The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-02-09February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 9, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Woody Baker, a member of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, requested the Board’s help with the County’s Burn Policy. He read a position statement the Farm Bureau recently adopted suggesting that the County exempt farmers from the $125 permit fee charged to burn brush, and he noted excerpts from the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee’s work which was presented in 1993. The Farm Bureau’s statement pointed out that farmers must clean up debris and blow down to maintain their properties, and suggested that farmers have a right to maintain their properties without having to pay a fee for the privilege to burn. (See Albemarle County Farm Bureau Position Statement relating to the County Burn Policy, received by the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on February 9, 2000.) Mr. Baker next said it is his understanding that the Board of Supervisors adopted state regulations related to burning about a year and a half ago which enabled the County to establish fees for burning. He recalled that approximately six months ago, Mr. Perkins asked that farmers be exempted from fees, but his request was defeated by the other Supervisors. At that meeting there was no input from the agricultural community. However, since that meeting, the Farm Bureau has talked to the dissenting members of the Board and hope one of them will re-introduce fee exemption for farmers at a future meeting where farmers can be properly represented. There is a huge ground swell of opposition to the existing policy, and he asked for some relief and representation for farmers. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is anything in the law requiring equity as far as different types of users of permits are concerned. Mr. Davis responded that there has to be a rational basis for the difference. He said when this was brought up previously the fire and rescue division prepared a report that provided a great deal of analysis on this matter. He stated that perhaps this report can be brought back to the Board. Mr. Martin agreed that the report would be very helpful, and he asked that the report be listed as an item for the March day meeting. Mr. Perkins stated that the Farm Bureau would rather have this issue brought up at a night meeting, so farmers will be able to attend. Mr. Tucker said the staff will inform Mr. Baker of the date of the meeting. Ms. Thomas commented that at the time this was mentioned, she did not know about the Farm Bureau’s stand. She had been at the Bureau’s meeting, but the statement was not on the printed page she received. However, she thinks the Bureau has presented the Board with a good policy, and she would like to reconsider it. Next, Ms. Sara Lee Barnes, a resident of the Keswick area, discussed the serious potential water problem in her neighborhood. This is an issue that should be of concern to Albemarle County. She next read a statement noting a proposal by the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative to build a power plant in Louisa County approximately 500 yards from the Albemarle County line off of Route 231 on Klockner Road. Her statement indicated that she has become increasingly concerned about the issue of water consumption for this power plant, since the Southwest Mountains are not noted for an abundance of water. She asked the Board’s help in determining the ramifications of this power plant on the life and livelihood of the people who live along Routes 22 and 231. (See statement to the Members of the Board of Supervisors, received by the Clerk on February 9, 2000 from Sara Lee Barnes. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board of Supervisors are normally notified if anything is being done that relates to utilities. Mr. Davis commented that this project would be regulated by the State Corporation Commission, but the County may have been notified as a land use matter. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff talked to Pete Bradshaw, the Planning Director in Louisa County, about this situation. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that perhaps the Board should have some follow-up by David Hirschman on this matter. Ms. Thomas remarked that she saw Mr. Bradshaw at a meeting, and she mentioned this issue to him. She said he indicated that he would personally welcome any input from Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he would ask Mr. Hirschman to contact Mr. Bradshaw. February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Ms. Thomas commented that it appears Louisa County officials are asking for information, and there should be some way Albemarle County can help. She said it seems to be uncertain as far as where the water will come from at this time, but if wells are included as a list of possibilities, then Albemarle County officials need to know more about the origin of the water. Mr. Tucker indicated that he would give the Board a report on Mr. Hirschman’s determinations. Ms. Barnes will then be informed as far as what this Board can do to help with the situation. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3 and to accept the remaining items as information on the consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. _______________ Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education, $5,475 (Form #99054). The executive summary states that Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $2,475.00. These donations will be used to purchase data processing supplies, instructional materials, books and subscriptions and staff development for the school. · Cale Elementary School received a donation of $1,000.00 from Marie Riordan. This donation th will be used to purchase a computer for the 5 grade class. · Burley Middle School received a donation of $500.00 from Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. This donation will be used to purchase materials for the gifted program at Burley. · Walton Middle School received a donation of $500.00 from J.W.K. Properties, Inc. This donation will be used for instructional materials for the school. · Monticello High School received a donation of $500.00 from Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. This donation will be used to purchase instructional materials for the school. · Red Hill Elementary school received a donation of $500.00 from the State Farm Good Neighbor Grant Program. This donation will be used to purchase instructional materials for the school. Staff recommends approval of the appropriations totaling $5,475.00 at detailed on Appropriation #99054. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER: 99054 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PER SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST TO EXPEND DONATIONS RECEIVED EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2215 61411 580500 MurrayStaff Development$ 250.00 1 2215 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions 350.00 1 2215 61101 601300Inst. Supplies 150.00 1 2215 61101 601600Data Processing Supplies 1,725.00 1 2214 61101 800700 CaleADP-Equipment 1,000.00 1 2251 61104 601300 BurleyInst. Supplies 500.00 1 2254 61101 601300 WaltonInst. Supplies 500.00 1 2304 61101 601300 Monticello Inst. Supplies 500.00 1 2207 61101 601300 Red HillInst. Supplies 500.00 TOTAL $5,475.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $2,475.00 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $1,000.00 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $ 500.00 February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $ 500.00 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $ 500.00 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $ 500.00 TOTAL $5,475.00 Mr. Martin said he noticed that Humagen Fertility Diagnostic donated $500 to Burley Middle School and $500 to Monticello High School. He asked if someone could familiarize him with the organization. Mr. Tucker replied that he does not know anything about the group, because the money was given to the school system. Ms. Thomas stated that she talked to a PTO that was totally unaware of the gifts of money this Board approves almost every meeting for the schools. The PTO suggested that such gifts be made more publicly known, partly to thank these people, but also to present the feeling that this is a normal occurrence in the community. She commented that it may be that others would participate in giving gifts if they knew about it. She has mentioned this to Lee Catlin, and she is trying to think of a way this idea can best be brought forward. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the school system should be responsible for publicizing these gifts to the public, since they receive most of them. He suggested that the school system could put notice of the gifts on its website and in its monthly newsletter. He said perhaps Ms. Catlin can think of other things that can be done. Mr. Martin stated that the Supervisors may not know it, but the school system could already be doing some of these things. Ms. Thomas responded that the people to whom she referred are very informed parents on school related matters, and they had never heard of any of these gifts, so there is a gap in communication somewhere. _______________ Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Criminal Records Systems Improvement Grant 00-A3557, $12,200 (Form #99055). This grant project request centers on replacing and upgrading the Police LAN Server for the Police Department. The funding requested is for equipment. Installation will be handled by County Information Services personnel. The current server is almost five years old and is unable to process photographs. It needs to be upgraded. The equipment will be funded by a $9,150.00 federal grant and local match of $3,050.00. The local match will be funded from current operations and does not require additional funds. Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99055 in the amount of $12,200.00. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER: 99055 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1526 31012 800701DATA PROCESSING EQUIP $12,200.00 TOTAL $12,200.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1526 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT $ 9,150.00 2 1526 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND 3,050.00 TOTAL $12,200.00 _______________ Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Analysis of Criminal History Records Information Systems Grant 00- A3556, $16,000 (Form #99056). This grant project requests professional assistance to examine the Police Department record- keeping systems and to develop measures to significantly streamline and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the network. The study will be funded by a $12,000.00 federal grant and local match of $4,000.00. The local match will be funded from current operations and does not require additional funds. February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99056 in the amount of $16,000.00. