Loading...
1989-04-26 adj517 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1 ) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 26, 1989, at 1:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from April 20, 1989. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain Jr., (arrived at 1:34 P.M.), Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 1:39 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 1:45 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Planner, John T. P. Home. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: 1989-90 County Budget. Mr. Agnor handed out and summarized a four page document re: Albemarle County Schools, FY 1989-90 Operating Budget (recap of all school funds) as follows: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND A. Instruction B. Administration, Attendance & Health C. Pupil Transportation D. Facilities Operation/ Maintenance E. Non-instructional Operations F. Facilities Construc- tion/Modification G. Other Uses of Funds ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOLS FY 1989-90 Operating Budget (recap of all school funds) BALANCED ADDITIONS REVISED BUDGET TO BUDGET BUDGET $34,868,203 $1,032,787 $35,900,990 1,618,703 8,438 1,627,141 3,507,284 563,958 4,071,242 3,827,956 21,700 3,849,656 0 0 0 TOTAL REGULAR SCHOOL FUND 92,708 365,000 457,708 0 0 0 $43,914,854 $1,991,883 $45,906,737 53_8 SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS FEDERAL PROGRAMS Chapter I Chapter II Migrant Education Misc. Grants $510,628 51,660 49,000 89,200 REGIONAL SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS C.B.I.P. Severe Program $419,823 E.C. Program 557~501 COMMUNITY EDUCATION SCHOOL FOOD SERVICES TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND McINTIRE TRUST FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND April 26, 1989 (Adjourned (Page $ 700,488 977,324 494,960 1,470,530 361,511 10,000 2,072,302 SCHOOL DIVISION TOTAL $52,019,825 ADDITIONAL FUNDING ALLOCATION Allocation of Additional $2,000,000: Offset adjustment to personnel recovery (Local Government share of costs) Increase appropriation to CA-TECH to reflect increase in local allocation to 6.14 percent ($29,380) Funding of system growth Note! The number of buses has been reduced from 12 to 10. The 10 buses will be comprised of seven regular 64-passenger buses and three transit style 78-passenger buses. This con- figuration will reduce the total outlay fo~ buses as well as their operating costs. Facilities Refurbishment: Only projects addressing instruction, safety or handicap accessibility are included. ~ Equipment Purchases: ~ This plan funds 90 percent of the individual schools request, 52 percent of instructional support requests, 50 percent of the Personhel Department's needs and 10 percent of Building Services requests (school-based custodial_ equipment only). No additional funds for Transportation are included. $ 8,117 24,595 1,458,565 60,000 448,723 $2,000,000 Mr. Agnor said that the above reflects the SchoOl Board's action fr( yesterday. Mr. Agnor then spoke concerning two memorandums he had sent to the regarding the budget. The first memorandum was dated March 29, 1989, an( second memorandum was dated April 19, 1989, as set out below, respective ard the April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 519 "If the Board approves additional funds for operations, the $292,000 requested for General Government would be recommended for allocation as follows: Employee Flexible Benefits Program Finance Department Clerk Fire/Rescue Coordinator Fire/Rescue AdditionalContributions Joint/Regional Agencies (Additional Funding) CVCDA $ 266 JABA 2,410 Region Ten 2,571 RSVP 200 Total $ 5,447 $ 16,500 18,150 30,000 34,100 5,447 Planning Department Planner Police Department Staff Total 30,000 157~800 $291,997 Employee Benefits Program is estimated to cost $100,000. Staff recommends funding it at one-half the'estimate, with one-third paid by General Government, and two-thirds by the School Division. Finance Department Clerk is work load related. Fire/Rescue Coordinator responds to the Perkin's report and the Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association request (JCFFA). Fire/Rescue contributions are calculated to provide $40,000 each to the seven fire companies (up from $36,060 this year); $28,000 to the Scottsville and Western Albemarle Rescue Squads (up from $18,756 this year); and $9,378 to the~Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad, as requested (same as this year). These amounts will provide a five and one-half percent base increase, plus one-third of the request to restore funding levels to average budget increases over the past three Fears, and to equalize fire and rescue contributions. Staff recommends that the Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association (J~FFA) provide a funding system for all fire and rescue squads!ifor FY 90-91 that will recognize need based upon actual cost~ and resources, and will identify the multi-jurisdictional service areas of some of the squads. Joint regional agencies will add fund~i to provide Central Virginia Child Development Agency (CVCDA), Jefferson Area Board of Aging (JABA), and Retired Senior Volunteer ~ogram (RSVP) with a four percent contribution increase, in lie~i of no increase. Region Ten would go from an eight percent increa~e to a ten percent increase with these funds, which is the equivalent increase being consid- ered by the City. Planning Department Planner is related to the Comprehensive Plan adoption and redistribution of work l~ad. Police Department staff will await the Police Chief's review, and allocation of resources. These funds ~ould provide approximately one-third of the currently estimated s%affing needs, and are recommended to be considered separate!~ from the proposed Public Safety $250,000 reserve. 