the Board were
to allow the natural topographic boundaries of, the watershed to be violated,
he said, he does not know where these violatidns would stop. He said the
watershed was put into a special category forilow-density development because
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
240
residential development is the major non-point source of pollution in the
reservoir. He said the Board has also had problems enforcing maintenance
agreements for small detention basins. He said he thinks he can support the
development of the 117 acres that drains naturally in the Lickinghole Creek
basin.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is the first major rezoning request to come
before the Board since July 1, 1989, when it became legal for counties to
accept proffers that minimize the fiscal impact of rezoning. He said he
believes the County has the authority to deny this application in view of its
impact upon the resources of the community, particularly its impact upon the
infrastructure of Crozet. He said that a reapplication of this request, with
proffers, would be a substantially different application and would not need to
be deferred for a year. He said he is concerned that if the County does not
begin to use its authority to accept such proffers, it will have established a
precedent of not considering this aspect of the fiscal impact of development
on communities.
Mr. Lindstrom said that this development of 350 units would increase the
population of Crozet by about 900 people, including at least 159 school-aged
children. He said he believes that the number of school-aged children would
be closer to 313, given the type of housing the applicant plans to build. It
costs the County $3,000 per student in local.funds; $296.47 per capita in
costs to General Government; and about $966.72 per student per year in capital
costs for schools, based on the Crozet school project. If the development
brings in 313 school-aged children, the annual cost to the County will be
$1,508,406. Basing this analysis on the lower estimate of 159 school-aged
children yields a cost to the County of $897~531 per year. He said the
households in this development would generate $559,674 in revenues a year,
including real estate taxes, personal property taxes, sales taxes, utility
taxes, business licenses, and every source of local revenue. In other words,
the cost of this development would exceed the revenues it generated by 169
percent, if the number of school-aged children is estimated to be 313; and by
60 percent, if the number of school-aged chiIdren is estimated to be 159. Mr.
Lindstrom said he has not included in his analysis the costs of drainage
projects, roads, parks and landfills.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County now has the authority to begin to deal with
some of the fiscal impact of residential development. He said he thinks it is
reasonable and within the County's authority to receive proffers from a
developer to help offset the cost of the result of approving rezoning
requests. He said that Mr. St. John has advi'~ed him that it would be appro-
priate for the Board to deny this application in view of the impact of the
proposal.
Mr. St. John said he would rather his opinion were worded that "it is
within the Board's lawful latitude of discretion" to deny this application,
rather that that it would be "appropriate" to'deny this application.
Mr. Perkins asked how much the erosion control and runoff control ordi-
nances would affect this proposal. Mr. Keeler said the applicant would have
to meet all the requirements of the erosion control ordinance during the
development process. Mr. Keeler said the Board will have to determine whether
the applicant, with the Lickinghole Creek basln in place, will have to under-
take additional measures to limit the post-development runoff to the
pre-development condition or meet a certain loading per acre of suspended
phosphorus and suspended solids. Mr. Keeler S~aid the Lickinghole Creek basin
will not meet the requirements of the runoff ~ontrol ordinance for Crozet, so
the Board may decide to require developers upstream from the basin to under-
take additional measures to reduce runoff and !the amount of phosphorus it
contains. He said that the Watershed Management Official, Mr. Peyton Robert-
son, was present and could answer questions relating to the Lickinghole Creek
impoundment. ~
Mr. Robertson concurred with Mr. Keeler add said the Lickinghole Creek
impoundment basin is intended to work with th~ requirements in the runoff
control ordinance, not replace them. I
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Craig how long it would~ take to build this develop-
ment. Mr. Craig said he plans to build 50 units a year.
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
24
Mr. Perkins asked if the scaled-back version of the project would have
two entrances and if so, where the second entrance would be. Mr. Craig said
he thinks it would be impossible to have a second entrance with the scaled-
back version of the project.
Mr. Bain asked if the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin could be moved.
Mr. Moring said "yes", but changing the location would require another esti-
mate for the cost of the dam.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Lindstrom and Mr.
Perkins concerning the Comprehensive Plan and limiting the development to the
117 acres that drain naturally into the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin. Mr.