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER: 99056 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS INFORMATION SYSTEM EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1527 31012 312701DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANTS$16,000.00 TOTAL $16,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1527 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT $12,000.00 2 1527 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND 4,000.00 TOTAL $16,000.00 _______________ Item No. 5.4. 1999 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. The report states that during the fourth quarter of 1999, 147 permits were issued for 147 dwelling units. In addition, one permit was issued for a mobile home in an existing park at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. _______________ Item No. 5.5. 1999 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development. The report states that during the year 1999, 770 permits were issued for 770 dwelling units. In addition, 17 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $42,500. _______________ Item No. 5.6. Preliminary Report on Expanded Hunting Enforcement Program – Year 1900/2000, was received for information. The executive summary states that this year for the second straight year the Board authorized additional county resources to supplement the effort of game wardens to address illegal hunting during the deer hunting season in response to citizen concern. The Albemarle County Sheriffs Department provided specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to heighten law enforcement visibility in the field, speed the response of officers to calls and respond to routine calls for service so that game wardens and police officers could concentrate their efforts on responding to more serious hunting-related incidents. Preliminary statistics gathered from the police and sheriff departments and from the game wardens during the 1999/00 season indicate that efforts to increase contact and visibility as well as actual enforcement actions were successful. When final statistics are available from the three agencies, a detailed report will be presented to the Board. The Sheriff’s Department provided specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to meet the enforcement goals stated above. These deputies received five sessions of training encompassing traffic stops, radio communications, reporting, fire arms, officer survival and field training to prepare them for this effort. The deputies worked according to a calendar of special enforcement details that allowed them to concentrate manpower during the times of highest demand, specifically weekends and holidays. In addition, the Police Department’s Community Policing Division conducted 11 special details focusing on illegal hunting. While a strong emphasis was placed on locating and arresting violators, the program also emphasized preventing illegal hunting through education, outreach and continued visibility and contact with the hunting population. During the season, the Sheriff’s deputies responded to 111 calls for service (compared to 86 calls last year), checked nearly 220 hunters for compliance with game laws (compared to 200 last year) and made almost 600 contacts with the public. Deputies also issued 30 summonses while on special detail, including hunting without a license, no blaze orange, transporting a loaded firearm, and various traffic- related charges. The bulk of the calls of service were for illegal hunting on posted land, road hunting, spotlighting, shots fired and trespassing. Police officers on special assignment from the Community Policing Division made 17 hunting arrests during 11 operations for charges including spotlighting, failing to tag deer, and various drug-related offenses. This combination of local law enforcement activity freed up state game wardens to place at least 80 hunting-related charges (compared to 63 last year) for offenses including trespassing, illegal firearm transport, blaze orange, and spotlighting. Final statistics are still being compiled by the Game and Inland February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Fisheries Department. No action is required by the Board regarding this item. (Ms. Thomas remarked that she appreciated receiving this memo. She noted that there is no action required of this Board at this time, but she hopes everybody is ready to answer the types of questions that citizens asked last year. Mr. Tucker answered that he believes everybody is prepared for these questions.) _______________ Item No. 5.7. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, was received for information. The 1998/99 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County’s external auditors. Certificate of Excellence This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last four years and is coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six months. General Fund The General Fund balance of $16,729,162 increased during FY 1998/99 by $1,854,405, resulting from a combination of revenues in excess of budget and expenditures being less than budget. The current FY 1999/2000 appropriations anticipate using $1,517,303 of this amount. School Fund Due to reporting requirements that require that school activities be shown as a component unit of local government, it is very difficult to compare the audit amounts to our actual records. A number of Federal Programs and what we consider self-sustaining activities are combined in the audit for reporting purposes. The fund balance for what we consider the School Fund increased by $1,464 in FY 98/99. Fund Balances The Combined Balance Sheet on pages 4 and 5 in the Financial Section details the assets, liabilities, and fund balances for various funds as of June 30, 1999. The schedule below is intended to reconcile these funds balances to those used in the monthly reports presented to you. Fund Balances General FundCapital - GeneralSchool FundCapital – School Per Audit 06/30/1999$ 18,122,595$ 6,336,763$ 161,664,746$ 0 Fixed Assets 151,692,133) Debt Service (1,644,600) Jail Reserve Fund (300,000) Capital Projects (3,453,973) 3,453,973 Fire Service Fund (2,000,000) Cafeteria Fund (763,396) Storm Water Fund (763,707) Combined Funds (654,253) Inventory (28,878) (227,176) Sales Tax Reserve (862,055) (630,428) Prep Advance (688,677) Reserves – VDOT (500,000) Reserves – Waldorf (2,500) Adjusted Balance$ 16,729,162$ 3,273,056$ 1,910,110$ 3,453,973 Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 1998/99 annual report and for a better understanding of the County’s financial status that you review the letter of transmittal included in the Introduction Section and the Notes on pages 13 – 48 of the Financial Section. _______________ Item No. 5.8. Memorandum dated February 3, 2000 from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, to members of the Board of Supervisors, regarding support of TransDominion Express, was received for information. (The following two items were held simultaneously.) Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-99-14. Hydraulic Dental Center (Sign #58). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 1.23 acs from R-4 to R-10 to allow construction of professional offices. TM 61, Ps 36 & 36A1. Located on Hydraulic Road (Rt 743) across from Albemarle High School. (The Comp Plan designates this property as urban density, recommended for 6.01-34 du/ac in Development Area 1.). Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 24 and January 31, 2000.) ________________ Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-67. Hydraulic Dental Center (Sign #62). PUBLIC HEARING on a February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) request to allow construction of professional offices in accord w/Sec 18.17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, Ps 36 & 36A1. Property contains 1.23 acs, and is located Hydraulic Road (Rt 743) across from Albemarle HS. Znd R-4. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 24 and January 31, 2000.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report for ZMA-99-14 relating to the Hydraulic Dental Center. The request is for the rezoning of approximately one and one-quarter acres from the current R-4 to R-10. He distributed copies of the actual proffer form offered by the applicant, and he pointed out that SP-99-67 is associated to allow for professional offices. The proposal is to have in new construction, and in an existing house on the property, approximately 12,500 square feet of professional offices. The applicant is requesting R-10 zoning because the R-4 zoning category does not permit professional offices. The commercial zoning category is not being requested because the proximity of the existing house to the property line would not meet the setback requirements of a CO district. The applicant would like the option to retain the house with the development of site. The proffer states that should the property not develop according to the special use permit for professional offices then the rights to develop the property shall revert to R-4 which is permitted in the current zoning district. The property is located on Hydraulic Road across from Albemarle High School in an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for urban density residential use. There are existing medical offices to the north and town houses and single family detached homes to the south and east of the site. As proposed, the site would be integrated into the adjacent office site, and office use is considered an appropriate transitional use adjacent to residential areas in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan will incorporate an existing house into the new dental office by constructing a 4,000 square foot addition to the existing house. He pointed out that the second building is 5,000 square feet with 2,500 square feet on each level. It will be closer to Hydraulic Road and will be roughly in line with the existing adjacent structure. The property has limited sight distance along Hydraulic Road, and because of that and the fact that the owner to the south on Hydraulic Road has not been cooperative in providing an easement for sight distance, this proposal would provide alternative access through the existing adjacent office complex. The applicant will also improve the sight distance at the existing Hydraulic Road entrance to the office complex. He emphasized that staff recommends