52O Amount $157,800 35,500 24,000 18,150 11,046 16,500 10,500 6,000 34,100 30,000 57,000 38,524 2,410 270 200 $442,000 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESERVE FY 1989-90 Program Police Department Department of Planning Social Services Department of Finance County Executive's Office Employee Flexible Benefits Plan Leadership Training Clerk of Circuit Court Fire/Rescue Squad Operations Fire-Rescue Coordinator Library Region 10 Community Services Jefferson Area Boar.d on Aging Central Virginia Child Development Agency Retired Senior Volunteer Program "Based on the Board's approval of an additional $150,000 to general government operations, staff recommends the allocation of these funds as follows: Leadership Training - will provide intensive leadership training for department heads and other seni~ managers at the Center for Public Service. $ 10,500 Management Intern - will provide a management intern (20 hours week x 52), computer, software and deskifor the County Executive's Office to assist in budget preparation, manage- ment studies and special projects, i $ 11,046 Rebinding Record Book - will allow the Clerk df the Circuit Court to have all the old record books reboun~ in the next fiscal year, rather than half as originally r~commended. :~ $ 6,000 Automated File System - will replace inadequate and ineffi- cient filing system in the Department of Social Services with rotary file cabinets and a color coded numeridal filing system. $ 24,000 Jefferson Madison Regional Library - will provide 82 percent of the Library's funding request to be allocated as follows: General Operations - additional funding to cover increased costs of reclassification study, medical insurance, capital needs, etc. $25,000 b. Sunday hours at the Main Library. $10,000 c. Extended hours at Scottsville and Crozet. $12,000 do Scottsville Library painting and guttering. $10,000 $57,000 Region Ten - will provide the total ten percent local match requested by Region Ten. This will pull down iS359,540 in state money and will allow existing communityprograms to continue. . $ 35,954 Computer Networking - will allow the Planning lDepartment to transfer data and print files among various printers and microcomputers for more efficient report production. $ 5~500 TOTAL ALLOCATION $150,000 521 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Bowie asked what would be the recruitment source of the management intern referred to in Mr. Agnor's memo of April 19, and where would the intern be located. Mr. Agnor said the person would be a graduate student from the University. He said the intern would be located in the County Executive's office. Mr. Bowie asked if the County can ensure that the appropriation for specific items for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, such as extended hours at the Crozet Branch, is spent according to the request. Mr. Agnor said that can be stipulated in the actual appropriation. Mr. Bowie said he noticed that the SARA request is not included in Mr. Agnor's memo. Mr. Agnor said the proposed~allocation breakdown was prepared before SARA made its budget presentation last week. He said if the Board intends to fund that request, staff recommends that it be allocated from a contingency already in the budget in the amount of $9,208. This is a separate line item from the $100,000 contingency recommended by staff. Mr. Bowie said in comparing the two memos, it seems that Region Ten is listed for $35,954 in the April memo and $2,571 in the March memo. Mr. Agnor said his recommendation for allocation would be a combination of both of those for a total of $38,524. He pointed out that the combination of the two figures would entirely fund Region Ten's request. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 1:45 P.M.) Mr. Bain said his concern deals with the equipment and personnel involved in the operations of Fire and Rescue services. He said staff had provided him with figures in March which sh~wed the breakdown in the use of fire and rescue in terms of responding to a~cidents and fires. He said these were response breakdowns for all the 9olunteer stations: Medical Assistance Vehicle Accident Alarm Activation Structural Fires 16.2 percent 25.0 percent 11.0 percent 6.7 percent Mr. Bain said it is obvious from those~:figures that 50 percent of the response is not for fire calls. He said it seems there is a lot of duplica- tion of effort. In some cases he has heard :that three companies report to one accident. He feels the fire personnel ~hould respond to fires, and the rescue volunteers should respond to rescue calls. The rescue operations should be under one organization with satellite operations. He feels it would be more efficient; that is what he wo,ld like to see as a goal for rescue services. Duplication of responses ~eeds to be examined because each time a piece of equipment goes on the road, !it costs somebody a subStantial amount of money. · Mr. Bain asked if costs for the Emergency Medical Services training coordinator are included in these budget allocations. Mr. Agnor said he had not recommended funding for that position because of the changes taking place in fire and rescue operations. He said when the JCFFA report is completed and when the Fire and Rescue Coordinator position is operational, it might be appropriate at that time to con~ider the EMS training coordina- tor. Mr. Bain asked about the funds for a wdod chipper at the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Agnor said the cost was so great for th~s~i piece of equipment' that it has been moved to the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Bowie said the Solid Waste Task Force is just beginning to do it~ long range planning and may not recommend this purchase anyway. Regarding the handout on the operating ~'.ibudget for the School system, Mr. Bowie said