Bain said he is concerned about approving the development before the
Lickinghole Creek impoundment has been built; however, he thinks it is realis-
tic to expect that, given its priority in the Capital Improvements Program,
the County can begin construction on the imp6undment in the Spring of 1990.
Mr. Bowie said members of the Board have been asking for several years
about the location of the dam for the impoundment, and whether the impoundment
will be more effective than individual drainage basins. He said he does not
think the Board has received answers to these questions. When the Board
revises the Capital Improvements Program, heisaid, he expects some definitive
information on the Lickinghole Creek impoundment if the Board is to leave
funding for the project at its present amount.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board must also consider the fiscal impact of
this development upon the County. Even though most of the proposed develop-
ment lies within the growth area, he thinks the Board could deny this request
for rezoning because no one knows exactly wha{ the fiscal impact of a develop-
ment of this magnitude will be. i
Mr. Perkins said he would prefer that C~ozet remain the way it is, but
the County has spent a lot of money ~n schoois and utilities to encourage
Crozet to grow. Sooner or later, he said, Cr'ozet will grow and people should
be preparing themselves for that event. He siAid he is concerned that
restricting the development to 117 acres will'~encourage the developer to put
more houses on fewer acres, resulting in an uhattractive development. He
thinks a sedimentation pond on-site might be Bore effective than the proposed
Lickinghole Creek impoundment. He thinks the!?Board should encourage as
attractive a development as possible. He sai~ he realizes the proposed
development raises many unanswered questions,!but he thinks most of these will
be answered during the site plan review.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
the request for 149 acres, including proffers to this point.
Mr. Lindstrom said the notion that this development must be approved in
order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan misses the significance of the
drainage basin and the 30 acres which are not covered by the Comprehensive
Plan. He said the impoundment planned for th~s area determined the boundaries
of the Crozet growth area. If the Board approves this request to modify the
topography of a site to divert drainage, he sJid, there will be many more such
requests. He said he does not think this developer will build an unattractive
development, because he cannot sell lots and houses that people do not like.
He said he does not think the difference between a development of 149 acres
and one of 117 acres will dictate whether the ~project is a slum or an attrac-
tive development. He said he cannot support the motion. Moreover, he said,
development does not pay for itself at the current tax rate. If the Board
does not wish to raise the tax rate on real p~operty, then he thinks the
County must rely on other sources of revenue,.~uch as the proffers now allowed
under new state legislation. Mr. Lindstrom sgid the Board must consider
implementing this new legislation soon, before it sets a precedent for not
taking advantage of this source of revenue.
Mr. Bain said he cannot support the motic~n, because it flies in the face
of the boundaries set for the Crozet growth ar~ea in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the issue is whether a sedimentation pond on
the site of the development will make the qua~gty of the water better than is
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
242
possible with the proposed Lickinghole Creek impoundment. He said the sedi-
mentation pond would even make the water better than if the land were just
left in pasture.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are many developers in the County who are
capable of constructing such devices, building their developments, selling the
lots and then moving on to something else. He reminded members of the Board
of the complaint lodged against the developer of Camelia Gardens for not
maintaining a small drainage basin constructed on one of the lots. He said
there is not enough to distinguish this proposal from scores of other requests
that could come before the Board concerning other areas lying in the fringes
of this watershed.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks a major difference is that the Board still does
not know exactly where the dam for the impoundment will lie: it could very
well include the 30 acres the applicant wishes to include as part of the
development.
Mr. Lindstrom said the entire request should then be deferred until the
Board knows the exact location of the dam and the impoundment. He said he
thinks this is the reason the Planning Commission recommended that the request
be denied. He said he is not willing to deny the request, but he could
support deferring it until more information is available on the Lickinghole
impoundment. He said he cannot support, under any circumstances, the viola-
tion of the revised Comprehensive Plan just gdopted by the Board this summer.
Mrs. Cooke said she supports the application, except for the inclusion of
the 30 acres upon which the applicant proposes to divert the drainage. She
said she knows very well the problems presented by the diversion of drainage
and sedimentation basins. She said she would.not like to thrust upon Crozet
the flooding and drainage problems experienced by residents of the
Charlottesville District. She said she suppqvts rezoning the 117 acres.