approval of both the zoning map amendment and the special use permit and offered eight conditions for the special use permit, as well as accepting the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, in its review of this matter last week, was concerned with the intensity of the development and the relationship of that intensity to the adjacent office development. The Commission members were also concerned about the consistency of design between this site and the adjacent offices. They worried, too, about grading and the loss of significant trees due to intensity of development. For that reason the Commissioners recommended twelve conditions for the special use permit rather than the eight originally offered by staff. In addition, the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with acceptance of the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg noted that one of the substantive changes in the conditions was to reduce the amount of square footage allowed to 9,000 square feet. Originally, 14,000 square feet were being considered although the applicant has now indicated a need for 12,500 square feet. Mr. Cilimberg then called attention to an analysis which Ms. Thomas received. He has made copies of it and has distributed it to the other Board members. The analysis indicates the comparison of square foot coverage in building and parking for the subject site and the adjacent sites to the north. The area in building and parking, which is basically shown as impervious cover, is at a greater percentage than the area on the adjacent site where there is one office building and two parking areas, and it is at a greater percentage than over the entire office area to the north. He noted that within the office space to the north a couple of areas that are not developed have been included in the analysis. The area behind the parking spaces, which is actually a gravel lot that has been determined to be illegal and is not being used now, is not included in the analysis. However, there is a house that is being used as an office with a small parking area that is included, but it includes an area of woods around it which was purposeful because the original owner wanted it this way. He said because these are sealed properties a comparison cannot be made, and it is not known whether these properties could have additional office development on them, so their intensity today is less than what is on this site. There is always the possibility under CO zoning without restriction, other than site plan ordinance requirements, that they could submit a request for additional office development in the areas not currently developed. This means the percentage of cover in this area could increase. Mr. Bowerman inquired about the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for gravel parking lots. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this area includes the recommendation for commercial office use. He pointed out an area that is a community service designation, but an office service designation goes with it. If the area actually being developed is compared to the immediate developed areas it is rather similar, but if areas that have not been developed are considered, there is a much lesser intensity on these sites than on the site in question. This was one of the concerns of the Planning Commission in recommending a lower square footage for the buildings. There are other conditions the Commission recommended such as having the parking along Hydraulic Road moved back from Hydraulic Road to a distance equivalent to the parking in the adjacent development. This is because of the grade requirements for the cut slope along Hydraulic Road, since it could not be closer without a retaining wall. However, he is unsure if the parking lot could be as close to Hydraulic Road as is shown once development occurs. He commented that he noticed on site that the elevation on this part of the development is going to have to be raised to get an allowable grade of road into the parking area. Mr. Bowerman asked if the allowable grade of road is two and one-half percent. Mr. Cilimberg February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) answered that there can be as much as ten percent grade on the travel way between parking areas. Mr. Bowerman then inquired about the grade for a parking area. Mr. Cilimberg replied that parking areas can have a five percent grade. He reiterated that there will be an increase necessary in the elevation which will require the parking area to be set back some distance from Hydraulic Road unless a retaining wall is constructed. This is something that could be a result of the ultimate development, but it will not be known until the site plan is submitted. Mr. Cilimberg then mentioned the concern about loss of trees since there are a number of older hardwoods on the site. He said a lot of the existing trees will have to be taken out because grading will have to be done for the parking area and the new building. However, there is an opportunity to save trees toward the back of the property where the house is located, since this area will probably not have to be disturbed for the development. He then pointed out the area where the Oak Forest homes are located. He said residents there have expressed concern about the parking area, and he noted the location of the lots and houses in Oak Forest. He said one of the conditions for development of the site will be fencing on the back side of the development between the offices and the homes. Mr. Dorrier asked for an explanation of the percentage differences shown for building and parking in Areas A, B and C. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out Area A which is the subject site for the rezoning and special use permit. He said Area B is the property next door where the one office building and two parking areas exist. He added that Area C involves everything to the north, including the area in question. Mr. Dorrier called attention to the plan where it shows 144 percent building and parking density difference from Areas A to C, and he wondered if it means that Area A’s building density is 144 percent of Area C’s building density. He also asked if the 211 percent between Areas A and B means that A’s building density is twice as great as C’s. He wondered, too, if Area C includes B’s and C’s density. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively to all Mr. Dorrier’s questions. Mr. Dorrier then mentioned the 149 percent parking difference between Areas A and C, and he wondered if this means that Area A’s parking is denser than Area C. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it means Area A’s parking is 149 percent more dense than Area C. Ms. Thomas inquired if there is a fence currently along the back of the Oak Forest homes. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out an area where privacy fencing is located. Mr. Bowerman asked if the elevation would slope up and then down if a cross section was done from Hydraulic Road through the road in Oak Forest. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. He noted that the high point of the property is where the house is located. Mr. Bowerman then inquired if Hydraulic Road is at a ground level zero elevation. Mr. Bowerman answered, “yes.” He said Hydraulic Road is at an elevation below the site in question because there is some cut at Hydraulic Road. The elevation rises up, and the knoll where the house is located, as well as the big trees behind the house, are at the highest elevation. The elevation then drops down into Oak Forest, and the homes are at a lower elevation. The street level in Oak Forest may actually be lower than the street level at Hydraulic Road. Mr. Bowerman commented that he never actually walked the property, but he knew there was a ridge there. Mr. Cilimberg noted the location of the ridge for Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that the Planning Commission had included twelve conditions with the special use permit, but the staff only recommended eight. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this is correct. He explained that the twelve conditions from the Planning Commission are shown in the action letter as well as the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was held last Tuesday, so the minutes have not yet been approved, but they are fairly accurate. Mr. Martin stated that the applicant would be given a chance to speak at this time. He next reminded the speakers of the rules of the public hearing. He explained that the applicant will have up to ten minutes at the beginning of the presentation to make remarks, and each member of the public who would like to speak, will have three minutes to do so. He explained that the applicant will have five minutes at the end of the public hearing for any type of statement or rebuttal. Mr. Michael Matthews, of Matthews Development Company, stated that his company is based in Albemarle County, and he is also a County resident. He is speaking on behalf of the applicants, Drs. Scott Knierim and Thomas Kangur, and both are present at this meeting. He mentioned that Mr. Leonard S. Mailoux, the property owner, is also present. He noted that detailed information from the Planning Commission has been given to the Board members, and they have had a chance to review it. He said Drs. Knierim and Kangur have been practicing next door to this property for many years, and they are out of space. Two other dentists in the same office building are also out of space, and next door is the solution for both groups of dentists. The 1.23 acres is essentially undeveloped currently, and it will accommodate the needs of Drs. Kangur and Knierim and will free up space in the existing building for the other dentists. This solves both problems and keeps the dentists at the same site in the County. He commented that the complexity comes from the various administrative and legal requirements in the ZMA and special use permit. He added that he has spent a great deal of time working this out with staff, and he does not want it to appear the applicant is hiding behind residential zoning. This is not what is happening. He stated that a special use permit in a residential zone is far more restrictive than a blanket commercial zoning. There is also the complication of a house which has a corner sticking over a setback in commercial zoning, and it seemed as though this was the best way to go for the County. He noted that the applicants would have been happy to adhere with the other zoning, but this seemed to provide the County the most protection. He called attention to the applicants’ condition that they will adhere to all of the commercial February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) setbacks, so although it is residential zoning, it will