last year there was criticis~ of the way the funds were allocated. He said he was highly pleased a6 the allocation this year, and since he made it clear last year that he di~ not like it, he felt he should make it clear this year that he does like i~. Mrs. Cooke asked what service level th~ funding for CA-TECH would enable that school to reach. Mr. Overstree~ said it would maintain the 522 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) current service level and allow replacement of some equipment. He said the difference would be a qualitative one within the programs, and no programs would be cut. Mrs. Cooke said that the quality of service was her main concern. Mr. Overstreet said the funding would not cover everything CA-TECH asked for, but in proportion to other County schools it was a fair alloca- tion. Mr. Bowie said he had heard there was an unexpended fund balance at CA-TECH that was available and not committed in this current budget. Mr. Overstreet said that is true. He said the problem is ~hat CA-TECH needs a certain amount of cash flow for operations over the summer, and they are reluctant to apply that to funding needs in the budget.~ He had discussed that with CA-TECH staff, and they have reduced the uneMpended fund balance considerably over previous years. Mr. Bowie said he could support all three memos, including the County Executive's comments on SARA. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the allocation of funds as proposed by the County Executive in his memos of March 29, 1989, and April 19, 1989, as set out above, in addition to the County Executive's recommendation to fund SARA in the of $5,662 using the amount set aside for the Contingency Account in the Board's office budget. Mr. Bain said he would support the motion. He woUld like to have seen a larger allocation for the Library, and hoped that a more thorough investi gation of the needs and expenditures would enable them ~o receive a larger allocation next year. He said if staff needs a Board m~mber to assist in looking at those needs, he would be glad to help. Mr. ~gnor said he would recommend that such a review be undertaken because he was shocked this year to see the request from the Library. There being no further discussion, roll was called'~!and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr6~, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said staff had learned that the cost of s~tting up a Fixed Asset Accounting System would be about $90,000 instead ef the $50,000 origi nally estimated. Staff, therefore, recommends dropping that project. Mr. Bowie said, as a member of the Audit Committee, he suppqrts the concept of the Fixed Asset Accounting System. However, because of ~the cost and because it appears this would make no material difference in th~ interest rate paid on bonds, he supports discontinuing the project. The consensus of the Board was to discontinue plansiifor a Fixed Asset Accounting System at this time. i Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. (Also present at this time was Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development.) Mr. Horne handed to the Board members a booklet containing all sug- gested changes to the Comprehensive Plan made during wor~ sessions. The full list includes word or sentence changes which do noti~require a full Board review in the opinion of staff. Mr. Lindstrom said one item not appearing on the li~t is a description of the Milton Village. Mr. Lindstrom said no~ only are ~here people present from the Milton area, but a lot of questions have been r~ised since this area was discussed. Mr. Home said staff had intended t~ include the Milton description. He said it is found on Pages 263A and Mr. Horne then summarized the items included for fu~il Board discussion. He said these include the potential effects of the University of Virginia enrollment changes and/or the University of Virginia Rea~ Estate Foundation changes; providing utilities in the villages; staff reco~mmendations for the 523 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) Worrell property on Route 250 East; description of the Rivanna River Greenway Corridor and possible CSX rail line abandonment; sections dealing with rural residential development; and the description of a growth area at Milton. Mr. Horne said staff hopes the Board will discuss the major items today and then the Board would have a week to read and absorb the smaller changes. He said a decision has to be mad9 soon as to what will be pre- sented for public hearing. Mr. Horne said the first two items in the index, found on Pages 11 and 20, deal with an explanation of County population and growth as it relates to the activities of the University of Virginia. Mr. Home said the numbers included in this section were generated over the last few months for the socio-economic data for the computer model~. Mr. Bowie said in both of these secti6ns, the "status of the Plan" report was mentioned. Mr. Home said it ip intended that at the end of each year a "Status of the Plan" report would b~ made. Mr. Bowie asked what triggers the report. Mr. Home said the w~rk program for the Planning calls for this report to be mad~ to the Board and the Planning Department Commission. There was no other discussion~regarding these two pages. Mr. Horne said the next set of three items in the index, found on Pages 193, 194 and 196, deals with utility provisions in the villages. Mr. Cilimberg said originally it was thought that the County might need to be more active in the provision of utilities, ~specifically during discussion of' the North Garden Village. He said it was ~etermined that the cost to provide utilities to North Garden would be?prohibitive. There was no ii~ . . . discussion then of changing to any degree ~hat the Planning Commlssmon had originally recommended for village