Mr. Perkins withdrew his motion with the concurrence of the seconder and
made a subsequent motion to approve the request for 117 acres with proffers
listed below. Roll was called and the motio~ carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. ~
Install a divided road entrance from Route 240 to the first
off-road within the subdivision.
2. Dwelling units limited to 350.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff has a plan for the implementation of the
new state legislation concerning proffers to Offset the fiscal impact of
rezoning requests. Mr. Bowie agreed that such a plan is necessary and said
the Board must be able to calculate the cost ~f development in order to decide
what proffers are necessary.
Agenda Item No. 15. Southern Regional Pa~k Master Plan, Presentation of.
Mr. Will Rieley of Rieley and Associates gave a slide presentation on the
Master Plan for the Southern Regional Park. A copy of the Master Plan Report
submitted to the Board is on file in the Clerk's office.
Mr. Perkins said the Board has discussed ~he possibility of using this
park as the home for the Albemarle County Fair. He asked if Mr. Rieley if the
Fair could be located on any portion of this gite. Mr. Rieley said the site
could, with difficulty, accommodate the Fair, iif the Fair remained the size it
is now. ~
The Board recessed at 3:24 P.M. and reco~vened at 3:35 P.M.
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
243
Agenda Item No. 16. Blake Hurt Presentation.
Mr. Blake Hurt said an analysis of the fiscal impact on Albemarle County
taxpayers of continued development balanced between residential and employment
growth concludes that expected government revenues resulting from such growth
will exceed the associated expenditures over the next ten years. Additional
government revenues resulting from growth are projected to be $19.5 million in
1998, while expenditure increases in 1998 attributable to growth will total
$13.4 million, of which $7.0 million is for education and $6.4 million for
other government services. He said his study uses well-established techniques
of fiscal impact analysis to respond to the concerns of many County residents
about the impact of future growth on the financial health of County govern-
ment. The premise of the study is that growth is normally comprised of both
population and employment growth. When anticipating the fiscal impacts of
growth on local government, industrial, commercial and residential development
should be viewed as a total package. He said the assumption for the popula-
tion increase is an annual growth rate of 2.2 percent. Jobs are assumed to
increase at the same rate as persons aged 20~64. The additional employment is
assumed to occur in the private commercial and industrial sectors of the
economy.
The results of the analysis show that when growth is balanced between
residential development and employment growth in the private industrial and
commercial sectors, the fiscal impact on County government will be positive or
neutral. This conclusion is consistent with a 1984 study by the Piedmont
Environmental Council (PEC), which indicated.that the revenue surplus associ-
ated with industrial and commercial development can more than offset the
fiscal deficit associated with residential development.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Hurt had provided copies of this report to members
of the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee. He said "yes".
Mr. Lindstrom said the study by the Piedmont Environmental Council cited
by Mr. Hurt in the press release for his report is not, as Mr. Hurt claimed,
consistent with the findings of the Albemarl~ Planning Task Force. Mr.
Lindstrom said the PEC study showed that residential development costs more in
services than it generates in revenues and t~at industrial development gener-
ates more in revenues than it costs in services, but the study did not attempt
to combine the two types of development to determine how much additional
residential development would result from an expansion of the County's indus-
trial or commercial development. He said the~e was no indication in this PEC
study that the revenues of industrial and commercial development offset the
costs of residential development. Mr. Linds6~om said he has nearly finished a
report that demonstrates that, given the low ~nemployment in the County, the
additional population required for expanding ':~industrial and commercial uses in
the County and the demand for services substantially offset the expanded tax
base from residential, commercial and industr.{al development.
Agenda Item No. 22. Land Use Regulation~i Committee Report.
Mr. Agnor said the Board had requested i~formation from staff as a result
of a report and recommendations from the AlbeMarle Planning Task Force pre-
sented by Mr. Hurt on June 14, 1989. The add{tional information relates to
the following issues:
1) Comments on Mr. Hurt's recommendations;
2) Information contained in the Comprehensive Information System (CIS);
3) Salary information on comparable positions found in other localities;
4) Comparison of statistics in Mr. Hurt!is report with standards used by
LURC; and ~
5) Methods for dealing with low and moderate cost housing projects.