become a Commercial Office zone, and this has been assured through the proffers. He referred to Mr. Cilimberg’s remarks that should they not develop according to the special use permit, the land is effectively not in a rezoned category. This allays the fear that if the applicants do not do what they say, another person could do something else. He mentioned that the Commission added some conditions that he needs to discuss because the applicants have difficulty with two of them. The square footage reduction gives the applicants basically the same situation they have now. They do not have enough space where they are currently located, and it would be foolish to move and not have enough space again. He then asked that Condition #7 be modified to the original request of 14,000 feet. In the Commission meeting, a question was asked of him about the minimum square footage requirement of the applicants. He said he responded that 12,500 square feet plus or minus is shown on the plan. He stated that one of the Commissioners informed him that the applicants could have 9,000 square feet. Mr. Matthews emphasized that this is too small, and if there is not some relief from this condition, they will be unable to proceed with the transaction. Mr. Matthews next called attention to Condition #12 regarding the setback from Hydraulic Road. The adjacent parcel, which is a separate parcel entirely, is set back significantly from Hydraulic Road. This is because there is a cliff in the front yard 15 or 20 feet in the air, so there cannot be a building any closer to Hydraulic Road. The applicants do not have this constraint, so they request that they be held to the standard of CO zoning. They will adhere to all the setbacks and will develop the property according to the densities and the normal practices of that zone. He noted that he did not have the benefit of seeing the density map, but a couple of points need to be made. He said as a developer he tends to look at any commercial property under a low rise development scenario as supporting approximately 1,000 square feet an acre. This is the base line most developers consider. It is worth pointing out that the adjacent dental offices have another building area behind their site, which is the illegal gravel lot. He commented that he has seen site plans for buildings there, but they have never been built, because parking is more important to the dentists currently. They will be submitting a site plan to rectify the situation and to build a parking lot, so the density shown is irrelevant because the property is not at its full development potential. This is a tiny site, and the proposal is to develop it to its full potential under the zone that is effectively being applied to it. According to his figures and conversations with staff, the other three dental offices as well as the Republic Center are close to 70 to 80 percent of coverage based on their site. He stated that it is not appropriate to mix a house with woods surrounding it, as well as the back of an undeveloped site, so he would like to have this site viewed in the same context as the other sites. The applicants are not making excuses or trying to hide the fact that they are developing their sites to full density because that is what is necessary for the dentists to practice. The site is in the growth area, it is an infill parcel, its proposed use is exactly the same as the use next to it, and the density being proposed is the standard density for CO property. He pointed out that the neighbors favor the project, and he has met with all of them. He then submitted some petitions signed by every one of the owners of the adjacent professional dental offices. He also mentioned that he has a letter of support from the neighbor of the largest common boundary behind the site in Oak Forest, as well as a letter that was the result of a meeting he had with the Old Oak Court Association, who are adjacent property owners. The applicants made a lot of promises to the neighbors, and they are in writing. He remarked that there are also some neighbors present who might want to speak to the application. He said staff supports the application, and he asked for the Board’s support with the changes to the conditions he outlined earlier. He next asked Dr. Kangur to speak to the Board from his perspective as a dentist, and the person who will be occupying the site, as to why this application should be approved. Dr. Thomas Kangur stated that he has been practicing oral surgery across from Albemarle High School for 24 years, and he requested the Board’s assistance so he and his associate will be permitted to continue practicing in this location in the future. This area has already become a center for dental services with 16 separate dental offices in the area, if the three dental offices are counted in Sachen Village. He added that he and Dr. Knierim have outgrown their space and would like to build new offices adjacent to their current location and still keep their location where it is presently. The property with the rezoning request has been shown to be unsuitable for residential development due to access problems off of Hydraulic Road, and it would be an ideal extension of the existing dental complex where it is currently located. The adjacent residential and professional neighbors have supported their plans and prefer the dental office to any alternative types of development. He noted that the Planning staff has also supported the request and have noted that the request for a 12,500 square feet development is within County Code requirements. He then explained why this amount of square footage is so important rather than the 9000 square feet. He said he currently has 2,000 square feet of office space, and he has to rent storage space in an adjacent building. He stated that Dr. Knierim has 1,000 square feet of office space, and both offices are severly handicapped due to inadequate space for treatment as well as for storage. He commented that his plan is to build a 4,000 square foot office that would take care of patient treatment areas and retain the existing residential residence which is approximately 3,000 square feet for the use of storing patient records, supplies, equipment, library space, private office space and a business office. He said Dr. Knierim needs 2,500 square feet for patient treatment and would use the basement level for storage also. When these numbers are added together, they total the 12,000 square feet that is being requested. If the space is restricted to 9,000 square feet of office space, the same amount of parking will still be needed, and the building’s footprint and site plan would change only minimally. He said parking is based on the number of patients being treated rather than the total square foot area. The only effect the limit of 9,000 square feet would have is to ensure inadequate useful space. He emphasized that it would not make sense for him to go from cramped quarters to a new space that would be outgrown in a short period of time. He said it would be like building a house without closets, attic or garage. February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bowerman noted that Dr. Kangur did some oral surgery for him very professionally. There were no questions for Mr. Matthews nor Dr. Kangur from Board members. Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing. Mr. Duane Jones, an Oak Forest resident, stated that his home backs up to the gravel lot which has been referred to by the applicant. He is in support of this commercial development if the developer, as he has promised, will correct the drainage and parking in the lot above his home, as well as provide proper screening. He commented that the applicant is in agreement that a fence will be erected behind the requested development with a continuation of the fence between that development and the adjoining gravel area. He stated that basically the adjoining area proposed to be used for an entrance will allow traffic to flow in and out of the current dental office area and into the new development. He said in essence as far as traffic flow is concerned, the general space will be shared. He remarked that all the residents in the back of the current existing office space feel that a fence should be erected to act as a barrier between the residential area and the commercial development. He hopes the Board will actually require the fence, since he has nothing in writing stating that this fence will be erected all the way across the two properties. There is too much rental property around this area, and duplexes would not be appropriate on this site. If anything is going to be allowed for this site, he would prefer that there be a commercial use there to serve as a buffer for the residential area. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. He asked the applicant if he had anything further to say. Mr. Matthews responded that one of the conditions is that the fence will be constructed, and the applicants have agreed. He mentioned the time and energy the neighbors spent as far as attending the meetings with him and the applicants. He believes the neighbors and applicants have been able to work together to answer all of the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the plantings will actually be on the residential side of the fence. Mr. Matthews answered that the plantings will probably be on both sides of the fence, although there is already a significant amount of vegetation on the residential side in some areas. The fence will be put in the best place that makes use of existing screening. He explained that there are some significant trees that it will be important to save. He reiterated that the thinks the applicants and residents have reached a good resolution with this issue, and the applicants stand by their promises. Mr. Dorrier called attention to a point on the map and asked if that is the location for the fence. Mr. Matthews responded affirmatively. He said, though, the neighbors’ issue also involved the adjacent site, and that is where the lot is located which has caused the problems for many years. The new fence will hook into the fence that is there for the house, and it will continue across the other property. He mentioned that if the fence was stopped at the corner, it would move all the trespassers to the next person’s yard. This will not help anybody so the whole fence will be built at one time when the dental offices are developed. He stated that should the application, as amended, not be approved tonight, he is not sure what will happen to the fence. He said perhaps it would be built along the parking lot, and that will be the end of it. Mr. Bowerman wondered how the gravel parking lot and the ownership of it ties into the proposed development in connecting it to the existing fence beyond the parking lot. Mr. Matthews answered that the ownership is completely separate. He has met with the owners, and site plan amendments will be submitted to legalize the lot. He explained that there is nothing illegal about the use, but it is not part of the site plan, and modifications need to be made to the grading. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the owners had any problems with the continuation of the fence. Mr. Matthews replied, “no.” There is no problem. At this time, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing, since there was no one else who wanted to speak. Ms. Thomas mentioned to Mr. Matthews that she had not seen the charts before this evening, either. She was the one who set in motion their being made, but she was out of town all day today, so she had not seen them. She thinks this area should have commercial development, and she thinks it ought to continue the development that is there currently. She said, though, that is where she has a problem, because she would like for the very nice feeling in the existing development to continue. She remarked that she drove around the area recently even though she had already been there in the past for dental surgery. She could see what a bind the dentists would be in without the additional gravel parking lot, and she noted that cars go into certain areas there, and they have to back out of them. She is quite certain drivers will consider the new property and its parking lot as the U shaped travel way which will allow them to get out of the area. She stated that it is a nice area partly because it has trees and also because of the way it is set back from Hydraulic Road. She said a person sitting in the parking lot hardly knows Hydraulic Road is there because of the way the property is set back. The mountains can be seen beyond Albemarle High School, and it is a very nice setting. She does not want to make a decision tonight that makes this additional project less attractive than the part that is already there nor that would make the current property less attractive. She wondered what conditions or agreements this Board and the applicants can reach to ensure that the project is a continuation of a very nice set of professional offices and special property. She does not have February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) answers yet, but she has a goal, and she hopes others can tell her whether or not they agree with it. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he was confused by the Planning Commission’s discussion. He stated that County officials are underway with development of an infill pattern for the urban area which encourages attractive residential areas and residential services to the people in those areas. This is a stone’s throw from the County’s only urban park in a densely populated area. He commented that it is a function of a population to need dental service, and this is recognized as such a place, without traveling a long distance. He does not want to use the word, “intense,” as far as density is concerned, but most sites are cleared for this type of use. The best use is made of the site, and the Zoning Ordinance dictates the amount of square footage and parking in terms of the relationship between the two. There are setbacks in the ordinance, and the staff is working with the applicant and the adjacent property owners who arrived at a plan allowing for the continuation of a use there that has been established at a greater density. He does not think this is a bad thing, and he said there are trees at the back that can be preserved. He recalled a project behind Minor Hill where Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive join, which is not dissimilar to this proposal except the nature of the offices is more of a mixed use. He is flabbergasted that this type of discussion has come up when it is exactly the type of thing County officials are trying to encourage. This is the type of urban service that is desired, and there are professionals who are indicating they have more patients than they have space for them. He commented that 5000 square feet is not a lot of space, and he noted that it is not so different from his small office of 3,300 square feet. The square footage is dictated by the requirements of the ordinance in terms of the slope and parking lot, as well as the square footage of the use and how many parking places are needed. If there is enough parking space for the square footage, he does not have a problem with the proposal, especially with the amenities at the rear and with the ability to save some of the large trees on the ridge line. The fact the rest of the area is built around trees and is not as dense could be wasted space. He thinks the proposal makes sense. He reiterated that the total amount of space requested is determined by the site characteristics and the ability to meet parking requirements, and it will be self limiting. He said it is a site plan issue and everything that was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting discussion are site plan topics. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bowerman. He explained that as he was reading the Planning Commission minutes he kept wondering why there was a conversation being held about the danger of the parking lot as people move throughout, because people are not going to be able to travel fast there. He added that when people propose a high density situation in a rural area, they are told that this type of density is not desired in a rural area, but that it is desired in urban and growth areas. He cannot understand why someone would be told that a lower density is desired when he is proposing to use density in a growth and urban area. Mr. Bowerman stated that the type of use has to also be considered. Mr. Martin mentioned that the neighbors are supportive of the proposal versus the alternative, so it seems as though it is a win/win situation. He believes the project will be attractively done, if the County staff does as it normally does with site plans. Mr. Bowerman remarked that County officials went to great lengths to protect Whitewood Park because there was already a dense area there. There are not many places left to develop in the whole crescent of Hydraulic Road, Rio Road and Route 29. Ms. Thomas stated that the whole point of infill is that County officials have to be very careful to make sure an attractive infill is being done. There is a danger, when working with infill, that a mistake could be made and the infill might be too dense for the site, and it might not be attractive. She noted also that residential development is always going to prefer an office complex beside it rather than more residential communities. She appreciates very much that the applicant has talked with the neighbors, and she is glad it has worked out. She emphasized that she thinks this should be an office development. However, in this situation the density is being greatly increased over what is an attractive but automobile centered complex, and real density is when people can walk to services. She noted that this is not a walkable place, and it is not even a public transportation place. She said public transportation could not get into the area. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are bike lanes and sidewalks already there. Mr. Dorrier stated that he is persuaded this is a good plan because there are no new cuts coming onto Hydraulic Road from this site, and there will not be another traffic hazard coming onto Hydraulic Road. There are entrances already there for the other office buildings. He is very sympathetic to the fact that something built for 9,000 square feet cannot be made to work, if 3,500 more square feet is needed as the minimum. He stated that 12,500 square feet does not appear to be overloading the site too significantly. This is an area where there are professional office buildings. He has traveled this area, and he has been in an out of the office site on the hill. He thinks this is an attractive office site and putting other offices in that area is in keeping with the development that is already there. He commented that he would favor giving the applicants what they want. This is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, it is in an infill area, it is a good use of the site, and he would much rather have an office building there than some other residential use or a more intense commercial use. He is also in favor of making adjustments to Conditions Number Seven and Twelve to allow the developer to go forward with his plans. Mr. Perkins remarked that he knows of no developer who wants to create something ugly. Hopefully, with the County staff helping with the site plan, something attractive will be created. Mr. Bowerman stated that Condition Ten is not an inappropriate condition. He would like an opportunity for staff to incorporate some language which reflects the Commission’s desire to have some site plan amenities included involving additional plantings where they can be done. He suggested that the staff be given a chance to work on this point, and he asked that it come back to this Board as a Consent February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Agenda item. He supports this proposal without Condition #7, because he thinks it limits itself, and without Condition #12 because either that or existing ordinances need to be changed. Condition #10 needs to be reworked to be consistent, although he can’t suggest the wording tonight. He would like to support the proposal after striking Conditions #7 and 12, and rewording Condition #10. Mr. Martin said he believes Mr. Bowerman is indicating that he would like to approve the proposal without Conditions #7, 10 and 12 with the concept that Condition #10 will come back to the Supervisors as a Consent Agenda Item. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Planning Commission actually worded Condition #10. There were several different issues involved such as how close the parking would get to Hydraulic Road which relates to Condition #12 and how much square footage would be developed, which relates to Condition #7. He explained that the Commissioners reworded several other conditions and added conditions to address landscaping and tree preservation on the site. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he wanted to make sure Condition #10 did not interfere. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Condition #10 was intended to give more staff review of such things as the requirement of the conservation plan for existing trees. Mr. Martin reminded the group that the Board had discussed the ZMA as well as a special use permit. He asked if there was a motion for ZMA-99-14 At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion for approval of ZMA-99-14, Hydraulic Dental Center, as recommended by the Planning Commission with acceptance of the applicants’ proffer. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. (The proffer is set out below:) Date: 1/21/2000ZMA # 99-14Tax Map Parcel(s) # 61-36 & 61-36A1 1.23 Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to R-10 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1)If the property is not used for professional offices as authorized by a special use permit pursuant to section 17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, then the uses of the property shall be limited to those identified in section 15.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the property shall also be subject to the requirements of sections 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, and 15.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The referenced provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be those in effect on February 9, 2000, copies of which are attached hereto. (Signed) Leonard Mailloux Leonard Mailloux .1/25/00 Signatures of all OwnersPrinted Names of All OwnersDate (Signed) Grace Mailloux Grace Mailloux .1/25/00 Signatures of all OwnersPrinted Names of All OwnersDate _________________ Ms. Thomas inquired if the staff could discuss Condition #12, dealing with parking, as it relates to SP-99-67. The applicants have indicated they do not like this condition, and she would like to know the result if the condition is removed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the minimum setback is ten feet for parking from the road right-of-way. The setback for a Commercial Office district is being used. Ms. Thomas asked about the amount of setback referred to in Condition #12. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this is unknown, because it still has not been determined exactly where the right-of-way is located. He said if this condition is included, the distance will have to be determined by survey at the time the site plan is being reviewed. Mr. Bowerman commented that he hopes the distance determined for the setback will be screened and buffered on the site plan as the staff works with the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this is the intent of Condition #5. This condition gives the County a requirement for excess screening particularly along Hydraulic Road. Next, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-99-67, Hydraulic Dental Center, as recommended by the Planning Commission striking Conditions Number Seven and Twelve and accepting the other ten conditions. Ms. Thomas remarked that she is going to vote against the motion, although she believes it will be a fine and attractive project when it is finished. However, she thinks a bad precedent is being set. She is February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) sure both the applicants and the County staff will make an attractive project. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Ms. Thomas. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. (The conditions are set out below:) 1.All new structures and parking shall conform to Sections 21.7.1, 21.7.2 and 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2.The applicant shall provide a sight distance of 425 feet, as required by VDOT, at the existing entrance to the professional offices on Hydraulic Road (Route 743). 3.In addition to Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets; 4.SP-78-09 for a day care center on this property is revoked; 5.Setbacks for new structures shall be as described in Section 21.7, except a waiver to permit grading and clearing in the 20 feet setback adjacent to the parking/travelways on the south side of the site (adjacent to Old Oak Court) may be requested for the purpose of construction of the travelways and parking. Screening shall exceed that required by Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance according to the discretion of the Design Planner and existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements will be supplemented or replaced as deemed appropriate by the Design Planner to provide good screening for the adjacent residential district and along Hydraulic Road. No portion of the permanent parking or travelways shall encroach on the 20 foot setback; 6.If the existing house on site is removed and replaced with a new structure, the new structure shall be governed by setbacks per Section 21.7 of the Zoning Ordinance; 7.The site shall be developed in general accordance with the concept plan known as Hydraulic Dental Center Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 by Muncaster Engineering dated 12/20/99. Locations of buildings, parking, and travelways are approximate and may change but indicate the general intent for site use and density; 8.A wooden fence shall be built between the subject property and the adjoining residential properties of at least six (6) feet in height. Screening vegetation shall be planted on the residential side of the fence; 9.The site shall be developed in a manner so as to preserve as many existing trees throughout the site as is reasonably possible consistent with the development of the property according to the conditions set forth herein. A conservation plan for the existing trees shall be submitted at the time of preliminary site plan submittal. Particular attention shall be paid to tree preservation and screening along Hydraulic Road; and 10.Massing materials and building configuration shall be in harmony with the existing complex on the site adjacent to the north, and shall be subject to the review of the Design Planner. _________________ Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on FY 2000/01 to FY 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 1, 2000.) Ms. Anne Gulati, Budget Manager, reported that at the January 5, 2000 work session, the Board reviewed the Technical Committee’s recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 2000/01 - 2004/05. The recommended CIP totaled approximately $84,200,000 with $34,000,000 in general government projects, $636,000 in Tourism Fund capital projects, $822,000 in stormwater improvements and $48,600,000 in school projects. She noted that at the direction of the School Board, the School Division CIP has been revised to defer completion of the Northern Elementary School project from FY 01 to FY 02. She next called attention to the spreadsheets attached to the Executive Summary which show the impact of deferring this project. Since it is a project funded by the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bonds, both the expenditures and the bonds will be moved from FY 01 to FY 02. The impact of doing this will be to defer approximately $1,000,000 in debt service expense to FY 03. This information is being provided for the public hearing and does not require any action by the Board at this time. However, the Board will have the opportunity to discuss the CIP funding recommendations during one of the budget work sessions in March. She then mentioned the expanded funding proposed for stormwater control and the related additional operating costs requested to establish a County-funded stormwater program. This is an issue with an immediate financial impact on the FY 2000/01 budget. She indicated that another issue is the additional funding requested by Region Ten, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) and the Paramount Theater. She commented that $14,900,000 in unfunded school capital projects is being requested which includes $4,900,000 in additional costs related to capacity changes and differentiated staffing, $3,100,000 in growth-related renovations and expansions and $6,800,000 in additional maintenance and other requests. She emphasized that final approval of the FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 CIP Program and adoption of the FY 2000/01 CIP budget is scheduled for April 12, 2000. There were no questions for Ms. Gulati from Board members, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. Martin referred to Ms. Gulati’s statement about the School Board’s decision to revise its CIP and defer the completion of the Northern Elementary School to FY 02. He thinks it is important to note that the School Board made this decision because the Board of Supervisors has been unable to move forward with the purchase of land in the northern area. The Board of Supervisors shares some responsibility in this decision. February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Ms. Kathy Metallo, a resident of Earlysville near Free Union, said she is speaking tonight because her community needs a library. She stated that support for an Earlysville branch of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library is very strong in her community. She commented that in just about an hour’s time during the community’s firehouse barbecue more than 100 people attending stopped to sign the petition for a branch library and to show their support. The residents, the Broadus Wood PTO, the local homeowners’ associations and others are joining together to support this request. In the spring of 1998, the Jefferson- Madion Regional Library began assessing how it could better serve the needs of its patrons, and at that time, many people in the Earlysville area expressed the need for a branch of the library in Earlysville. The Library Board of Trustees has developed a five year plan, and the first goal of the plan is to improve library services to all area residents. She remarked that presently people in the rural area surrounding Earlysville have very poor access to a library. This large section of the County, in some cases, is forced to travel more than one half hour each way to access library branches which makes the availability of library services to families and school children extremely difficult, especially during the busy school and work week. She said for working families, and especially the children, the use of the County library facilities is presently very impractical when it comes to after school homework assignments. She stated that Earlysville is a growing community and will continue to grow. Although it is currently not labeled as a growth area, many parcels of land were previously subdivided and approved for development, and a number of these are currently being developed. This development and future development will further increase the need for a library in Earlysville. She remarked that establishing more local branches, as opposed to centralized facilities, is the best way to improve library access for the greatest number of people. She said especially with today’s advanced telecommunications and computer access, local branches which can access the full array of County library assets is certainly the way to proceed. If a library is convenient, more people will