utilities. He said there were some additions relating to village utilities on?Page 193. That section leads to the strategies on Page 194 in which No. 2 regarding particular villages. Mr. Cilimb, 5 is an important one r~lating to joint de~ private sector. He said a related item on that the regional master plan for water an~ nent plans for funding. There was no disc~ Mr. Cilimberg said the next items are ences to Urban Neighborhood 3. These relat the owner of the property located northwest Route 250 East interchange. Mr. Cilimberg the description of access to the high densJ 20 North and within the Elks Drive loop. has been changed to read: "Accesses to Drive/Route 20 North intersection .... "to recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg said the sixth recommen~ Worrell property on the frontage road at tl interchange. In designating that area at as made to be more open-ended rg pointed out that strategy No. 'elopment of utilities with the Page 196 is a strategy indicating sewer would include 'as a compo- .ssion regarding this section. found on Page 220 and are refer- .e specifically to the request by ~ and north of the 1-64/U. S. said there was some concern about ty residential area along Route ecommendation No. 3 on Page 220 te 20 North, south of the Elks clarify the intent of this ~tion on Page 220 refers to the e 1-64/U. S. Route 250 East ~dium density, as the Board decided to do, staff felt an appropriate c~ndition in the Plan was to buffer that medium density residential from adjac~ht low density residential areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the biggest item o~! discussion in Neighborhood 3 was the large area of office service designati~ addressed by recommendation No. 8. At the time of discussion, the owners w~re requesting either a large area of regional service designation from ~kate Farm Boulevard east to the 1-64/U. S. Route 250 East interchange, or t%at the office service guidelines in the Plan be changed to indicate allowanc~ for more commercial activity than was currently indicated. He said staf~ felt the office service designation and the definition were appropriate. Therefore, staff's recom- mendation as reflected in this revision, is~that the area which is sur- rounded on two sides by streams and which f~onts on U. S. Route 250 East be designated as a regional service area. That would allow for commercial development to the extent the request was made. The remaining area would continue to be office service designation. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that should the designation be shown that way, the Plan would encourage the deveioper to have strip commercial recommendatmon No. 4, which talks about development. Mr. Bowie asked how 524 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) preventing strip development by using development plans in the regional service and office service designations, ties in with recommendation No. 8 which requires development of the northwest quadrant to be developed as a consolidated planned development. Mr. Cilimberg said the key would be to develop the entire area through one plan so that the County would have control over the granting of access and development. Staff felt that the two recommendations together would accomplish that. He said close attentior would be paid to the access and lay-out of the development. Mr. Horne said this property is currently zoned for planned develop- ment/mixed commercial, but there is no approved development plan. He pointed out that even under current guidelines, the Board has approval authority over an application plan. There is no development that can take place until the Board approves an application plan. The focus of the application plan under that zoning and under these rec6mmendations would be access control, building orientation, consolidation ofservices, setbacks, and berming, etc. The combination of all those factor~ led staff to make recommendation No.8 instead of modifying the office designation definition. Mr. Bain asked if staff is aware of any plans regarding lighting, grade-separated interchanges, etc. when U. S. Route 255 East is upgraded. Mr. Horne said there are no grade-separated interchanges in the plans. There will be a stop light at State Farm Boulevard. H~ said the main focus for access control has been crossover locations. Across from the Worrell property there are three or four potential crossover sites which are the preferred sites for entrances. Mr. Lindstrom said for such a large piece of property it seems there should be a different definition. He is concerned abo~t that strip on the map because people tend to "fix" on a spot on the map. i~He said one of the keys to controlling development of this property is the~new legislation thai is available, which would not be applied to the Comprehensive Plan, but might be mentioned in it. It gives the Board enhanced !~uthority with respect to development on corridors into a city or app~daching historic properties. Mr. Bowie said the whole purpose is to ma~ the major roads more attractive. Right now, some of the County's major?roads range from "not too attractive" to "terrible", and Mr. Bowie said ~e does not want anymore of Route 250 East becoming like that Mr. Lindstrom said if an application is filed, wil~ it be possible to require that the service function be located somewhere ~ther than along the road. Mr. Horne said the office service designation wo~ld allow for secon- dary commercial services to the office area. The regional service should bE considered as an accommodation to commercial developmen~ and it could be completely unrelated to an office development. In thiSiicase, since it woul~ all be on the same property, staff would like to have a!!consolidated plan. For the commercial servicing the office area, staff wou~d anticipate an arterial orientation