Mr. Hurt had made six recommendations to tthe Board. Mr. Agnor said the
f~rst recommendatmon was to maintain a stable,l experienced professional staff
in the County development offices with appropriate compensation and favorable
working conditions. In response, Mr. Agnor s~id the Personnel Department
prepares a salary survey annually on random positions in the county with a
major survey for each position every three yea~s. Recommendations for changes
are made during the annual budget review proce~ss. Mr. Agnor said that career
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
244
advancement is difficult in a County the size of Albemarle because positions
do not become available as often as in larger organizations. Also, it is
difficult to offer raises to keep valued employees as is done in the private
sector. He said, however, that staff agrees that some changes would be
beneficial, such as allowing the County Executive a broader hiring range,
increasing staff in areas where work beyond 40 hours per week is required, and
shifting clerical duties from staff at professional levels.
The second recommendation was to implement the LURC recommendation for an
Engineering Design Manual. Mr. Agnor said the need for such a manual had been
discussed. However, preparation would be costly. (Leesburg, Virginia recent-
ly paid $80,000 for a comprehensive design manual.) He said the engineering
staff had attempted to prepare such a manual, but existing workloads relegate
this project to a lower priority. He said staff recommends that a civil
engineer be hired whose sole responsibility would be the development of a
design manual.
The third recommendation by Mr. Hurt was to implement the original LURC
recommendation for a Key Word Index for the County Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Agnor reported that the Zoning Department in ~conjunction with the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors is developing an Index yhich consolidates the various
development ordinances into one document. As a part of this document, staff
is developing an index for all regulations related to land use issues. The
index is scheduled for completion in October.
The next recommendation was to implement~ the original LURC recommendation
for a Policy Notebook for land use and development. Mr. Agnor said that the
Planning and Zoning Departments maintain a collection of policies. The
Engineering Department has begun the development of a policy notebook as well
Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission has expressed concern about combining
these policies into one notebook. They feel ~ithat only substantive matters to
guide staff in report preparation and recommendation should be included~
Recommendation five was to consider consolidation of all County develop-
ment agencies into one department, or alternatively give the Development
Information Office (DIO) authority to act as ~an interagency coordinator or
ombudsman. Mr. Agnor said when the DIO offiq!~e was created, Phase I was to
provide information and answer questions conq. erning development issues. Most
developers, however, do not take advantage of!!this office, but contact staff
directly with problems. Beyond Phase I, sta~f feels that an agency which
provides a centralized intake of application~!~i, plan review engineers and
planners, and a centralized inspections section for construction and permit
issuance is a logical and efficient manner mn.. which to administer the develop-
ment review process. Implementation of such !~ proposal would require a major
reorganization and possibly staffing increases. An office space needs analy-
sis is planned for this summer and fall, and Rhis proposal would be a major
element of the space needs study.
The final recommendation by Mr. Hurt was ito install an interagency
computer tracking system. Mr. Agnor said the!!County's Development Tracking
System (DTS) is near completion and will have ithe Zoning and Inspections
Departments on-line within several months. O~her development departments
would follow thereafter. He said the system provides for the current status
of building permits, zoning, site plan and subdivision projects. It would
provide ready access to the user regarding an~ active project before the
County..
With regard to the information in the Comprehensive Information System
(CIS), Mr. Agnor said it provides the most current land use and tax records of
each parcel of land in the County. There are ~over 70 pieces of information on
each parcel ranging from current zoning to property values. He said this
system has proven to be invaluable to the development departments as well as
to the Finance Department.
Regarding salary information on comparable positions in other localities,
Mr. Agnor said the Personnel Department has developed information that indi-
cates Albemarle is within the competitive range of most localities for the
positions reviewed, with the exception of the iSenior Planner position. He
said the Personnel Department would prepare their annual comprehensive survey
within the next two months.
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
245
Mr. Agnor then asked Mr. Keeler to address the problem of the time lag
between the approval of a preliminary site plan and the approval of the final
site plan. Mr. Keeler said the final approval process was not intended to be
a formal process with specified dates and deadlines; instead, the process was
designed to allow a developer to pursue approvals on an individual basis with
various members of the Site Review Committee. Moreover, Mr. Keeler said, it
is not uncommon for a proposal to become dormant after receiving preliminary
approval, while the applicant pursues financing, seeks tenants, or tries to
sell the property to another developer. Mr. Keeler said that all the engi-
neering data, such as drainage plans, are also deferred to the final approval
process. When the County decided to go to the two-step approval process, Mr.