use it and use it more frequently. The Northside Library branch has demonstrated how local positioning of a library branch can drastically affect its use. The suggestion has been made to put a branch in the North Fork Industrial Park, but this will not improve the Earlysville’s residents’ access to library services. She said Earlysville and its surrounding neighborhoods and housing developments represent a large community in need of a local branch. She indicated that the residents believe that Earlysville is ideally situated for the next library branch and the time is right as there is currently convenient space available for such a branch. On behalf of the Earlysville community, Ms. Metallo asked that the Board of Supervisors seriously address and grant this request. Ms. Lisa Harman, an Earlysville resident, also discussed the need for a library branch in Earlysville. She commented that there have probably been a lot of requests to the Board from a lot of groups, and these requests will probably continue to come in over the next few weeks from many people who are representing many worthy projects and causes. However, she would like to ask the Board to seriously consider the idea of a library in Earlysville, and she added her support to this proposal. She realizes one of the most significant strikes against this program is the fact that Earlysville was taken out of the growth area a few years ago. She stated, though, that Earlysville continues to grow, and there are many properties already subdivided. The residents feel the growth in Earlysville on their roads that are daily more and more crowded, with the increasing number of students in their schools, and in the lines at their local grocery store and post office that didn’t exist four or five years ago. She hopes the Board will take this into consideration. The current Earlysville population is probably close to Crozet’s population at the time the Jefferson-Madison Library system took over the functions of the Crozet Library, so she does not think this is an unrealistic request. She mentioned that there are many points in favor of the request, and one is that there is available commercial space with adequate parking. There are some enthusiastic landlords in the community, and there is a great deal of support from the community. Mr. Holladay will be able to relate how supportive the people from Earlysville were to this idea when he was conducting his meetings. She went on to say Earlysville is, in many ways, a close knit area although it is spread over a big area. She noted that evidence for support of neighborhood projects can be seen in the community’s school, at the well attended barbecues at the firehouse and at fund raising events to improve the community. In terms of uses of the library, Ms. Harman said it is very important for the research ability of children if they do not have to travel one-half hour in the evening. This is especially important for high school students, since it is not desirable for high school students to have to drive the country roads in the evenings, or even early in the evenings when the visibility is more challenging. She added that preschool story hour is something that can also be examined, as well as possibly combining other services such as a police satellite in the area. Dr. D. Andrew MacFarlan mentioned that he is a physician in Earlysville, and he would like to discuss the potential practicality of an Earlysville branch of the Jefferson-Madison Library. He has dual interests in this project, since he is part owner of the building being offered for the library. He has been a supporter of the library for a long time, and he has paid plenty of fines, as well as checked out a lot of books and has courted the library to become part of the Earlysville community. He commented that he has had Mr. Holliday out to his office center and building. There are either 6,000 or 12,000 square feet available which would serve a community based library, and each of the square footage is on individual floors. It is nice space, it can be easily outfitted, and the location is a mile from Earlysville Forest, two miles from Broadus Wood, three miles from the Airport and four miles from Route 29 North. He stated that it is in the central part of Earlysville, and the building has an active four physician practice that has been present in the area for 17 years. There is an adjacent area of approximately 90 acres associated with industries on which nothing will be built. However, it is available for a potential park-like development. He mentioned another area associated with the physicans’ building that could be developed for parking. The cost is low and the time for occupancy is short. He then referred to pictures of the building which are included with the information given to Board members. He noted that the location of the building is indicated by a red dot on the map with floor plans included. He stated that he will be willing to work with whomever, to do whatever possible to support the development of a library in Earlysville. The actual capital outlay required to make this project happen in such a situation is really negligible, and the Earlysville residents are very much in favor of multiple small branches instead of one larger branch. February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. MacFarlan to locate the Earlysville Fire Department in relation to his building. Dr. MacFarland responded that the Fire Department is 500 yards away to the northeast toward the center of Earlysville. Mr. Bob Helt stated that he is a Crozet resident, and he is concerned about the need for infrastructure, meaning sidewalks, in Crozet. This concern has already been expressed by many residents of Crozet in such forms as the Crozet Community Association. There is a desperate need for sidewalks in Crozet. He noted that it is a growth development area, and with the infusion of all the homes in the area, there is a considerable amount of traffic. He said VDoT has recognized this problem and plans to put in one or two more traffic signals, as well as to widen Jarman Gap Road and even put a bike trail there. However, everything funnels into the same street which goes to the Park. He commented that there is only one-third of a block that actually has a sidewalk, and a new development which is going to be next to the Park, will bring in additional traffic. When this was brought to the attention of the developer, Mr. Vito Cetta, at the Crozet Community Association meeting, he said he would be willing to pay for the sidewalk. Mr. Helt commented that he does not think there is any legal obligation on Mr. Cetta’s part, but he pointed out that even the builder recognizes that he is going to cause additional traffic leading to the Park. Mr. Helt said he is the father of two sons, and he is very concerned about their safe access to the park. He noted that the County has substantial money in the Park in terms of the new swimming pool, and many people from the Crozet community have worked hard to get the new ballparks built, as well as the new planned soccer fields. He noted that these things are going to bring many more people into the park area. He has met with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Perkins a couple of weeks ago to try to work out a budget and some scenarios. The situation is difficult and sidewalks are not normally considered. He said, though, they are definitely needed in the Crozet area, and he asked for the Board’s consideration for funding sidewalks in Crozet. Ms. Thomas remarked that because the capital needs are greater than the ongoing budget, and a referendum will probably be considered some time in the future, she has a couple of questions to ask the staff. She inquired if rental space for a library can be included in a bond referendum. Mr. Tucker replied that a bond referendum is not normally how rental property would be handled. He explained that for rental space, the money would probably come out of the County’s operating budget, and he referred to the space the County is renting at Albemarle Square. He pointed out that there is $20,000 in the budget for a study of library branches, and specific locations will be considered. The northern corridor and western portion of the County are areas being examined, as well as the southern urban area. He said Dr. MacFarlan has brought forward an opportunity to rent some available space, and the Supervisors could consider this in their operating budget if they so choose. However, they would be moving ahead of the study’s attempt to determine the best location to serve a maximum number of people. Ms. Thomas then wondered if sidewalk construction is the sort of thing that would be normally found in a referendum. Mr. Tucker answered, “yes.” Ms. Thomas remarked that no one has spoken about this, but she noticed in the newspaper that Loudoun County is planning to fund its acquisition of conservation easements (ACE) through its CIP budget. She asked how would this work. Mr. Tucker responded that if Loudoun County provides the adequate revenue to fund the acquisition of conservation easements, it could be done out of its CIP. He added, though, that Albemarle County officials are looking at an ongoing recurring revenue. Ms. Thomas recalled that having a bond issue was not considered to be a particularly good way to go about this program, because of the amount of interest, and she asked if that is the only way it could be a part of the CIP budget. The money is either taken out of an item in the budget that is set aside every year for capital projects or there is a referendum. However, the referendum is tied to a bond issue. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is correct. Although, he is unsure how Loudoun County officials are handling their ACE Program. They may be using one time money from their CIP budget, but he is unsure of the rationale of having it in their capital budget. Mr. Bowerman commented that if two cents of the County’s real estate taxes were targeted to develop the ACE Program then there would be a revenue source provided for that purpose. However, if it is put in a bond referendum, he is unsure if it could be classified as a capital project. He stated that Loudoun County officials are apparently building a fund up front from which they will be using money to do the same thing, but defining it as a capital cost. Ms. Thomas suggested that the staff find out how Loudoun County is handling this program. Mr. Dorrier stated that rather than using the $20,000 for a study of branch library locations, he would like to use it for the establishment of an Earlysville library, if the amount could be matched with funds from the neighborhood. The money could be spent to rent the building and set up a lending program from the Jefferson-Madison Library Board. He recalled that there used to be a bookmobile traveling around the County, and it was very important to Scottsville residents. He said now Scottsville has its own library, and it is the hub of the community. He knows how important a library is for a small town, and he thinks Earlysville is an appropriate town for one. It doesn’t matter whether it is an extended growth area or not, it is still a town that recognizes itself as such. He commented that when Governor Allen was asked where he came from, he would reply that he came from Earlysville. He said Governor Allen was proud of that designation and felt strongly about it. Mr. Dorrier emphasized that he thinks the least this Board can do is support the people in an attempt to get a library in Earlysville. Mr. Martin said that to make such a decision so quickly would create two problems. First, it would set a precedent for every community in the County to be at the next Board meeting asking for a library. Secondly, the Board of Supervisors would not know whether or not the regional Library Board would prefer Earlysville over some other place for the location of a branch library. He added that even if the Supervisors February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) want to consider this, they would have to consider it as part of a bigger picture. He stated that at least there needs to be some discussion of the matter even if a consultant or study has not been used. There would have to be some concept of the best location for a library, because it could not just be placed anywhere. He explained that if the Board did what Mr. Dorrier is suggesting, he could assure him that the people from Forest Lakes would be at the meeting next week asking for a library, and they would also have space available. There are other communities in the same position, and although he is not disagreeing that Earlysville may be the perfect place for a branch library, it has to be put in the context of the library system. Mr. Dorrier remarked that the library system has probably done studies of the whole County and the region in determining where the needs are located. He said it seems to him that rather than spending $20,000 for another study, this money could be used for the rent, as well as to have a vehicle take the books back and forth between the main library branch and Earlysville. Mr. Martin explained that at $4,000 a month for this service, the $20,000 would only last five months. Mr. Tucker added that the $20,000 is not recurring money, and it is available only for one time. Mr. Dorrier emphasized that Earlysville has the space available. Mr. Martin told Mr. Dorrier that he could make such a motion if he wanted to do so. Ms. Thomas stated that the Board is not even adopting the CIP budget tonight. This is not the time for such a motion, but it is the time for a good discussion. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that work sessions are scheduled for March, and one of those times is set aside to continue discussing the total CIP budget. Mr. Dorrier stated that while the citizens are present he thinks the incentive to move forward with the library can be given back to them if they can match the County’s funding. If they can do this, then he thinks the Board should help them. Mr. Tucker explained that if the Board members approve such a motion, they will have to be prepared to do the same thing every year thereafter. He emphasized that the $20,000 is only budgeted for this year, and it will not be recurring. Mr. Perkins said in the past there were large central libraries with thousands of volumes of books, but now people are getting away from that because of access to the internet. He said in 30 minutes book stores can have any book in the world upon request, and it is printed at the store. He thinks smaller branches are more appropriate now, but the library system knows more about the matter. He stated, though, that it is this Board’s prerogative to try to give the library system some direction to serve the communities the best way possible. He said by having more smaller branches it will limit automobile travel, and that is one of the goals this Board should have. Mr. Bowerman stated that he will never get away from reading a book. However, a resource center that is tied into the main library system is different from the traditional way of thinking of libraries in the past where the physical copies are there. He believes in the future there will be resource centers where people can go and have the capacity and expertise to do a lot of different things as well as having books available. He also believes this can be done at not too big a cost. Mr. Martin suggested that the people who are present because of their interest in an Earlysville library should start having discussions with the Library Board. He noted that the Library Board members are the people appointed to be the experts and to know the distribution system, as well as the usage. It should be the Library Board recommending the location of branch libraries to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Martin and Mr. Tucker noted that no action was needed on the CIP at this meeting. Mr. Martin thanked the people for coming to the public hearings. __________________ Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: April 2, 1997 (Adjourned); October 6, November 13, November 10 (Afternoon), November 10 (Night), and December 8, 1999. Mr. Bowerman reported that he has read the minutes of the night meeting of November 10, 1999, as well as the minutes of December 8, 1999 and found them both to be in order. Ms. Thomas stated that she has read the minutes of April 2, 1997 and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins noted that he has read the minutes of October 6, 1999, (Pages 1 through 25) and found them to be in order. At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion to approve the minutes of the Board of Supervisors for the meetings of November 10, 1999 (Night); December 8, 1999; April 2, 1997; and October 6, 1999. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. _________________ Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Tucker called attention to Consent Agenda Item 5.8 which is a memorandum regarding support of the TransDominion Express. Today he received an e-mail from Ms. Meredith Richards, City Council member and a member of the Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express, urging the Board of Supervisors’ help with a lobbying effort by contributing $1,000. The same request will be made of the City. He has made a copy of this request for the Board members. He added that he has talked with Mr. Davis about this matter, and Mr. Davis has some concern about how the lobbying effort could be funded unless it went directly to the firm that is providing the service. Mr. Perkins wondered if there is an update on this matter available from the General Assembly. Mr. Tucker stated that the General Assembly has requested $10,000,000 in the next biennium to help fund this service, but it was not in the Governor’s budget. The General Assembly is trying to get it included in the Governor’s budget, and that is why the lobbying effort is being made. Mr. Perkins commented that he thinks it is late for such a request to be made. Mr. Tucker and Ms. Thomas concurred. _______________ Ms. Thomas noted that she has given a copy of an e-mail to the Supervisors relating to Railwatch that sounded good. Mr. Tucker said the staff checked with the state and got a good report. Ms. Thomas stated that the reports sound fine, but a citizen did some research and found that it is a group formed by people who are anti-railroads, and they make railroads sound unsafe in order to make people more hesitant about them. She said instead of being a group that is trying to improve the safety of railroads, which is the way it was presented, their agenda is to discredit railroads. She noted that this group includes UPS which is in a controversy with the rails because it wants to use triple trailer trucks and the railroads don’t want UPS to have them. She stated that nothing disastrous has been done, and the County did not put any money into it. She mentioned that Ms. Humphris had said throughout the situation that County officials had better be careful, and she noted that Ms. Humphris’ instincts were better than what was being reported on paper. Ms. Thomas said it looks as though the County needs to be careful with this group. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that they adopted a resolution supporting the group. However, he noted that the resolution could be withdrawn. Ms. Thomas responded that the resolution indicated that the Board of Supervisors supported railroad safety. Mr. Tucker concurred. Mr. Perkins stated that a lot of the literature sounds as though the railroads want to have accidents, but the worst thing that could happen to any of the rail systems would be to have a train wreck. This would be a tremendous loss of revenue, not only because of the loss of the wreck itself, but in the stoppage of the traffic, etc. He added that railroads, as well as large companies, have very big safety programs. He mentioned that safety is the first topic on Westvaco’s agenda. _______________ Ms. Thomas remarked that she has been to the General Assembly a couple of times, and David Blount, the County’s Legislative Liaison, has been very active, and he is doing a good job. She stated that because he has worked there for a number of years, everyone knows him, and it was good to see the kind of access he has. In general, though, she reported that the land use bills have met with an even colder reception this year. Mr. Davis mentioned a bill introduced at the General Assembly yesterday entitled, “Shared Cities.” He said it resembled reversion, only it appeared to be worse. He reported that it was passed by yesterday when opposition was raised to the bill. However, County officials need to stay informed about this situation. _______________ Mr. Martin stated that if other Supervisors did not object, he would like to have a joint press conference with Ms. Virginia Daugherty, Mayor of Charlottesville to announce several joint initiatives involving the County and the City in the areas of regional planning and cooperation. No one indicated an objection. Mr. Martin said he and Ms. Daugherty will ask Ms. Lee Catlin to call the media, and they will ask Mr. Maurice Jones to put together information for the press conference. Mr. Tucker responded that he would ask Ms. Catlin to contact Mr. Jones so they could work together on this matter. ________________ Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. At 8:46 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date Initials February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17)