for the majority of the developmen~. Mr. Lindstrom said the developer did not want to have a disjointed development and wanted the commercial to serve the offide function and not be a traditional commercial area. Mr. Lindstrom said i~ would seem to be easier to encourage that if no specific area along the ~oad was designated as commercial service. He said an office service commercial designation ma be needed in the Plan and should be defined so that it ~llows the amount of regional service that the applicant has indicated a desire for and which appears reasonable for the size of the property, but is~ot indicated on a specific place on the map. That may give flexibility without leading the developer to believe that the designation will be in on~ particular place. He would feel better with that idea than with what the ~taff has proposed. Mr. Bowie agreed with the concept Mr. Lindstrom ha~ expressed, but wondered how it could be accomplished. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board's previous discussion involved Table 46 o~ Page 209, which limited the amount of commercial area under the office service designation to 20 acres. That was the objectioniby this property owner. He understands that staff does not want to amend~that Table for every office service in the County. He suggested an office regional service area, allowing the commercial component to be increased without having to 525 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) specify a location on the map. That designation would apply only to very large tracts. It would be shown as a separate column on Table 46 and a separate color on the map. Mr. Home said the two options discussed are whether it is best to make a specific reference to that property, or to make a specific new category. Of those two options, staff would recommend developing a new category. This might be the only tract of land that would come under that category at the preset time, but the designation would be available for other very.large tracts of land. Mr. Home said the minimum acreage for this category should be at least 100 acres. Mr. Lindstrom said~either one of those options would take care of his concern about pinpointing a particular activity on the map. From a visual and a developmental standpoint, it might be an advantage to the developer and the County to allow a mix of uses instead of segregating them. Mr. Lindstrom said he would prefer that staff draft another category that would amend Page 220, the land use map, and Table 46 on Page 209. Mr. Horne said the category would be a melding of regional and office services into one broad category. It would be worded to allow the Board and Planning commission to set the appropriate mix when.lan application is received. Mr. Lindstrom said there should be a statement in the category of what the maximum commercial use versus office use could be. He is concerned about turning this into a potentially huge regional service area. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a recommendation in the Plan for the development of urban street corridor plans.i~according to the new State legislation. He said staff could possiblyi.~add to the strategy in that section a reference to utilization of the ~nabling legislation to protect the corridors, ii Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the change previously requested by the Board in the last recommendation on Page 220 regarding the Rivanna River stating: "Retain open space areas in the Rivanna River flood plain .... " Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this first sentence also include a reference to retaining open space on steep slopes. Mr. Cilimberg referred to Pages 263A and 263B for a discussion of the description of the Village of Milton and th~ recommendations on same. Mr. Lindstrom said people are concerned that this village will be overdeveloped. Mr. Bowie said when this idea first came up~ for discussion, he did not like either a designation of village or community for this area. He said this description sounds innocuous, but he maintains that what is needed is a different designation which is not presentl~ in the Comprehensive Plan that would allow more rural residential development without being designated as a village. He talked to staff, and found out.!that the Planned Residential Development can be applied for in the rural~area. He said it does not matter what the description says, the potential to get out of hand is present because of public utilities. He wo~ld rather look at applications as they are submitted, instead of designating an area for growth. He said this area is being included in the Plan awfully fast, On the other hand, people cannot say this area is not growing ~esidentially, because it is doing exactly that. i~ Mr. Lindstrom said when the discussion!ilabout Milton Village first took place, he was not aware of the proximity of iiany outfall from a package treatment plant to the public water intake ~or Lake Monticello. He said he really has a concern about that over any ot~er issues. He would have a hard time approving a package treatment plant in i~that location. He still sup- ports the concept of a village designation ~n this area, but he cannot support a package plant. If there is not gqing to be a package plant and sewage would have to be pumped, that raises i~he question of cost as well as the capacity of the Moores Creek Plant. Mr~i! Bowie said he could not support this village in any way with public sewage going back to the Moores Creek Sewage Plant because that would open the arena up for development too much. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Bill Brent, fro~ the Albemarle County Service Authority, had prepared a report on the relgtive cost of a package plant versus a pumping station sending sewage bac~. to the Moores Greek plant. He said the package plant would have an initia~ cost of $1.15 million with an 526 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) operating cost of $146,000 per year. The pumping station would cost $2.5 million initially with operating costs equaling $39,200 per year. The cost of treatment at the Moores Creek plant would be $87,600 per year, for a total of approximately $127,000 per year with the pumping station. Mr. Cilimberg said the annual cost of the package treatment option locally was $222,636, including amortization of the capital cost at six percent for 40 years. The pumping station at the same rate would be $292,851. That would be about $70,000 more per year for the pumping station. Mr. Cilimberg said an important point is that, in addition to the cost difference, the value of lost capacity in the Moores Creek plant and the Rivanna interceptor weigh heavily in favor of the local treatment facility. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there would be the potential for a lot of other uses if a pumping facility were created, or could the facility be sized so that it would not allow an additional amount of development. Mr. Horne said the concept would be identical to the Crozet interceptor which was sized specif- ically so as not to allow development along its length. Even if there is a certain amount of theoretical excess capacity, the Board has absolute authority not to let people hook onto the interceptor. Mr. Lindstrom said the best authority is a facility that cannot be expanded. He said the problem on the Crozet interceptor was that the Board felt there would be pressure brought to bear from citizens who wanted to hodk up properties to that line, and eventually that pressure would get too g~eat to resist. Mr. Lindstrom said the best way to ensure limitati~6ns on the growth of this village is through its utilities. He would like tO get information about limiting the size of the package facility. Mr. B~wie said he is willing to wait for any information that is requested, iHowever, so many questions have been raised today that the information cannot be obtained in a week or in a month. He said he feels the Board may b~ jumping ahead too fast in creating this village. There are too many questions about this particular site to rush it through, especially since dlscussmon of Milton a village just began last month. ~ Mr. Bain said he wants to look at this area as a v~llage because Stony Point and North Garden both have problems with water ne~:ids and costs to supply water. Whether the area is designated a PRD or ~me other designa- tion, the alternative is uncontrolled development in th~ rural areas. Two reasons for looking at this as a village were to keep development out of watershed and to have some area east of Charlottesville~ifor development. said those are still viable reasons for considering thi~iI area as a village. On the other hand, he does recognize the costs involved!'~iin providing village services. ~,~, Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Home if his concern about ~,.~the outfall of a package treatment plant is a viable concern. Mr. Home.~!:said throughout the state there are a number of similar plants that meet th~, State Water Control Board standards. He said very stringent treatment requirements would be imposed by the State Water Control Board, and they would have to be met. Unless the Water Control Board's standards are wrong, then the assumption has to be that damage is not being done to a downstream use if the standard: are met by a public utility. There is always the dange~ of error anytime waste is discharged into a river. Staff's assumption is that the plant would be operated correctly, the standards of the Water ~Control Board would be met, and that Water Control Board standards are correct. Mr. Cilimberg said the report by the ACSA indicate~!i that the proposed wastewater treatment plant would be designed with the a~umption that certain treatment levels would have to be met to maintafh the water quality so as not to adversely affect the Lake Monticello intake[ He said it was also confirmed by the ACSA that the Carroll Creek location of the plant is just beyond the five mile requirement by the State from ~he intake. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board might ask that the Planning Commission review this proposed village in light of the additional ~nformation. There is no place in the County where a new village might be l~cated that would not result in substantial opposition, with the possible ~xception of the Hollymead community. The villages have not been absorbing the development they were hoped to because there is not sufficient utility infrastructure t~ make them attractive. Putting utilities at North Garden~!~would result in 527 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11)'~ geological problems; at Stony Point there was a problem with the roads; and Earlysville is cut off by the watershed. There is not likely to ever be infrastructure in those designated villages. Previous experience has indicated that if there is not a place provided for people to live, they will continue to locate in increasing numbers in the rural areas. Unless growth areas are designated, the rural areas in this County will be lost. Even though there is opposition, the Board has to be willing to "bite the bullet" at some point for the good of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Milton area meets most of the planning criteria, with the possible exception of the location of the treatment plant affecting the outfall. Otherwise he sees nothing objectionable anymore than other areas of Albemarle County would be objectionable to the neighbors there. The Milton area has one of the few decent transportation facilities in the County, is not in the watershed, can be readily served by utilities, is