Loading...
1999-07-07July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) 000ZT~ (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 7, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 9:04 a.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Vice-Chair, Ms. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Ms. Thomas asked that all keep the family of Mr. George C. Palmer, II (former member of the Board of Supervisors) in their thoughts. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Walter L. Eades, 1073 Durrett Ridge Road (Route 605), said he appeared before the Board in October, 1997, to speak regarding the paving of this road. In 1988, he got the signatures of all property owners on the road. He was told that it would be five or six years before the road could be paved. It still has not been done. Last year, Mr. Eades wrote to VDOT and the Board asking the status of the project. He said the road is either muddy or dusty. A lot of the houses are close to the road, and those people have a bad problem. Ms. Angela Tucker said the road project was to have been advertised in February, 1999, with the work being completed by the Summer of 1999. Nothing has been done so far, based on a shortage of funds. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.8 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information (pulling Item 5.20 and placing it under Agenda Item No. 7b for discussion). (Note: Conversation about individual consent agenda items will be shown with that item.) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: JAUNT Transportation Grant, $183,120 (Form ~98077). It was noted in the staff's report that in November, 1997, the Albemarle, Charlottesville and Fluvanna Departments of Social Services, in conjunction with JAUNT, received a Transportation Initiatives grant from the State. This has allowed the employment barrier of transportation to be completely removed for all VIEW participants in Charlottesville, Fluvanna County and Albemarle County since that time. From November, 1997 to May, 1998, more than 6300 trips were provided by JAUNT and 4450 fixed route bus passes issued. For the 181 clients participating in the program, transportation services are vital to maintaining employment. A recent extension of State funding has provided for services through September, 1999. The grant funds the direct costs of transportation as well as a full-time project coordinator position and the costs of cellular phones for off-hours transportation arrangements. It covers employment-related rides for VIEW participants to and from the initial VIEW evaluation, job readiness classes, employment searches, employment, day care for employment purposes, community work experience, and approved educational activities. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) JAUNT has donated the use of its fleet for this service, but an additional van is needed. In addition to its fleet of over 55 vans, JAUNT uses private' taxis to provide service. Since the VIEW program started, the ridership of small children has increased, and JAUNT purchased 15 additional child car seats. JAUNT expects to transport even more children in the future as new clients participate in VIEW. If the program is allowed to continue, Charlottesville, Albemarle and Fluvanna will continue to make welfare reform succeed. Staff recommended the approval of Appropriation ~98077 in the amount of $183,120, all of which represents State funds and extends the grant through September, 1999. By the recorded vote shown above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98077 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VDSS/TPJINSPORTATION INITIATIVE GR3kNT EXPENDITURE CODE 1155653140110000 1155653140210000 1155653140221000 1155653140231000 1155653140232000 1155653140270000 1155653140343000 DESCRIPTION SALARIES FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSI/PJINCE WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TOTAL kMOI/NT $18,516 00 1,416 00 2,252 00 2, 300 00 41 00 185 00 158,410.00 $183,120.00 REVENUE CODE 2155624000240535 DESCRIPTION VDSS/TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE TOTAL AMOUNT $183,120.00 $183,120.00 Ms. Humphris said the County is fortunate to have received these funds. It involves the County's Virginia Initiative for Employment-Not Welfare Reform Program. This is a major boost to the community. Item 5.2. Appropriation: Community Development Block Grant 98-07, $770,989 (Form ~98078) . It was noted in the staff's report that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD), has approved a $770,989 multi-year grant for the Porters Road/Yancey School neighborhood in Southern Albemarle County. The grant will: rehabilitate 27 owner-occupied homes; substantially reconstruct one owner-occupied home; rehabilitate one rental home; purchase the site and develop five new homes for first-time home buyers; demolish and remove five abandoned and dilapidated structures; begin to develop a community park; and, improve the W.D. Ward Community Center. This grant is part of a $1,762,084 program consisting of: CDBG grant Federal Home loans AHIP funding Private mortgage funding $770,989 224,058 415,381 351,656 By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98078 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMMI/NITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GPJkNT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION 1122481031110000 SALARIES A24OUNT $24,863.00 July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 1122481031210000 1122481031310000 1122481031312300 1122481031312800 1122481031510000 1122481031530000 1122481031540000 1122481031550400 1122481031550402 1122481031563100 1122481031600100 1122481031601400 1122481031800000 1122481031800750 FICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARCHITECT AUDIT UTILITIES INSURANCE RENT TRAVEL-EDUCATION TRAINING AHIP OFFICE SUPPLIES OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY LAND ACQUISITION TOTAL 1,902.00 275.00 17,000.00 3,215.00 3,243.00 5,294.00 5 251.00 2 390.00 1 127.00 589 989.00 5 572.00 2868.00 60 000.00 48,000.00 $770,989.00 REVENUE CODE 2122433000330009 DESCRIPTION CDBF-FEDERAL TOTAL AMOUNT $770,989.00 $770,989.00 Ms. Humphris called everybody's attention to this CDBG, and said this is a great thing for the County's housing program. Ms. Thomas asked whether all of the items on the list are being done with the grant, or is it just part of the overall $1.762 million. Mr. Tucker said it will take the total amount shown to accomplish all of the projects listed on the attachment (see staff's report). Mr. Marshall asked what is being doing to the W. D. Ward Center. Ms. Humphris said the whole inside of the facility is being renovated. Mr. Marshall said that project must be nearly finished. He saw it a couple of weeks ago, and the place is beautiful. Item 5.3. Appropriation: VRS Early Retirement Debt Service, $39,233 Form #98079). It was noted in the staff's report that in 1992, the County of Albemarle zncurred a debt with the Virginia Retirement System for the cost of prOviding early retirement benefits to school employees. This debt is funded in the school budget and transferred to the School Debt Service Fund in the annual appropriation ordinance. The FY 1998-99 payment due of $295,925 was funded in the School Budget and has been transferred to the School Debt Service Fund. The appropriation in the School Debt Service Fund was initially approved for $256,692. Staff recommended approval of Appropriation #98079 to increase the School Debt Service appropriation to $295,925, an increase of $39,233. No additional funds are required. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98079 FUND: DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENT TO VRS EARLY RETIREMENT DEBT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1990068000910110 SCHOOL/VRS EARLY RETIREMENT $39,233.00 TOTAL $39,233.00 REVENUE CODE 2990051000512011 DESCRIPTION TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $39,233.00 $39,233.00 Item 5.4. Appropriation: General Fund - Rescue Squads, $3,014 (Form #98080). It was noted in the staff's report that the County receives funds each year from the State Office of Emergency Medical Services. The amount is based on $2.00 per passenger vehicle, pickup and panel truck registered and is a 000278 July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) portion of the State vehicle registration fee. State law requires that 25 percent of the fees collected be returned to the locality in which the vehicle is registered. The use of these funds is restricted for emergency medical services. The County received $3,014 more in FY 1998-99 than was appropriated to the three rescue squads. The County has traditionally appropriated the total received to the three rescue squads. This request is to adjust the FY 1998-99 appropriation to pass the additional funds on to the rescue squads. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NLIMBER: 98080 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EMS FUNDING EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION 1100032030565202 SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD 1100032030565002 CH'VILLE/ALB RESCUE SQUAD 1100032030565102 WESTERN/ALB RESCUE SQUAD TOTAL AMOUNT $1,004.67 1,004.67 1,004.66 $3,014.00 REVENUE CODE 2100024000240415 DESCRIPTION A_MOUNT EMS FUNDS $3,014.00 TOTAL $3,014.00 Item 5.5. Appropriation: Education/Grant, $33,652.38 (Form #98081). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on June 14, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation from Mr. and Mrs. George Neff in the amount of $2000 and the funds will be used to purchase cork stripping for the school. Western Albemarle Hiqh School received donations from the Western Albe- marle Band in the amount of $3500 and the Western Albemarle Band Boosters in the amount of $1900. The funds will be used to offset the cost of new band uniforms for an assistant for the marching band. Henley Middle School received a donation from the Henley Middle School PATSO in the amount of $15,992.38. The funds will be used to assist in the purchase of computers for a new computer lab. Cale Elementary School received a grant award from the Southland Corporation in the amount of $2000. This program entitled "People Who Read, Achieve", will fund the Accelerated Reader software program at Cale. This program will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension skills. Albemarle County Schools received a grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $1485. This grant will help fund Theatre IV Performances within the school system. Albemarle County Schools received a grant in the amount of $6775 from the Virginia Department of Education. This grant witl provide funding for the project ~Reading Together to Reach the Stars." This project will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies, which pair second and third graders with preschool children to ease transition of preschoolers into elementary school and to provide second and third graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing skills. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NIIMBER: 98081 FI/ND: SCHOOL/GPJLNT July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS AND GRANTS EXPENDITURE CODE 1220661101601300 1230261411155000 1230261411601300 1225261101800700 1310460214601300 1310461311312000 1312663328111400 1312663328210000 1312663328550100 1312663328601300 DESCRIPTION INST/REC SUPPLIES SUB-WAGES INST SUPPLIES ADP EQUIPMENT INST/REC SUPPLIES OTHER PROF SERVICES SALARIES-OTHER MANAG FICA TRAVEL-MILEAGE INST/REC SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $2,000.00 3,500.00 1,900.00 15,992 . 38 2,000.00 1,485.00 1,800.00 138.00 300.00 4,537.00 $33,652.38 REVENUE CODE 2200018100181109 2200018100181109 2200018100181109 2310418000181232 2310424000240353 2312624000240306 DESCRIPTION DONATION DONATION DONATION SOUTHLAND CORP VA COMM OF THE ARTS GRANT LEARN & SERVE GRAi~T TOTAL AMOUNT $2,000.00 5,400.00 15,992.38 2,000.00 1,485.00 6,775.00 $33,652.38 Ms. Humphris said she always likes to call attention to the fact that people and organizations make significant donations to the school system. She thinks the public needs to know how much support the County gets from grants and from donations. Item 5.6. Allocate FY 1998 Library Carry-over Funds. It was noted in the staff's report that the Jefferson Madison Regional Library has notified the County that they have an audited budget surplus of $94,583 in Albemarle County funds from FY 1998. In discussing the allocation of the FY 1998 carry-over funds with the Library Director, John Halliday, there are several options for the distribution of this surplus: The first option would be to allow the library to keep $5700 of the carry-over to use toward their architectural assessment, a FY 2000 budget request that was not funded in the County's adopted budget. The County recommended that they find the money for the assessment out of one-time funds. The second option is to use $30,000 of the carry-over to restore full funding for the library's automation upgrade. Although the County had originally budgeted $344,438 for the upgrade, at the end of FY 1998 the Library's allocation was reduced by $30,000 as a way of addressing the County's revenue shortfall due to the reduced personal property collections in that year. Those funds have never been restored to the Library automation project. The third option is to designate the remaining $58,883 in carry-over funds to the Library's CIP account where the funds can be used to help fund the remaining $47,500 in computer upgrade costs scheduled for FY 2001 or to provide further computer enhancements at the County's branch libraries. The best use of these remaining funds for Library capital projects can be reviewed by the CIP Technical Committee as it prepares the FY 2000-01/FY 2004-05 Capital Improvements Program this fall. Staff recommends allocating the County's surplus funds from the Jefferson Madison Regional Library's FY 1998 budget in the following manner: $5700 to remain at the Library for its architectural assessment; $30,000 to restore the County's share of the Library's automation project, and the remaining $58,883 to be returned to the Library's CIP account for other uses to be determined and recommended by the CIP Technical Committee. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved allocating surplus funds from the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library's FY 1998 budget in the following manner: $5700 to remain at the Library for its architectural July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) 000280 assessment; $30,000 to restore the County's share of the Library's automation project; and, the remaining $58,883 to be returned to the Library's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) account for other uses to be determined and recommended by the CIP Technical Committee. Item 5.7. Authorize County Executive to execute "Agreement for Highway Project Administration" between VDOT and the County for the Meadow Creek Parkway. It was noted in the staff's report that development is occurring and/or being planned within the future corridor of the Meadow Creek Parkway, specifically within the critical area between Rio Road, Free State Road and the South Fork Rivanna River. There is clearly a need to take action to reserve and/or acquire land necessary to assure an adequate route for the construction of the Parkway. Staff has concluded that this can only be accomplished by working with developers to reserve or donate right-of-way and/or road improvements, or by the County acquiring the right-of-way. VDOT has determined that delineating the necessary right-of-way requires the preparation of environmental impact documents, preliminary engineering of the road, road location and design and approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Due to pending development activity, there is a need to expedite the project by authorizing the County, by agreement, to administer the project for VD©T. An Agreement has been drafted and reviewed by staff, the County Attorney and VDOT and has been forwarded to the Attorney General for review. This Agreement provides the County with the authority to'hire a consultant and administer the Parkway project from Rio Road (Route 631) to Route 29 North. Appendix C of the referenced Agreement limits the current scope of the work to the location/environmental study, preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition. Upon mutual agreement of the parties, the scope may be expanded and/or redefined by executing a supplement to the Agreement. With the pending expansion of Dunlora Subdivision, it is crucial to give the highest priority to the initial (Rio Road to Free State Road) portion of the Parkway. For this reason, the Agreement has been divided into three mutually dependent projects. The projects are described briefly as: Free State Connector Road will provide for a connector road 0.5 mile in length from Rio Road (Route 631) to Free State Road (Route 651) in lieu of the "Free State Road Bridge Replacement" project currently listed in the Secondary Road Improvements Six-Year Plan. Meadow Creek Parkway Study will provide the environmental documents and preliminary engineering necessary to obtain Commonwealth Transportation Board approval of the Parkway location and design from Free State Road to U.S. Route 29 North, approximately 3.3 miles. Meadow Creek Parkway Extension will provide for the final design and construction of the Parkway from Free State Road to U.S. Route 29 North, approximately 3.3 miles. A fee proposal has been received from Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP, for the design services. This proposal has been reviewed by staff and forwarded to VDOT for its review. Upon execution of the Agreement, staff is prepared to finalize the design services contract, route it to the necessary offices for signature and provide the consultant with a "Notice to Proceed". Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution to authorize the County Executive to execute the Project Administration Agreement. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution with authorizes the County Executive to execute the Project Administration Agreement: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to execute an "Agreement For Highway Project Administration" with the Virginia Department of Transportation to administer the Meadow Creek Parkway project from Rio Road (Route 631) to Route 29. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, to execute the above-described agreement. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) 000281 Ms. Humphris said in reading through the agreement, it seemed to her that the project will be done in three different stages. But, when reading the contract, on one page it says "... the locality and the department agree that the project shall be pursued concurrently, and are mutually dependent in regard to each element of Appendix A described as 'Preliminary Engineering Right-of-way Phase and Construction Phase'." She could not fit that with the idea that the Free State connector road will be done first, in its entirety. Mr. Davis said what staff attempted to do was make sure that there was a clear understanding that this was one project, that would be built all the way to Route 29 North, even though it may be staged. VDOT insisted on it being broken into three components, but County staff wanted to assure there was no lack of understanding that it was one project that will be completed. Mr. Martin said he had some strong concerns that only part would be built, and the project would end at the river. Ms. Humphris said she liked everything about the agreement until she got to this language, and then she was not sure everything matched. She is pleased to know that it does, and it is the intention to design, purchase right-of-way and construct the whole road, all on the same schedule. Ms. Thomas asked if this project will be eligible for Federal funds. Concern has been expressed that because an EIS was not done on Phase I that Phase II would not be eligible for Federal funding either. Before the County gets too far along, she would like the issue clarified. Mr. Tucker said staff can clarify that. He does not believe any portion of the project will be eligible for Federal funds until this phase is done. Mr. Davis said he believes it is VDOT's impression that the road is eligible for Federal funding because part of the contract is trying to meet all Federal requirements of the EIS so it would be eligible for Federal funding. If Phase I of the Meadow Creek Parkway makes it ineligible, VDOT does not know that at this point, but it is something that staff will check. Item 5.8. Pantops CTS (Charlottesville Transportation System) Bus Route Service. It was noted in the staff's report that during the FY 2000 budget work sessions, the Board approved $50,000 in reserve funds for a new CTS bus route to Pantops, to include stops at the Pantops Shopping Center, State Farm Insurance Company offices and Wilton Farms apartments. Funding was approved subject to two conditions: 1) that the Wilton Farm residents wanted and would use the bus service; and 2) that the business community would contribute the additional $6000 in funds needed to initiate the bus service. In response to the first condition, CTS distributed surveys to all of the 144 occupied units at Wilton Farms, of which 51 completed the surveys. To the first question, "If CTS provides bus service to Wilton Farm Apartments, would you use it?", all 51 said byes." Of these 51, 16 said they would use it every day and 31 said they would use it at least three times a week. When asked if other members of the household would utilize the bus service, 46 responded byes" for a total of 87 additional passengers. In response to the second condition, staff contacted Great Eastern Management Company, management company for the Pantops Shopping Center. Great Eastern had submitted 937 signed petitions requesting bus service to Pantops prior to the FY 2000 budget work sessions. After several telephone discussions and a meeting attended by CTS and Juandiego Wade, the County's Transportation Planner, Great Eastern submitted a letter outlining their proposal for a public/private partnership to implement the new bus service. Great Eastern did not feel that it was the private sector's responsibility to pay for ongoing operations, nor did they feel they should be singled out when many other businesses along the Pantops route would benefit from the service. Although the shopping center owner did not agree to support the bus route with a cash contribution, nor was he interested in soliciting support from their tenants, Great Eastern was eager to support the bus route by making the following commitments: Provide initial advertising for the route, which would save CTS approximately $2000 and reduce the County's contribution by the same amount. Offer existing covered spaces for bus stops. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) Maintain the bus stops with trash removal service and benches, if appropriate. Provide substantial asphalt repair each year due to additional load from heavy buses. Provide park and ride spaces at no extra charge. Construct a walkway from the east side of the shopping center to the area between Advanced Auto and the Day Care Center. Should the Board not accept the proposal from Great Eastern Management, staff would need to identify and solicit the remaining funds from other businesses which would benefit from a Pantops bus route. Staff does recommend approval of the CTS Pantops bus service route based on the proposal from Great Eastern Management Company. Approval would require the transfer of $50,000 from the Reserve Fund for that purpose and an additional $4000 from the Fund Balance (advertising costs borne by Great Eastern have reduced the original $6000 request by $2000). By the above recorded vote, the Board approved a CTS Pantops bus service route based on the proposal from Great Eastern Management Company. Item 5.9. Notice from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority on the Design Public Hearing for the Route 649 (VDOT Project No. 0649-002-158, C501, from U.S. Route 29 to Route 606, length, 1.22 km [0.76 miles]), Albemarle County, was received for information. This public hearing will be held on August 12, 1999, at the Sutherland Middle School. Item 5.10. State Compensation Board Reimbursement of Expenses Related to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA), was received for information, as follows: It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia General Assembly enabled legislation reimbursing localities 100 percent of the administrative costs associated with the implementation of the PPTRA. This reimbursement process is through the State Compensation Board. Earlier this fiscal year, a budget was submitted to the Compensation Board for Albemarle County's anticipated expense associated with the PPTRA in the amount of $29,185.00. In April, 1999, the first reimbursement request, in the amount of $26,678.28, was submitted. The second and final reimbursement request, in the amount of $2506.72, was recently submitted to the Compensation Board. As required, a copy of this reimbursement request is being provided to the Board of Supervisors. The County has completed all required changes to its assessments and collections process required for implementation of the PPTRA. Item 5.11. April, 1999 Financial Report. It was noted in the staff's report that the General Fund revenue projections were last revised as part of the 1999-2000 budget process. General Fund expenditure projects have not been revised at this time. Education revenue projections have been revised to reflect the final Average Daily Membership. State revenues should exceed budget by $63,000. Local and Federal revenues should be approximately equal to budget. Education expenditure projections reflect a four percent operation expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. The holdback was released on May 10, 1999, and will be reflected in the May Financial Report. Item 5.12. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Acts.) Monthly Bond and Program Reports for the month of May, 1999, was received for information. Mr. Bowerman said the Board gets this monthly report which he knows was part of the original approval process. He asked if it is necessary for the Board to receive these copies or would it be appropriate for a County officer or staff member to receive the report. He does not see any reason to continue receiving this report. Ms. Thomas said she has similar feelings. She wonders what happened to the wonderful reports the Board received from Acme Visible Records. Mr. Tucker said the company has been sold. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 000283 Ms. Humphris said she understands what Mr. Bowerman said, but she always finds the Arbor Crest report interesting. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the report be received only once a year in a one-page summary. Item 5.13. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of April 8, 1999, was received for information. Item 5.14. Albemarle County Planning Commission's 1998 Annual Report, was received for information. Item 5.15. Copy of letter dated June 18, 1999, from the Honorable Emily Couric, Senator, 25th District, to the Honorable James S. Gilmore, III, Governor, re: telecommunication towers in VDOT's right-of-way, was received for information. Item 5.16. Copy of letter dated June 17, 1999, from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Ms. Linda Lloyd, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 126, Parcel 31 (property of Mitchell O. Carr), was received for information. Item 5.17. Copy of letter dated July 1, 1999, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Jeff Dise, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Miller School property containing the Main School Grounds (Tax Map 72, Parcel 32), was received for information. Item 5.18. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's operating budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999, was received for information. Item 5.19. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for its meeting of May 20, 1999, was received as information. Item 5.20. Letter dated June 30, 1999, from A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: transportation matters discussed at the April 7, May 5 and June 2, 1999, Board meetings, was received as follows: "We have the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the April 7, May 5 and June 2, 2999, Board meetings. I have provided a verbal update on most items; however, I want to confirm these in writing to assist in communicating with constituents. The Rio Road guardrail project is proceeding on schedule and is expected to finish before August 29, 1999. We continue to monitor traffic signals along the detour route to accommodate the increased traffic volumes during this road closure. The Bellair entrance project is complete. The traffic signal was fully operational on Wednesday, June 23. We will monitor this signal, in addition to the signals east and west, to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow along this corridor. The Rio Road West project is scheduled for completion this Fall. The tentative completion date is late September. The McIntire Extension/Meadow Creek Parkway project public hearing summary should be available to the Board of Supervisors and City Council within the next several weeks. The City held a public hearing on the Rieley alternative on Monday, June 21, 1999. Approximately 75 persons spoke at the hearing. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) 000284 The Department and County staff will reassess the Georgetown Road improvements during this year's revision to the Secondary Six Year Plan. I have contacted Dr. Hoel to discuss this project. Guardrail has been installed near Duner's Restaurant on Route 250 West. Guardrail at Route 676 (Tilman Road) and Route 250 has been shortened (removed) to improve sight distance. · We have stabilized the erosion along Mr. Marshall's property on Route 20 South. · The turn lane into NationsBank on Route 240 has been remarked. The brush has been trimmed along Route 680 (Brown's Gap Turnpike). The Department applies calcium chloride on gravel roads throughout the year to control dust. At least two applications of chemicals have been applied this Summer. Route 600 (Stoney Point Pass) has been covered. · The cross pipe at Indian Springs Road and Route 854 (Carrsbrook Drive) has been replaced. We have requested a review for signs on 1-64 to alert slow vehicles to use the right lane only. We will advise when this review and installation is complete. Signs indicating that ROAD NARROWS at each bridge approach on Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) are in place. We have requested a review for additional ONE LANE BRIDGE signs." (Note: Mr. Martin apologized for arriving at the meeting late. He said when he left his office this morning, he found that his car was blocked in by a "patty wagon" unloading prisoners for court. He had to wait to get out of the parking lot. Ms. Thomas said she actually arrived only one minute before Mr. Martin.) Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 10, 1997; June 3 and July 1, 1998; March 3, March 15(A), April 7, April 21, May 5, and June 22(A), 1999. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of May 5, 1999, and said they are correct. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of June 3, 1998, and had a question on the dollar amount of the budget. He asked that staff give him the answer to this question. Mr. Martin had read the minutes of April 7, 1999, and found them to be in order. Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of March 3 and June 22(A), 1999, and had handed a list of typographical corrections to March 3 to the Clerk. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of March 15(A), 1999, and noted the following corrections: On Page 1 of March 15, second paragraph of the first subject, the second sentence should be changed from "Personal property revenues have increased two percent compared to the current year with a slight decrease of 1.4 percent." to read" ..." On Page 15 of March 15, the second full paragraph, the second sentence should be changed from: "He was pleased with the feedback he has gotten on the sting operations." to read ~ ...." Motion to approve those minutes which had been read was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, with the minute book corrections noted. The roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) (Note: Before beginning discussion of regular transportation matters, Mr. Martin asked that Ms. Tucker give Mr. Eades an update on Durrett Ridge Road. Ms. Tucker said the Department is experiencing a cash flow problem which has delayed some gravel road projects. Now, she has to assure that all utility work and up-front agreements take place before the project is advertised. Generally, that has caused a delay of from six to twelve months for gravel road projects. Schedules are subject to utility companies moving utilities. Route 605 will probably be advertised in the Spring of 2000. It is listed in the current Six-Year Plan for advertisement in February, 1999. It was not advertised. That Plan will be revised this Fall.) Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Advance Mills Bridge, Route 743, Historic Register Designation (deferred from April 7, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Board discussed the Advance Mills Bridge on April 7, 1999, and asked staff to investigate historic designation. The Board also requested additional information from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) concerning the long-term cost of maintenance of the existing bridge design in its existing alignment. VDOT's response to this question has been provided to the Board along with the other information for this meeting. It should be noted that for necessary maintenance for ten to fifteen years of service, VDOT estimates those repairs at $200,000. Mr. Cilimberg said the bridge was included in a village survey done in 1995 and was called "one of the best-preserved metal truss bridges in Albemarle County." As a result of the survey, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) established that the Advance Mills Historic District, which includes the Advance Mills Bridge, is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, VDOT is required to consult with the VDHR on State-funded projects that affect historic resources. As a Register-eligible property, this would include the replacement of the Advance Mills Bridge, whether or not it is actually listed on the National Register. Consequently, listing the bridge on the National Register would have no additional impact on the ability to upgrade or replace the bridge in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said staff, in its recommendations makes note of the following items: 1) Because it is one of few remaining structures of its type in the County, and is a good example of this type of structure, the Advance Mills Bridge should be maintained so that it retains its historic significance; 2) Because the bridge is one element of a significant group of related historic resources, the Advance Mills Historic District should be nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; 3) If it is determined that a new bridge is required due to maintenance and safety requirements, the Advance Mills Bridge should be closed to vehicular traffic, maintaining it for pedestrian traffic. Alternate alignments that would not compromise the historic or architectural integrity of the Advance Mills Historic District should be thoroughly studied; and, 4) If, for any reason, it is not possible to pursue nomination of the historic district, nomination of the bridge as an individual resource should proceed. Mr. Bowerman said, from reading the report, it indicates that eventually the bridge will not be able to be maintained and used for vehicles. Recognizing that, he thinks it should be maintained now, going ahead with a preliminary design for a new road that would be in keeping with the historic nature of the Advance Mills village. Mr. Perkins said.the Humpback Bridge west of Covington is still maintained, and there is a covered bridge in Shenandoah County (Neems Bottom Bridge built in the 1800s that is a wooden structure) that has a three-ton weight limit, but it crosses the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. There are many old bridges throughout the State which are maintained. Mr. Bowerman said at some point, for emergency access, this bridge would not be capable of supporting a heavy vehicle. He is looking ahead to be cost- efficient. Mr. Marshall said he has mixed emotions about this bridge. What purpose would this bridge serve at the expense put into it? The bridge was built in 1943, and there are a lot of older structures in the County that are of historic significance. In comparison, this bridge is not that old. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Bowerman said he is suggesting the County not spend a lot of money on this bridge, just retain it as a historic structure. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with that. Leave it for a pedestrian path, and put in some other structure to serve the public need. Ms. Humphris said she thinks a deciding factor would be a consensus to abandon the bridge as a major vehicular crossing, replacing it with a new bridge and insuring the new bridge would not compromise the historic district. If the Board decides to do that, alternative alignments should be studied. Mr. Cilimberg said the first thing the Board must decide is whether to maintain the bridge now at the approximate $200,000 cost which will add a possible 15 years to its life. In the interim, staff could look at the historic district qualifications, and also begin looking through the Six-Year Plan process at the alternate alignment and location of a bridge which would be in keeping with Recommendation #3. Mr. Bowerman said he feels it is necessary to upgrade the bridge because there is no other plan to handle the traffic. There is plenty of time to get public input and VDOT input on alternate alignments and have all of that information ready at the proper time. Mr. Cilimberg said staff could also pursue the historic landmarks designation for the village. Ms. Thomas said having sat through a meeting in Batesville when it was about to go before the State Historic Board for its designation, there were many questions and concerns from neighbors. Although it was a designation request which arose from the grassroots of the community, there still needs to be some careful work done. She would not want the people to think this was being imposed on them by this Board. If there is a group that would be sufficiently interested in having this designation, let them take the lead, with the County being supportive of that wish. At this point, Mr. Perkins offered motion to follow the staff's recommendations: 1) The Advance Mills Bridge should be maintained so that it retains its historic significance; 2) The Advance Mills Historic District should be nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; 3) If it is determined that a new bridge is required due to maintenance and safety requirements, the Advance Mills Bridge should be closed to vehicular traffic, maintaining it for pedestrian traffic. Thoroughly study alternate alignments that will not compromise the historic or architectural integrity of the Advance Mills Historic District; and, 4) If, for any reason, it is not possible to pursue nomination of the historic district, nomination of the bridge as an individual resource should proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to discuss Ms. Tucker's letter about items discussed the last couple of months. Ms. Tucker said she has one report still to make concerning a meeting she had with Ms. Thomas on Morgantown Road. Mr. Bowerman said he checked the improvements taking place on Rio Road last week. The contractors said they feel the project will be finished in approximately two weeks, depending on the weather. That is significantly earlier than the date which was advertised to the public. Ms. Tucker said VDOT expects that project to be finished in July rather than in August. Mr. Tucker mentioned the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said it is expected that City Council is going to approve a two-lane facility for the section of the Parkway which lies in the City. The County continues to propose four lanes for the section in the County. If the City's portion is two lanes, but designed so it could be widened to four lanes, would that allow the County and VDOT to move forward with the County's plans to build four lanes as had been originally planned? July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) Ms. Tucker said local and VDOT support is for a minimum of four lanes in the County. Formal VDOT support for the entire road will be for four lanes as presented at the public hearing. That formal recommendation is to go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) . Whether they will approve the City's two-lane section, and subsequently the County's four-lane section, is unknown. She knows the District Office supports a four-lane road for its entire length. Mr. Martin asked if VDOT could insist on a four-lane road, and then the City have the option of saying there would be no road. Ms. Tucker said she is not sure VDOT can insist on there being'a four-lane road in the City. She knows their recommendation to the CTB may be contrary to the City's request. Mr. Bowerman asked if there could be four lanes in the County to Melbourne Road, and then there be two lanes from Melbourne to McIntire Road with a provision that the land would be there for the eventual four lanes if the City chose to do that. Ms. Tucker said that is possible. Mr. Marshall said he knows the road should be four lanes to Melbourne Road and he thinks it is the general consensus of this Board that there should be four lanes. If only a two-lane road were built from Melbourne up to the front of the County Office Building, would not almost the same amount of land be used for that two-lane road. He asked how much difference there is in land use for a four-lane road. He thinks it would be logical to have some engineers explain to City Council that what they are proposing does not make sense. Ms. Tucker said the question regarding the amount of grading required is most significant when looking at the design speeds. The Rieley report presented that point well. If the design speed dropped somewhat, some significant grading could be eliminated. The difference between four and two lanes at the lower design speed would likely be insignificant. Mr. Marshall said that is his point. The City could allow four lanes to go through the City at a slower rate and if there were a need to increase speed later, it could be done at that time. This appears to be a "no- brainer." Mr. Martin said he believes Ms. Tucker has answered as well as she can. The question Mr. Marshall is asking would need to be directed toward City Council. Mr. Tucker said VDOT does not have a lot of ability to deny what cities choose to do within their corporate limits. The County's concern is to insure that there are four lanes. The County believes it is necessary; projections have been showing that need for more than twenty years. If the CTB will allow the County to build the four lanes, then that will be fine. Ms. Thomas said the only way that road is getting City Council approval at all is due to the lowering of the design speed, and the belief that the County will be supportive of it being a parkway up to Rio Road. With the lower design speed, it is not as damaging on the land as the road that was presented at the public hearing. The City's support will be for a true parkway (which means it has park land on either side, and usable park land on one side). It is crucial to Council that the Board supports that. There has been a resolution adopted supporting the parkland, but, Council and the Board have not discussed the two- versus four-lane proposal. It is a delicate situation. If the Board is too heavy-footed, it could endanger the County getting that road. The Board's determination to have a four-lane road should not be the same as a determination to build something ugly up to Melbourne Road. Mr. Marshall said he is trying to get this information before the public. He thinks certain people in the City think that a two-lane road is the answer and will not do as much damage. What he just heard from Ms. Tucker is that the four-lane road will not do any more damage than a two-lane road and there is more benefit from the four-lane road. Mr. Bowerman said his concept is for a parkway with a linear park which connects the City parkway system along the entire stretch of Meadow Creek to the river. That would include Meadow Creek Phase II with a bikeway and pathway system connecting to the Rivanna River Greenbelt which is the County's ultimate plan from the Ivy Creek Natural Area all the way to Milton. Mr. Tucker said that in 1980 or 1981, the City and County jointly approved the design of this section of parkway from Rio Road to the Route 250 Bypass. This is not a new concept. That design was adopted. The two planning departments worked together in designing that parkway after hiring a July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) consultant to work on the idea. 000288 The plans were turned over to VDOT which put them into their own specifications. The name, Meadow Creek Parkway, came from Bill Roudabush when he was a member of this Board. Ms. Humphris said she has been getting information from people that there needs to be a regional network plan. She is frustrated because she does not believe any of these people know about the CATS, which is the required Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study. It happens every ten years. She has served on the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which has done these plans in one way or another for the past seventeen years. The Meadow Creek Parkway has been the key to the whole network that is designed. It is the only road in four-lane fashion which allows all of the other road networks to function at any reasonable level. She said it is frustrating to hear people say a plan is needed. It is difficult when new people come in and don't know this background and just assume things. Their assumptions in this case are incorrect. Ms. Thomas said the plans date to the early 1970's. She served as Chair of the CATS in 1977. Mr. Martin said he would like to underline what Ms. Humphris just said. Mr. Perkins said there is a large dead tree on Tabor Street which is coming down a limb at a time. It needs to be removed. Mr. Perkins said there is a large limb down on Route 627 south of Route 712. Mr. Perkins said the sidewalks under the railroad bridge in Crozet have a lot of gravel on them. He asked whose responsibility it is to keep them cleaned. Ms. Tucker said it is VDOT's responsibility. Mr. Marshall said he is still looking for street lights at the intersection of Route 20 and the entrance to Mill Creek. Mr. Bill Mawyer, County Engineer, said those systems are being designed and reviewed by Virginia Power. Then, that had to go to VDOT for approval. Mr. Marshall asked if it will be another six months before they are installed. Mr. Mawyer said that is a good guess. He said the one in Forest Lakes is the same type of project and is still awaiting approval. Staff has been successful recently in getting some street lights installed on Hydraulic Road. The ones at the corner of Hydraulic Road and Commonwealth Drive should be installed in about a month. Ms. Thomas said the Bellair Road project is completed and looks like it is working well. The dry weather is going to make it difficult for the grass and trees to grow, but she hopes that will not continue to be a brown field. Ms. Thomas said she understands West Leigh Drive has not yet been requested to go into the State system because of some quit claim work with a utility company. She would like to get the final word on that. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board should warn people that all of the unpaved road projects in the Six-Year Plan are being put off a minimum of six months. Ms. Tucker said there is a meeting scheduled in August to start the six-year planning process. At that meeting, it would be appropriate to share with County staff the revised VDOT schedule for projects affected from now through next Spring. At next month's meeting, she will provide a listing to the Board. Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Tucker is pursuing improvements to Reservoir Road. Ms. Tucker said ~yes." During the ride with the property owner, she was concerned that the owner was not happy to see the proposed improvements to the extent that would be necessary to actually add any improvements. She thinks VDOT is back to just assessing the Hurt's location. She will talk with Ms. Thomas about that. Ms. Humphris mentioned the towers in VDOT's right-of-way. The Board has adopted a resolution about the towers in the median of the Interstate highway, July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) 000289 thus bypassing the County's land use process. She said the Board has now been presented with a copy of a resolution adopted by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors expressing similar sentiments. The Board has also received a copy of a letter from Senator Emily Couric which was sent to the Governor on the same subject. Senator Couric noted that she had presented legislation at the last Session of the General Assembly to prevent this from happening. There is a letter from Dan Jordan at Monticello in opposition to the towers, mentioning the major visual intrusion on the Monticello viewshed. There is a letter from Congressman Virgil Goode in response to the Board's resolution about the telecommunication towers. Then, this morning in the Board's packet there isa reply from the Secretary of Transportation who says, in brief, that V/DOT is not considering 250-foot towers, but only monopole towers that would have a height of under 200 feet. The Secretary says that while smart travel technology, which is what VDOT is going to use these towers for, is just beginning to be expanded into the western part of Virginia, they know there will be a need for support structures along the major interstate roadways. Based upon the timing of the private sector needs and the lower court ruling, she (Secretary Ybarra) believes it would be inappropriate for VDOT to delay the implementation of these initiatives. Ms. Humphris said if VDOT requirements for their smart travel technology are devices mounted at 125 feet, that is as high as their structures should be. They should not be allowed to be tall enough to allow three more collocations and by doing that get around the local land use approval process. Since this Board knows this service can be made available with much shorter towers, she thinks the.Board needs to keep up this fight to protect the environmental qualities in Albemarle County and prevent these huge towers from being constructed in a way that intrudes terribly. She does not know how to do that, but she keeps hoping the public will help by writing to the Governor, writing letters to the editor, or to Secretary Shirley J. Ybarra. Her letter evades the whole point of the County's land use plan, and what is best for Albemarle. All of the counties along the 1-64 corridor are having the same problem. They are already dealing with this in court in Fairfax County. Localities in the Tidewater area have done likewise. Ms. Humphris said the Board had received a letter and a flier about the meeting on Monday, July 12, 1999, in Lynchburg about galvanizing support for expanded rail service between Bristol and Richmond. She asked if anyone can go if Board members are not able to attend. This is something the Board has tried to support. Mr. Bowerman said this is one of the elements of the Route 29 South Corridor Study. Ms. Thomas said it is a much neglected aspect of the study, so it is wonderful to see Lynchburg