Keeler said, it was understood that the review might take more time, since the
engineering matters would be left to the final approval. According to the
original LURC report, developers supported this process: "Developers have
indicated that these changes could result in savings of 25-50 percent in
initial submittal costs since detailed engineering could be deferred until
after Commission action".
Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Cilimberg to address the recommendations of the LURC
report concerning incentives for builders to build lower cost housing. Mr.
Cilimberg said there were four ways the'staff could encourage lower cost
housing: change the County's regulations, change the procedure for handling
housing developments, waive local taxes and fees, or change the growth manage-
ment policy.
As regards the changes in regulations, Mr. Cilimberg said, the County's
regulations are based on safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of County
residents. Since the original LURC report, he said, the County has revised
its review process and removed regulations that unnecessarily increased the
cost of housing. Mr. Cilimberg said that stuff and developers continue to
debate the necessity of some regulations, such as the rules governing private
roads and the need for urban versus rural crDss-sections. Mr. Cilimberg said
the necessity for such regulations should ha~e its basis in sound development
policy and the public's best interest. ~
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff also adju§ited its procedures following the
original LURC report. He said these adjustments reflect what staff is cur-
rently able to handle based on the number of~ipersonnel. Introducing special
or shorter procedures for low cost housing w~uld probably necessitate addi-
tional staff. ?
Mr. Cilimberg said the suggestion to waive fees and local taxes was
introduced as part of the staff's first repo~ on the Albemarle County Model
Housing Project. The report states that, fo~ a $2,000,000 housing project for
30 units, only $14,000 of this cost would stekh~ from County taxes, fees and
permits. ~-
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been much discussion concerning the effect
of the County's growth management policy on ~he, cost of housing. It is noted
in the Comprehensive Plan that "land prices ~ave been influenced by the
County's growth management policy which cont~ols the extent and location of
development, thus limiting land available to {meet residential market demands
increasing the price of available land". HoWever, Mr. Cilimberg said, the
growth management policy is only one of the ~rket influences driving the
price of housing in the County. The beauty ~f the County, its high standard
of living and the quality of life enjoyed by flits residents also influence the
price of local housing. ~
Mr. Hurt addressed the Board and said t~at he serves on the Board of
Directors for both the Charlottesville HousinB Improvement Program and the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. He s~id that more homes in the County
could be renovated for low-income residents i~ the Board could urge the
Albemarle County Service Authority to reduce ~r waive its tap fees.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John to investigate how the Service Authority
could waive these fees. ~
Mr. Lindstrom referred to the chart comparing the salaries of the Coun-
ty's planning and engineering staff with thos~ of other localities. While the
salaries offered by the County may be competitive with those offered by other
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
246
localities, he said, the salaries offered by the County are not commanding.
He said he thinks the County has a good staff, but he is concerned that the
County cannot keep its personnel. He suggested that perhaps the salaries
should be more than just competitive, in order to keep outstanding personnel.
Mr. Bain agreed and said he thinks that continuity and a senior staff is
important.
Mr. Lindstrom said he also supports hiring a civil engineer to develop
the Engineering Design Manual recommended by the LURC report. He said he is
also interested in having an index of the local regulations developed as soon
as possible.
Agenda Item No. 21. Facilities Management Report.
At the request of the Board, Ms. Roxanne White said, a report had been
prepared as to the feasibility and/or cost benefit of combining the facility
management operations of the schools and general government. After analyzing
operations and associated costs, and consulting with other county governments,
staff found the follOwing:
The custodial and maintenance functions of the school division and
general government should not be combined. Management problems
inherent in combining two separate operations negate any minimal
cost savings or economy of scale.
Neither general government nor the School division has the technical
expertise to effectively and efficiently manage and operate increas-
ingly complex HVAC systems.
A facilities/mechanical engineer should be hired and placed under
the Engineering Department to provide technical expertise to the
schools and general government on }IVAC systems and computerized
energy management systems.
Staff Services should expand its responsibility and coordination of
the internal services of general government, i.e. radio and tele-
phone communication, fleet management, risk management.