close to a large commercial area, and more importantly, is close to a large employment base which is going to get bigger. Mr. Lindstrom feels certain that more people will be living on small tracts outside growth areas and spread throughout the rural area in the Shadwell/Milton/Keswick area as that employment base develops, if the County does not provide some place for that growth to concentrate. He said there is a,~need to consider accommodating growth without using up farm after farm. ~e would like to review the proposed Milton Village later, but after P~anning Commission review. Mr. Perkins said he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom, but he did not want to hold up adopting the revised Comprehensivei!Plan for that review. He sug- gested that Milton be mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan as a possible area for development. Mr. Perkins said he did Got think the utilitiesare needed in this area because of the proximity of t~e Milton area to the C~ty, unlike the situation in Crozet. He understands t~e feelings of the people from that area because six weeks ago they had n~ver heard about such a village, and suddenly it is proposed to be included.lin the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Board has to look at the optiQns for giving people places to live other than the rural areas. Mr. Bowie asked why PRD designations cannot have something less dense. He said he would like to have the Planning iCommission consider that. He did not want to keep the work sessions going o~ address that question in the next review o: Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindst: refer the proposed Milton area designation for consideration and recommendation durin forever, but he would like to the Comprehensive Plan. om and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to back to the Planning Commission the next 90 days. Mr. Bowie asked what effect supportin~ this motion would have on the Comprehensive Plan. It was felt that the ~oard could continue working on the Plan without waiting for resolution of! Roll was called and the motion carrie~ AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. NAYS: Mr. Way. The Board recessed at 3:30 P.M. and r~ .the Milton Village question. by the following recorded vote: Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. convened at 3:43 P.M. with Mrs. Cooke taking the Chair in Mr. Way's absence. Mr. Lindstrom said he had seen refereqces to a master utilities plan in several places, and he wondered what is being done to draft that plan. Mr. Horne said the Comprehensive Plan calls fo~ a master utilities plan as a policy. Even though a considerable amount !of planning has been done by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), ~he Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), the University of Virgin{ia, and the City, this planning has not been completely coordinated with t~e County's land use planning. He said the County Planning Department would ~ct as facilitator to implement the plan. However, with current staffing ~nd other priorities, that would not happen anytime soon. ? Mr. Lindstrom asked if the current action plan would be discussed by the Board separately. Mr. Home said staf~ had gone through that with the Board, and there was little input. Mr. Li~dstrom asked if that action list 528 April 26, 1989~(Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) would come back before the Board after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted or would it just happen and the Board hear about it. Mr. Horne said it would be accomplished through departmental work programs. Most of the things on the action list would be initiated by the Planning Department. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board could get a priority listing of when the items on the action list are likely to happen within the next 50 years. Mr. Horne said the Planning staff could prepare that. Mr. Bowie said he would like to be sure that the action plans are not acted upon until the Board says act. However, it would be helpful to know what time frame is being considered. Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, said she wanted to inform the Board of information she had learned last week. She said there is proposed legisla- tion which would establish a statewide chlorine standard and policy and designate certain State waters as outstanding State resource waters. Among those are scenic rivers, particularly the Rivanna River from the James Rive~ to the Fluvanna County line. She said this legislation is aimed at the small package treatment plants. She thought it would be to the Board's advantage to consider the classification of the Rivanna~River as a scenic river in addition to the proximity to the Lake Monticello intake in the decision as to what kind of facility to provide for the Milton area. Mr. Cilimberg then directed the Board to Pages 27~' and 271 to review the changes in the rural areas. On Page 271, Strategy 2 refers to a ma lot size of six acres on development right lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the si) acre size works mathematically in figuring cluster lotS'i Mr. Bowie said he feels that even five acres is mdre than anyone needs He said this section is too complicated. Mr. HOrne said staff could bring back an explanation and show the Board how the mathemaCics works using six acres. Staff supports the smallest lot size possible, iiMr. Perkins suggested that a statement to the effect that the Count!y encourages the smallest lot size possible within health and safety re~lations might be included. He said people may read this as it is and f4~l they must have si acres when that is not the case. Mr. Cilimberg said that could be included. Mr. Lindstrom said he is confused because he thought the number of development rights could be determined without regard ~ the maximum or minimum lot size. He thought development rights were biased on five, two- acre lots and as many 21-acre lots as can be created af'~er applicable criteria had been applied. Mr. Horne said staff would i~ring back information on this question to the Board. ~ Mr. Cilimberg said the next change is on Page 271 ~here the open space residue lot size was changed from a minimum of 40 acres~!to 21 acres. Mr. Bowie said that is the part that is horribly complicate~. He said he does not agree with the phrase, "After utilizing the five development rights, .... " He said his understanding was that there would b~ an option to cluster, but there was no option to use the five development rights and the~ cluster. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows it is difficult f~r staff to word thi~ in such a way as to prevent someone from using five devplopment rights this year and clustering next year. He suggested that the p~inciple be stated here, and the details worked out in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowie said the simplest way was to determine how many lots could b~ clustered, and everything else would have to be open space. Mr. Cilim~erg said there has to be some basis for determining the number of small lo~s earned above the initial five development right lots. Those are based o~ 21-acre increments. The residue acreage has to be divided by 21 to determin~ how many small lots can be developed. ~ It was decided to discuss this further next week a~ter the Board has a chance to read the new language. 'ii Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the General Standards for rural develop- ment beginning ~ on Page 271 were developed by staff to r~.~gulate the way lots are clustered. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the landowner is ~ctually one of the parties holding the perpetual easement as stated in No. i2 on Page 272. Mr. Cilimberg said there are three parties in the agreement,~ but there would be April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) 529 only two who actually hold the easement. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the reference to the landowner be deleted. Mr. Bowie said that using the best topographical map available might not be the best way to determine additional small lots under No. 3. He suggested that the standard should say that staff would make a determination by some means, whether it be a field visit or a map. Mr. Lindstrom said the language should allow staff to require whatever information they need, within reason, including a field survey. He did not think staff should limit itself to the "best available topographical map". Mr. Bowie said he thoUght the clustering option was supposed to make development easier in exchange for settingaside more open space because the special use permit process was risky, time: consuming and expensive. Mr. Horne said the only time a special permit would be required is if the development exceeds 20 lots. Currently, a special use permit is required for any clustered development. On Page 290, Mr. Bowie asked who would actually be doing the evaluation of the County's financial condition as stated in the first recommendation. Mr. Horne said it would not be done by the Planning Department. Mr. Bowie said it should be stated which department would do it in order to make sure it gets done. Mr. Perkins asked for clarification on the Lickinghole Creek Sedimenta- tion basin. He thought the location of the dam would be determined by June. Mr. Horne said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has taken over control of that project and will be engaging engineering consulting services to accomplish it. He had the impression the process had not even started. Mr. Agnor said he thought a consultant had bee~ hired. Mr. Perkins said it seems that the request to add to the growth area at this location could be acted on by the Board because it is certain to be in that drainage area. Mr. Bain said he agrees with Mr. Perkins that this request could be acted on by the Board. M~. Perkins said there is an interest in development in this area, and each house built in this growth area is one that will not be built in the ~ural areas. There was no further discussion of th~ Comprehensive Plan on this date. Agenda Item No. 4. Approval of Minutes: May 18, June i(A), June 8, June 15, June 29, July 6(A) and November 3~, 1988; February 27 and March i(A), 1989. i~ Mr. Bain had read the minutes of June~l(A), 1988; June 8, 1988, pages 31 (beginning with Item 12) - end; Novembe~ 30, 1988; and February 27, 1989, and found them all to be in order. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of Ju~e 29, 1988; and July 6(A) 1988, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of June 15, 1988, pages 1-5, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of June 15, 1988, pages 16 end, and made the following minute book corrections:'! Page 16, paragraph 3, the Fiscal Agent Funds amount should be $67,733~; Page 16, paragraph 5, the last sentence should read: "He is just disappointed in where the reductions were made." Mr. Bowie had also read the minutesi of March i(A), 1989, and made the following minute book correction: Pag~ 5, the last paragraph, fourth sentence should read: "The second would bel to allow clustering of all lots based on the 21-acre rights. All additiona~ space would have to be dedi- cated to open space." Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes as read and corrected. Roll wa~ called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ 530 April 26, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn to April 27, 1989, at~4:30 P.M. At 4:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to April 27, 1989, at 4:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. CHAIRMAN