having this forum. She knows that staff from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) cannot attend which makes it important that somebody attend. Ms. Humphris said it caught her eye because on the speaker's list is Senator Wampler and a gentlemen who is Director of Corporate Affairs for Norfolk Southern Railway, and another gentlemen who is Manager of Government Affairs for Amtrack Inter-city, and others. She said it is a rare opportunity to get to talk to the railroad people who will actually make the final decisions. Mr. Bowerman said he is a member of the Route 29 South Corridor Study, so he will make a commitment to attend, if at all possible. This is important, because it is talking about freight, although our first priority is to address passenger traffic. One of the elements that VDOT is looking at is truck traffic. The depots they have now for on-loading and off-loading tractor trailers onto rail cars are very sophisticated and very fast. A lot of truck traffic can be moved by rail quickly and efficiently. Mr. Martin said he is getting a lot of complaints about Rocky Hollow Road. The residents want something put down to help control the dust. Mr. Martin said a lady living on Old Free Bridge Road talked to him about traffic coming through at night from Elks Drive. There was a gate in that area, but for some reason the County removed it. He knows that Pat Mullaney in the Parks Department is looking into the history of the park and road. He said the Board needs to look at whether the gate should go back up and whether lights could be put on the road if a need exists. Ms. Tucker said July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) the gate can be replaced at the County's discretion. She asked if Mr. Martin was asking for lights on the park road, or the road that parallels the river. Mr. Martin said he was speaking of the parallel road, but this can be discussed at another time. Agenda Item No. 8. Minor Ridge Area Stormwater Control Project, discussion of. Mr. Bill Mawyer, County Engineer, summarized the staff's report which gives a history of the Stormwater Fund, a part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), used to pay for the purchase, construction and repair of permanent stormwater and drainage control facilities throughout the County. These structures are part of stormwater management systems designed to detain runoff, prevent downstream flooding, minimize soil erosion and improve the water quality in County streams. At present, there is a lengthy list of regional stormwater control needs, the cost of which is in excess of $1.0 million. Mr. Mawyer said a review of the priorities for the projects listed below as "Proposed for Construction" is before the Board at the request of Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Tucker. There is a significant project proposed for the Minor Ridge area. He said the program has moved forward recently having completed a project at the Doyles River Stream to repair the stream banks and protect the Methodist Church at Browns Cove. The stormwater pond at Four Seasons is being cleaned now. The Peyton Drive basin at the corner of Peyton and Greenbrier Drives is presently being repaired. Designs are in progress on a project in the Brookmill neighborhood, as well as Minor Ridge. The Stormwater Management program currently includes the following projects: Funds Available Proposed for Construction Budget In Priority Order 1. Birnam Basin (includes land purchase) $ 250,000 $ 250,000 2. Minor Ridge Piping Replacement $ 250,000 $ 10,000 3. Westmoreland Court Piping Replacement $ 50,000 $ 50,000 4. Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs $ 50,000 $ 50,000 5. Ricky Road Drainage Repairs $ 40,000 $ 40,000 6. Ivy Road Drainage Repairs $ 80,000 $ -0- Subtotal $ 720,000 Bo $ 400,000 In Progress 7. Four Seasons Pond Repairs 8. Peyton Basin Repairs 9. Monticello H.S./Lakeside Dam Repairs 10. Georgetown Court Basin Repairs 11. Rio Hill Basin Repairs 12. Drainage Basin Study 13. Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs (design only) 14. Birnam Basin (design only) 15. Minor Ridge Piping Replacement (design only) 16. Westmoreland Court (design only) 17. Ivy Road Drainage Repairs (design only) Subtotal Budgeted and Funded $ 140,000 $ 80,000 $ 40 000 $ 3o 000 $ 28 000 $ 5o 000 $ 18 000 $ 20 000 $ 17 000 $ 7 000 $ 2o,ooo $ 450,0OO Recently Completed 1. Doyles River Stream Repairs 2. West Pine Dr. Drainage Repairs Subtotal Cost $ 45,000 $ 4,500, $ 49,500 Total Program Cost $1,219,500 Mr. Mawyer said the discussion this morning came about because there are more projects than can be funded. They have identified $720,000 in construc- tion projects that can proceed this Fall, but there is only $400,000 available for those projects. Alternatives to fund the Minor Ridge project (a piping replacement project that affects 20 homes in the Minor Ridge area of the Wynridge Subdivision) and complete the work this Fall include: Appropriate an additional $240,000 to the Minor Ridge project and continue with the Birnam, Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects as scheduled for FY July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) 1999-2000. If available, an additional appropriation could be provided from year-end operating funds. Defer construction of the Birnam, Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects one year (until FY 2000- 01) and reallocate those funds to Minor Ridge. Purchase of the land for the Birnam project would continue to be funded in FY 1999-2000. Additional funding for the deferred projects would be requested in the FY 2000-2001 CIP program. Defer purchase of the land and construction of the Birnam Basin one year (until FY 2000-01) and reallocate those funds to Minor Ridge. The Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects would continue to be funded in FY 1999-2000. The remaining alternative would be to defer construction of the Minor Ridge project for one year until the Fall of 2000. Funds would be requested in the FY 2000-01 CIP program for Minor Ridge as well as other stormwater projects and drainage area studies. Mr. Mawyer said the Engineering Division recommends that the alterna- tives be considered in the order shown. Additional funding will allow all of these stormwater projects to be addressed in a timely manner. If additional funds are not available, Alternative #2 is preferred since construction of the Birnam Basin could be delayed until July, 2000 because negotiations for purchase of the land have not been completed, and, construction of the Minor Ridge project will address a longstanding drainage problem which has a greater impact on more properties than the Westmoreland, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects. Mr. Bowerman said he has been aware of this situation, and the Board was aware of it when it approved the commercial development adjacent to Minor Hill on Greenbrier Drive. There were problems then in the backyards of some homes. The County and the developer contributed to some small improvements there. When Wynridge was developed in the 1980's, the assumption was that Greenbrier Drive would connect through Whitewood Park. What happened is that the Board protected the Park and removed that roadway. That put a significant amount of drainage that had not been calculated in the construction documents for Wynridge into a stream that flows into Four Seasons rather than a stream flowing down Greenbrier Drive. The whole area now between Whitewood Park and Birnam drains to an area where it was not designed to go initially. By removing the road, the Board essentially said there would never be any diversion of that water, therefore the current underground system is undersized. Mr. Bowerman said the only way to deal with the problem is to improve the underground supply capabilities. That, along with the Four Seasons Basin improvements, and eventually construction of Birnam, Peyton, and what is taking place in Branchlands now, is the final build-out of the whole plan for urban runoff control in this highly developed area. It should prevent flooding from any storm that is not in excess of a one hundred year storm. This whole project has been underway for 15 years, and the completion of it is nearing. This is one critical element that is needed to complete the system. Unless it is completed, there will be flooding there forever. While it is a higher cost than initially estimated, Mr. Bowerman said the project needs to be done as part of the overall livcability~~~-~ ........... ~~ urban public safety improvements that all ends up at Branchlands at Meadow Creek. He recommended that the Board try to find the funds to do the project soon. He said of the other projects listed, those are also critical improvements, and he does not recommend delaying those projects. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman is recommending staff's Alternative 1. She is concerned about that alternative because it refers to the use of year- end operating funds, if available. She does not think that is a good way to fund a project. Mr. Perkins said it looks like Birnam would be put off until July, 2000. Mr. Bowerman said Birnam drains down the other side of Greenbrier and is not as critical to the system flooding-wise. Mr. Tucker said the total of all the year-end carryover funds is not known at this time. If the Board feels it is important to move ahead with this project, they can do so. Then, in August or September, he will have July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) staff look at the carryover funds to see what amount is available to replace the funds for Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Rickey Road. Those are the projects that the Engineering staff recommended be delayed. He said there are other projects that staff would like to use the carryover funds for; the fire contract, other fire improvements, etc. Mr. Bowerman said in order for the Board to take some action, he would move that the Board accept Alternative #2; delay the other projects, commence work on Minor Hill, and if funds allow, pick up the projects that are delayed. He thinks this project is that important. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the funds will be available, but he does not want to make that commitment without looking at the overall picture. Mr. Davis said there is another issue involved which will require some discussion later. This is a subdivision where the County does not have an easement for the drainage. In order to expend public funds on private property, the County will need to obtain a drainage easement for this area. It should not be a problem. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are easements now on plats for the lines which are underground. Mr. Mawyer said there is an easement, but the pipes were not located within the easement. Therefore, a construction and permanent easement is needed from the residents to replace the two pipes. Mr. Bowerman said that is a good reason to go ahead with this project now as it will require more time at the frontend. Mr. Davis said that is one issue, but as these projects are developed, the County is really developing a public drainage system. Related to that is an additional liability of maintaining that drainage system, which has an associated cost. The County could assume that liability and find some funding mechanism to deal with it. Another alternative, which has not been widely successful, is to require the property owners to sign a maintenance agreement and for them to maintain the basins. The County does this now where most major projects have on-site detention. Whether it would work in these types of neighborhoods is unknown. The list that the Engineering Division has put together is a significant list and it puts that issue in front of the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the issue has been before the Board for the last 20 years. When there is a new development, the homeowners' association has been required to deal with it. When there are developed areas where the drainage was insufficiently accounted for, he feels the County has an obligation to insure to the existing citizens whose plans for the homes they live in were approved by either the Planning Commission or this Board, that the problem will be fixed in order to maintain a safe community. This raises issues, but he does not believe there is any other choice. Mr. Martin said the question today is how the Board members feel about putting this project ahead of other projects knowing there is a strong likelihood that the others can be continued as well. Mr. Bowerman said that is his motion. Ms. Humphris gave second to the motion. Ms. Thomas clarified that this is essentially Alternative #2. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Ms. Humphris said she is comfortable with this motion because the Board does not usually obligate money it does not know is available. Alternative #2 accomplishes the same thing, but it still leaves the possibility that the other projects can be started, if in fact, the money is available. Mr. Bowerman said since there is a potential problem with easements, a lot of property owners must be contacted which puts a longer time frame on the project. Mr. Perkins said it seems to him that the only projects the Board needs to look at are the first two. The Board just changed the priority of Birnam Basin and Minor Ridge. There are already funds available for Birnam Basin and the funds won't be needed for a year, so it should not effect 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the list. Mr. Mawyer said staff was trying to hold enough money in the Birnam Basin project to purchase the land. Mr. Marshall asked if the County is purchasing easements, or the actual land. Mr. Davis said that for the Birnam Basin, it will be an actual land purchase. Mr. Marshall said he can agree with land purchase, but for easements he thinks the people should be willing to donate to keep their basements from flooding. Mr. Mawyer said there is no cost for the easements. Mr. Perkins said he believes there should be a real effort to get donations for the basins. Mr. Bowerman said that some of it is developable land. Mr. Davis said if the basin is part of a larger project, an effort is made to get dedication of the necessary land. In this particular situation, the land has July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) developed around the area that i~ necessary for the basin, and the land is not owned by the people who are developing. Mr. Bowerman said part of it is also an earthen dam which is part of the parkway path system through Whitewood park. It is all interconnected. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Committee Report. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chair of PDR/Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, summarized the Committee report. She said the Committee has created a purchase of easements program which is the legal mechanism used to accomplish the purchase of development rights. They feel the holder of the easements should be the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. They propose an open space program as opposed to a farmland protection program, one that would include farmland and forest land, as well as the other natural resources the County's Comprehensive Plan calls for being protected. She said there is a ranking sheet in the report. As to eligibility, they tried to make the program broadly eligible. The terms of the easement should be perpetual so that actual public benefit is derived from the project. In terms of staffing, they recommend one half-time staff position housed within the Planning Department. As to valuation of the easements to be purchased, the Committee spent a great deal of time on this issue, and with Mr. Tucker's help came up with the concept of having the County Assessor actually make the determination as value. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee recommends that the project be funded at a minimum of $1.0 million per year. They also emphasize that this is a long- term project. It must be a commitment to fund the project at the beginning for two to three years. This is an on-going program, and cannot be done just one time. The program needs to be predictable so landowners feel comfortable taking advantage of the program. The County Executive has determined that funding can come from the Carry-over Fund Balance ($650,000) and the Transient Lodging Tax ($350,000) for this upcoming fiscal year. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee wanted to emphasize some general points: 1) The Purchase of Development Rights should be considered only none arrow in the quiver of arrows" addressing rural land use; 2) It is important that a secure source of funding be developed with a minimum commitment of two to three years to the program; and, 3) It is important that Albemarle support state initiatives to create a fund to make grants to localities to purchase easements. The Committee has proposed a schedule of meetings to get public input. A landowners meeting has been scheduled on July 20 sponsored by the VPI- Extension Service, the Farm Bureau, and the Committee. It is focused for landowners and farmers. The Committee also proposes to hold a work session for representatives of organizations in an effort to reach as much public consensus as possible before bringing this report to a public hearing. The Committee would like to hold a round table discussion with representatives of organizations to see if there is a consensus that changes need to be made, particularly in the ranking criteria proposed before the report comes to the Board for a public hearing. The Committee would like the Board's consent to do that. The Committee thinks the Board may want to hold a public hearing in September and the Committee would be available to assist with that hearing. She said that soon it will be appropriate for this project to have staff allocated to it. The Committee anticipates the need for a half time person and at some point soon, the Board will probably want input and review, so she encourages the Board to give some staff time to this project. Ms. Humphris referred to the outline presented to the Board, under No. 2 in the Rankings, where it says ~the ranking system favors the protection of land owned by landowners of modest income .... " She asked if it is legal to use ranking points based on a person's income. Ms. Buttrick said the State program that runs the Outdoors Foundation does this. They have not heard any comment from the Attorney General's Office that they should do otherwise. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Martin said he thought the Committee was trying to protect the property that had the better chance of being sold. He is not sure the way the ranking is set up that it would matter. Ms. Buttrick said it may not be a determining factor. It is hoped that it will have some impact. If it has no impact, the County would start paying for conservation easements it now gets for free. Ms. Humphris said she was only asking about the legality of it, and not whether it is a good idea. Ms. Thomas said it is her understanding that the easements now given for free are from people who have enough of an estate and an income that they are getting a good Federal tax advantage. It is the people who don't have much of an estate and income who can't take advantage of the program. She thought it would naturally weed out those with enough of an estate that it would be to their advantage to give an easement because they would find it more advantageous to take the tax credits. Mr. Perkins said that is why there is a need for the staff person. Ms. Buttrick said whoever staffs this project should be conversant with other options. There are advantages to those with significant estate-planning based concerns. It may be important that the program also supply a weighting in that direction. She spoke with the Executive Director of the Maryland Environmental Trust last week, and they have both a gift of easement program similar to the Outdoors Foundation, and then they have a Maryland Agricultural Foundation that is a state purchase-of-easements program. They were clear that they failed to get a financial need component in the criteria when they did the Maryland Agricultural Foundation. She was told that was a mistake and it is causing them to buy easements that should be donated and for which tax savings could be obtained. Albemarle should be careful not to make the kinds of mistakes that, particularly Maryland, wishes they had sorted out in the beginning. Mr. Martin said he thinks flexibility should be maintained. Anything that does not work should be changed immediately. Ms. Buttrick said it is for that very reason that the Committee suggested that there be an ~Ace Commission" a committee of citizens to oversee the program. Annually, they would review how things are working. Ms. Thomas asked if sample properties had been run through the proposed ranking system to see how it works. Ms. Buttrick responded "yes." She said they did seven sample properties in order to see whether the points were properly weighted. Several adjustments were made after that. Mr. Davis said on the funding issue, Loudoun County, which has the same transient occupancy tax authority that Albemarle has, has asked for an Attorney General's opinion as to whether or not those tax funds could be used for purchasing development rights. It is their attorney's opinion that use of that tax is limited to certain appropriate properties. There has not been a response at this time. Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is important that this program have the Board's support, and staff's support because the "clock is ticking" for this fiscal year. There are some landowners who have expressed interest, and it will take time to work them through the system. Mr. Martin said he got a call last week from a person who is interested in donating money to the fund. He said there was no action required on this item today. (Note: Mr. Tucker left the meeting at this time to attend the funeral of Mr. George Palmer. At 10:35 a.m., the Board recessed. It reconvened at 10:51 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. School Board Report. Mr. John Baker, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, summarized the June 14 and June 28, 1999, issues of ~Albemarle County Public Schools Board Briefs." He said that on June 14, the School Board reviewed proposed student fees for the 1999-2000 school year. Of the 23 student fees charged, 11 will be increased to cover rising costs. The Board also increased the cost of meals for the Albemarle County Schools Child Nutrition Program (which is a self-sustaining business serving over 5500 students lunches and over 700 students breakfasts daily) by 25 percent. This is the first increase in 11 years. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Baker said the School Board got an update on construction at Monticello High School, and a report on how the whole infrastructure is working. It was a successful first year. Hiring the best people possible to come into the school division, and then into a school building, and to insure they will work together as a team, has had some ups and downs. During this year, an assistant principal left and they lost the head of the math department. He said that Mr. Irving Jones, Principal, and his staff, have done an excellent job. The first graduating class had 115 graduates. He was happy to thank Mr. Jones for his effort, and reminded him that it was the Board of Supervisors and the whole community, as well as the School Board, and a strong PTO that made that first year of operation at Monticello High School successful. There are some issues remaining as to the academic performance of some of the students, but he is confident that those matters will be tended to, and there will be more positive results in the future. Mr. Baker said the individual Standards of Learning results for the 1998-99 school year are being distributed to parents; statewide results will be available in late Summer. He then noted a section in the Briefs outlining the performance of some students. Last week there was a full page ad in the daily newspaper setting out the achievements of the students in Albemarle County. There were two students who got 1600 points on the SAT. In addition, there are a whole layer of students who have performed well in their academic achievements, extra curricula activities, as well as athletics. The School Board felt it was important to expend funds to make that kind of announcement to the community so all can share in the success of Albemarle County schools. Mr. Baker said the Literacy Task Force, which was appointed when the School Board expanded its priorities to include a goal of 100 percent literacy for all students after the second grade, made its report. He said the recommendations of this report will be used to get test scores across-the- board up, and to narrow the gap between the African-American students and the white students. It will be used to strengthen academic programs across-the- board. It also has a section on training of faculty and staff. Mr. Baker said that on June 28, the Joint Vocational and Technical Education Advisory Council presented its Annual Report for 1998-99. More than 2300 students are being served by this program. The night programs are working effectively. Mr. Baker said he told the VO-TEC Chairman that he would like to see a greater emphasis being made by businesses to accept high school students in apprenticeship programs. The businesses have to stop saying the schools ~don't give me the skills I need." They need to state what skills are needed, and ask for help in training people with those skills. The~ need to give this effort more than just ~lip service." Mr. Baker said as to the Board/Superintendent priorities, the Board will be discussing this again next Monday. They are at an impasse as to the format that will be used in the future. The next item Mr. Baker mentioned is the Board/Superintendent Performance Report. This is a public meeting each year where the Albemarle School Board evaluates itself and the Superintendent. He went over several items on which they test themselves (all listed in the June 28 issue of ~Board Briefs"). Lastly, he was asked last week about a new program that the Governor has introduced. He was asked what the Schools are doing in Albemarle. The program from the Governor's level is more exploratory than it is a factual, in-place program. Even prior to Littleton, the County Executive had appointed Lt. Earl Newton and Asst. Supt. Frank Morgan to head up a team. This group consisting of Police Department staff, administrators, parents and students, and a variety of other persons, meets tomorrow, to consider the issues. One of the things they will talk about is whether to use the existing 9-1-1 hotline for those kinds of calls, just train people rather than trying to introduce a whole new system. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Marshall said he has always been opposed to across-the-board raises for teachers. He has realized for the last 16 years that there will be a shortage of math and science teachers. He sees it in the health care professions today. Ten years ago, medical schools were only taking in students from the top ten percent of the class. This top ten percent of students are not going into medicine or teaching or pharmacy and nursing, but going to Wall Street and Microsoft type of industries. The concern on the health care level is that they are going to the middle of the class. All of that is due to managed health care and the redistribution of funds. Thirty percent of all dollars which are spent now are going to administration of the managed health care programs. The problem with teachers is similar because those math and science teachers are taking the higher paid job. The only way July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) 000296 to attract these people is to offer stipends or some extra incentives for them to come into education. The School Board does not seem ready to do that. Mr. Baker said that is right, and they are not ready to do that because there is quite a bit of resistance from existing teachers. Teachers who are not in the math and sciences feel that their skills and value is just as great. Then, for the teachers who are currently in the system, with the step payroll system being used now, the introduction on the salary scale for a beginning teacher beyond a mid-level teacher is not something they would be happy about. He does not have an answer. His position about this last year was to simply pay bonuses to those teachers where the need is critical. The School Board has not done that. They have discussed it with the AEA and they are not comfortable with the proposal. The objections they raised are not unreasonable, but they are not helping with the problem either. Mr. Marshall said that is because the AEA is a union. He has seen the same thing in health care with doctors forming unions. The only way to get the leverage to get the compensation they need is through a union. He agrees with the teachers that they need some support, but in specialty fields where the demand is greater than the supply, he is concerned that in ten years there might not be a math teacher because that person is working on Wall Street. It is reality that has to be faced. Mr. Baker said there are some arrangements with the Curry School and he would like to see how they go. There are some programs to give additional math teaching skills to people currently in the system. That is something that can be underwritten without creating a potential conflict between existing teachers and teachers in other disciplines. Mr. Bowerman asked if a member of the public who had a skill in one of the sciences could present a lesson plan for a week at the high school level, on a volunteer basis. Mr. Baker replied ~no." But, there is now a "reseed" program. A number of scientists and engineers are currently in the schools on a volunteer basis, but under the guidance of the individual teacher. Also, there is a continuum of information that has to be presented to the students. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible if the lesson plan followed the instructional individual involved. Mr. Baker said that would require that someone monitor that activity. This is a non-certified volunteer with a skill that they can communicate, who should be an adjunct to the current teacher. Mr. Martin said this is done a lot on a one-hour basis. Mr. Bowerman said that takes place in government classes. Mr. Martin said it is because they are working on that particular curriculum. Mr. Perkins said there are mobile classrooms at Monticello High School. He thinks Western Albemarle will be under enrollment, but it looks like at the high schools there is an opportunity not to redistrict. So many of the students drive their own cars to school, that there is a chance to balance the high school enrollments so there is no need for the mobile classrooms. Let the students choose to attend another school that is not at capacity. Redistricting is such a bear to deal with, that no one wants to do it until absolutely necessary. It seems silly to set up mobile classrooms at one high school, and have available classrooms at another school. Mr. Baker said he will get the Board a report on projections for this Fall, both in space and student numbers, by high schools. Ms. Thomas said one of the charges she has heard in the community is that the School System is turning out children (particularly in cosmetology), with skills that the community cannot use, and then there are other needs which are going unfilled. She asked for some further information on this question. (Note: Mr. Martin said because of the lateness of the hour, he would request that the Board skip the next two agenda items and go on to the work session under Agenda Item No. 13. Agenda Items No. 11 and No. 12 can be discussed this afternoon.) Agenda Item No. 13. Work Session: CPA-97-05. Brass, Inc. (Willoughby). Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approx 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4. Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A & 2B. Property east of Fifth Street Extd (Rt 631) & north of 1-64. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the area from Industrial July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) Service to Regional Service to support an eventual rezoning from Light Industrial, to C-1 Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Scottsville Dist. Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, would give the Board an overview of the request based on Planning Commission reviews and hearings. Ms. Susan Thomas, said the Board has four alternatives before it: take no action to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property; approve the applicant's proposal for a Regional Service designation on the Brass, Inc. site; approve the staff's recommendation for Community Service/Mixed Use designation; or, approve the Rooker/Reiley alternative proposal. She then offered to answer questions, or have further information presented from a variety of people present this morning. Mr. Martin asked how the Board members wished to proceed with this work session. He said the applicant wishes to make a presentation, and asked Mr. Steve Blaine the length of his presentation. Mr. Blaine, representing the applicant, said the applicant had a presentation of about ten minutes. Mr. Martin said that seemed too long, since he would feel obligated to let those present in opposition to this request also have that length of time to speak. Mr. Blaine said the applicant had prepared a one page summary of the original proposal and the "Rieley" proposal. He has an important announcement about the applicant's revised proposal that they would like to discuss with the Board which involves scaling back the original request. Ms. Humphris said she is concerned that Mr. Blaine wishes to present new information. That leaves the Board in a difficult situation since this is to be the Board's only work session. Other than what Mr. Blaine just mentioned, with all of the documentation, etc. that the Board has, is there anything else new to be presented. Mr. Blaine said ~no." He said it is in the best interest of the client who has invested more than two years of effort in this request to have more than ten minutes in which to summarize their case. Experience shows that the public hearing is not the best time to give a lengthy presentation. Therefore, it was his thought to use this informal process to give the Board all available information. The Board would have that information to consider between now and the public hearing next week. Mr. Martin agreed to let the applicant proceed with their presentation, saying he might have to interrupt them if time becomes too short. Mr. Blaine said Mr. Frank Cox, Cox Company, would like to gave a slide presentation of the proposal. Mr. Cox said the presentation that the applicant had intended to give the Board would have taken quite a bit longer. They had hoped for about one hour. The subject site is bounded by 1-64, by Fifth Street (Willoughby neighborhood), Harris Road leading back to the Fry's Spring community, and the existing commercial development along Fifth Street. They feel a Regional Service designation is consistent with area development patterns, and this site is one of the last remaining infill properties in the urban area, particularly on the south side. It has adequate transportation, public infrastructure, an opportunity on this site for unified site development opportunities, and it gives the ability to protect the natural resources which are bounteous on this property. Mr. Cox said there is a piece of the County's Comprehensive Plan which the applicant feels is important to this request. That has to do with the language pertinent to development of the interstate interchange. The Fifth Street interchange at 1-64 is part of that and it clearly states that permitted land uses should relate to and support the interstate highway function. This is a high capacity location. The Plan points out that regional uses should focus on larger scale market targets. Uses that would be inappropriate to the area are local uses such as, lower density residential and neighborhood shopping. Mr. Cox said the existing Light Industrial zoning on the 54-acre parcel pushed the floor area ratio of 0.4 (which is consistent with some of the industrial development in and around Albemarle), and could give as much as 100,000 square feet of gross leasable area, or, in theory, a building coverage of 27 acres. He then listed uses allowed under the LI zoning. Mr. Cox said the logical zoning designation would be PD-SC, but it has some fairly permissive development parameters. If the site developed at 0.3 July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) it could be developed with 700,000 square feet. building coverage of 13.5 acres. There could also be a total' Mr. Cox said the Willoughy development opportunity would allow the applicant to create a development well below the existing zoned designation, and give more flexibility than is allowed under the PD-SC designation. At a building size of 300,000 square feet, the floor area ratio for the total site would be reduced down to 0.15, which is one-half of what is normal for retail development. There'could be almost 30 acres of permanent open space, which would be 55 percent of the total site. Open space under the PD-SC designation is not regulated. The building coverage initially proposed was 6.5 acres. The Planning Commission felt that 50 percent of floor coverage should be in second floor space. In order to go along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, the actual building coverage would be reduced down to 4.3 Mr. Cox had several slides showing site sections of the property. He then proceeded to explain consumer surveys that had been taken at several local stores. He said they had an independent market and demographic company assess the existing population. Today, the population is 140,000 as compared to the 150,000 in the broader region which includes Greene and Fluvanna counties. The survey indicted that by the year 2010 the population could be as great as 180,000. Issues brought up as site planning considerations fell into a number of categories. There is the opportunity on Moore's Creek to do a stream valley trail system. Bicycle paths and pedestrian trails, which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would be introduced. On the east side of the site is an area which would hold a regulation soccer field. There are open space opportunities on the site. There are also good stormwater management opportunities on the site. The location is not on their property, but the owner of that property has committed to participate in the development of a regional stormwater management basin. The Grand Piano property, which was developed a number of years ago, was not required to have stormwater management, and properties on the City side of Fifth Street were not required to provide stormwater management. There is limited environmental and stormwater management controls