Implementing the recommendations of this report will require an
additional appropriation of approximately $16,000.
Mrs. White said that General Government Should also consider contracting
school personnel for specific maintenance or .repair projects. Mr. Bain asked
if such projects could include major projects!~ such as the recently completed
consolidation of Meeting Room 12. Mrs. White said, "yes", and added that the
school maintenance have expertise in electrical work, plumbing and carpentry.
Mr. Perkins said the school maintenance personnel are so behind on their
own projects, the Schools Division is conside?ing hiring five new maintenance
employees. He said it may be less expensive for the School Division to
contract for outside help on these projects, rather than hire new employees.
Mr. Agnor agreed and said that some governments are having their maintenance
departments bid on projects. If an outside contractor can complete the
project more cheaply, the existing staff either continues to work on other
projects, or they are eliminated. Mr. Agnor ~aid he thinks that General
Government could solicit bids from the maintenance department of the School
Division, as well as from other contractors, ~nd then choose the cheapest bid.
If the School Division were burdened with a becklog of projects, then its
maintenance staff probably would not submit aiiibid.
Mr. Bain thanked Ms. White for the report, particularly for her emphasis
on cost effectiveness. He said he agrees wit~ the report's second recommenda-
tion and thinks that hiring a facilities/mechahical engineer would save the
County more than a third of the salary for thi~ position.
Mr. Way said he also appreciates the rep~Mt. He said he has been re-
questing this information for some time and is not surprised to find that
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
247
staff recommends hiring more people. Mr. Bain said it is understandable that
the County may need to hire people, considering the last building report
submitted to this Board by 'the Planning Department.
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, has asked him to
serve on the City's Drug Task Force as a liaison and coordinator of any County
involvement in the Task Force's deliberations.
Mr. Agnor said that he and Mr. Way met with Dr. Canterbury of the Health
Sciences Center, who is interested in making a grant proposal to a foundation
for a project called "Communities Fighting Back", a substance-abuse program.
According to Dr. Canterbury, the University and City support the idea. The
Health Sciences Center will apply for a planning grant of $100,000 to begin
work on a community-wide, substance abuse project. Mr. Agnor said that Dr.
Canterbury has asked him to write a letter supporting the grant application.
Mr. Agnor said he has recommended that Dr. Canterbury make a presentation to
the Joint Planning and Coordination Council.
Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has received an
application from Nimbus Records in Greene County asking that the Authority
accept 15,000 gallons per week of waste from~the company.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Authority would be reimbursed for accepting this
waste. Mr. Agnor said, "yes". Mr. Bowie asked if this waste is the same
substance that concerned the Board, when the possibility arose that Nimbus
Records might just discharge without treatment. Mr. Agnor said, "yes".
Mr. Bain asked when Mr. Agnor recommends that the Board hire the facili-
ties/mechanical engineer mentioned in the facilities management report. If
the Board supports the recommendations in the report, Mr. Agnor said, he will
suggest to Mr. Overstreet that the Schools division fund the $16,000 needed
over the $28,000 available for this position in the Staff Services budget.
Mr. Bain said he supports this suggestion.
Mr. Bain referred to the 1989 First Quarter Building Report prepared by
the Planning Department and noted that the nUmber of permits is approaching
that of 1983, a "boom" year for builders. He.thinks the Board should consider
the impact of this increase in building upon schools and services.
Mr. Bowie said the Building Committee has received eight bids for the old
school building located in Scottsville, none ~f which members of the Committee
felt were high enough to justify the sale of the building.
Mr. Bowie then moved that, according to the recommendation of staff and
the Building Committee, all the sealed bids be rejected and the property be
placed on the open market. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a draft of the zoning text amendments needed to
implement the changes to the Comprehensive Plan could be presented to the
Board sometime during October. Also during this time, he would like to
discuss the creation of an authority, such as ithe recreational facilities
authority, to facilitate accepting the easements that are a part of the
clustering provisions in the rural areas.
August 9, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn.
At 4:45, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
adjourn to September 6, 1989, at 3:30 P.M, Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
248
CHAIRMAN
August 16, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors scheduled for
August 16, 1989, was cancelled by vote of the Board taken on July 5,
1989.