on the commercial properties in the City. Mr. Cox said from a transportation standpoint, the interchange ramps coming onto Fifth Street from 1-64, have bad line-of-sight problems. They were not designed properly. The applicant can introduce signalization of these intersections. It would enhance the level of service on the ramps, and eliminate that sight distance problem. There is seven-tenths of a mile of Moore's Creek channel on this property. The applicant can do some rehabilitation using bio-engineering techniques. Similarly, there are some landscape enhancements along the Creek which would be fulfilled if the site were developed in a unified approach. There is an opportunity to enhance the tree canopy ratio on the site. The ordinance calls for ten percent, but they feel that a total of 30 percent could be obtained. For the parking lots, there is more that can be done with landscape medians, wider interior planting islands, and BMPs. The ordinance requires an interior tree canopy, but they feel that can be increased by a ratio of three or four by doing more with parking islands and street scape vegetation. Mr. Cox said the urban design opportunities with the PD-SC District designation is minimal. Under a proper master plan, they feel that can be enhanced. They have come away from the Planning Commission with a clear signal that the Commission does not want buildings spread all over the project. They suggest a two-story configuration. The applicant believes the building coverage can be cut back as far as site coverage is concerned. The ratio can be down closer to ten percent with some of the 6.5 acres being two- story. While there is no requirement for permanent open space, that can be proffered. The landscape canopy requirements on this environmentally- sensitive property are negligible. Relative to the amount of tree cover there now, they feel they can increase that canopy by up to three times the amount. Mr. Cox said he would close with the fiscal impact of the project. Under industrial development, staff said it would be close to a $100,000 a year loser, but their figures showed a $845,000 surplus under the proposed commercial development. Ms. Humphris said if the next presentation is this long, the Board will be here a long time just listening. Mr. Martin asked if Board members had questions. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant is proposing a 300,000 square foot store as a regional shopping center as opposed to the Planning Commission's recommendation of several smaller-sized stores. Mr. Blaine said the summary of the revised proposal is in the third column of a sheet he handed out today. In terms of the total density for the project in the original proposal, they have voluntarily limited it to 300,000 square feet. As a result of Planning Commission comments and inducements for more mix of uses, the Commission actually increased that to 310,000 square feet, but that is not all retail. The Commission recommends that the retail uses be limited to 250,000 total square feet. The applicant thinks that is an appropriate limitation for this proposal. As to specific building size limitations, the Commission recommended that no individual building exceed 65,000 square feet. The Commission was concerned that a large store might fail, leaving a large, limited-use opportunity. Mr. Marshall asked the minimum size of a store such as a Super Wal-Mart or Target. Mr. Blaine said he wished to announce that the applicant is willing to scale back from a super store, which is typically a 190,000 square feet, in order to incorporate the discount use, pharmacy and grocery store. That opportunity is being eliminated with the applicant's revised proposal. What Mr. Murray, his client, heard in the public presentation was a reaction to a super store. A lot of what they heard from the Planning Commission was based on aesthetics. They propose that a single user would not occupy more than 160,000 square feet. That is entirely consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation that no single user occupy more than 160,000 square feet. Mr. Marshall said he wants the other Board members to know how he feels about this proposal. He has some knowledge about what it takes to survive in retail business having operated a business for forty years. He is now out of retail business because there was a City Council that was not knowledgeable about what it takes to survive as a business. He spent last weekend in Southern Albemarle listening to people who want a large regional shopping store. He talked to only three people in Covesville who objected to such a store, as opposed to several thousand who want it. He had in his hand petitions containing approximately 1500 signatures from people who live in Southern Albemarle who want a regional size store. In addition to the people who live in his district (Scottsville), he has also talked to business owners in the area. The owners of that shopping center want a regional size store. Mr. Heischman who is building a shopping center across 1-64 also wants a regional size store. They do because these stores attract other people, so that specialty store, and other small businesses, have an opportunity to survive from that traffic. As far as a regional size store hurting the downtown mall, it is inconceivable to him that it could do anything except help promote it. He goes on the downtown mall only once or twice a year, but he goes on Route 29 North to Sam's Club or Wal-Mart at least two or three times a week. He would go to this store, as would his neighbors. It would cut down on the amount of traffic through the City. It would be much more convenient for him and his neighbors. Looking at the plans he has seen this morning, it is much more environmentally-friendly than the present use. The vast majority of the people who live in his district support this proposal. He remembers how much additional revenue the Wal-Mart Store on Route 29 North brought into the County. He hopes the other Board members will support him in getting a regional shopping center on this site. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Dennis Rooker, a member of the Planning Commission present today, what he saw in the presentation this morning that was different than what the applicant presented to the Commission. Mr. Rooker said the Commission spent about 1.5 years on this request. There was a foot and a half of written materials, two public hearings, three or four work sessions, spending a total over 100 hours each on this topic. The presentation this morning was somewhat different than what the Commission saw. It incorporated substantially more emphasis on preserving the environment of the site. The hand-out this morning indicates a number of changes made in the proposal by the applicant. They are sensitive to what the Commission passed. The 30 percent tree coverage was never mentioned to the Commission. If the developer were to proffer most of the things he presented today, in keeping with some of the things in the Commission's proposal, he thinks it would be a workable plan. He thinks Mr. Marshall hit on a topic that was important in the Commission's deliberations, and that was the fact that this is an in-fill site, and it is important that it be properly developed. Looking at Neighborhood 4, it is about 95 percent residential, five percent industrial, office or retail. Early on in his study Mr. Rooker said, he concluded that the site was probably appropriate for retail development. The real debate centered on the size and scope of the development. Originally, the Commission 000300 July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) looked at a 210,000 square foOt "big box" store. He, personally, concluded that was much too large for the site. What has been presented now is a much more sensible approach to development of that site. He applauds the response of the developer to the proposal that the Commission passed. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is consistent in all areas except the 65,000 square foot building as the maximum single structure. Mr. Rooker said what was presented this morning is accurate. He is not sure that every issue in the Commission proposal has been addressed. The difference in the 65,000 square foot building size is not as great as it looks. The Commission had proposed that each individual building could not exceed 65,000 square feet, but that the buildings could be linked, and a single user could use up to 160,000 square feet of building. It appears the applicant has tried to address several of the Commission's concerns that there not be a monolith structure, concrete cubicle on a sea of asphalt, and that this structure might have a more friendly look on the outside. This site is at the corner of two entrance corridor roads, so the Commission felt it was appropriate that it set an appropriate tone for entering the community. There is a difference on the two-story concept. What the developer just handed out indicated they could go with a proposal that said two-story development is encouraged. The Commission required that one-third of the building pad be under a two-story building. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Bowerman if his question had been answered. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Rooker was doing fine. Mr. Rooker handed out an analysis of what can be done under what was passed by the Commission. There could be 300,000 total square feet of development. The developer expressed concern about the total amount of first floor footage because it is more valuable than second floor footage. Under the plan passed by the Commission, the developer could build out to 225,000 total first floor footage which is plenty of footage to put in a typical Wal-Mart or Target sized operation. Mr. Rooker said in summarizing public comment, the Commission had a lot of people who spoke on both sides. There was a petition signed by over 1000 people opposing the development. There was a petition signed by over 1000 people favoring the development. One thing that was similar in the comments was that the people who opposed the development opposed a super store or ~big box" type of development that would have the typical aesthetics or lack of aesthetics that are normally seen with "big box" developments. On the north side of Lynchburg, there is a ~big box" Wal-Mart which he feels is a detriment to the community. It has almost no landscaping and is literally an ugly monilith in a sea of asphalt. On the south side of Lynchburg, there is a similar Wal-Mart development. This is the kind of thing that people had a reaction to. They were not complaining about the use of the property for retail development, but the potential for that type of development. Mr. Rooker said, on the other side, the people who favored development did not come in carrying banners in favor of a super store. They wanted some reasonable shopping on the south side of the County. They want shopping in Neighborhood 4, which is adjacent to Neighborhood 5. They wanted a different kind of shopping then they presently have access to. The Commission feels the proposal they passed would satisfy what the vast majority of those people wanted. This proposal would allow for sensible development on the property. It would allow for an operation the size of Wal-Mart. It would allow for a number of other potential users on the property. Looking at the way shopping centers are being developed now, it would be in keeping with the better designs of shopping centers. The developer had an expert on shopping center development come in and do a presentation on the kind of development that could take place on this property. During that discussion, he was asked to provide some pictures of similar developments. The Commission did not get those pictures for quite a while. He (Mr. Rooker) called Mr. Blaine and asked for the pictures. He (Mr. Rooker) provided Ms. Humphris with a copy of those pictures and there is a multi-store dominant aspect to some of those pictures (including some four-, five- and six-story buildings). The Commission would not require anything over two-stories, and it is necessary because the site is important environmentally and aesthetically. There are two major streams that meet on this property, and it is on the corner of two entrance corridors. The two-story requirement substantially reduces the footprint of the building on the property, thus reduces the environmental impact. The part of the property that would be developed is a knoll that will have to be flattened substantially. As the footprint is reduced, it will reduce the amount of earthmoving that would take place on site. Mr. Martin again asked Mr. Bowerman if his question had been answered. Mr. Bowerman said ~yes", but he had another which Ms. Thomas can deal with. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) Ms. Thomas said she was interested in the proposal that no building be more than 65,000 square feet, but she was more interested in it after she saw the site. She thinks it was quite telling that the Board was not shown a sketch of what a building the size of Lowe's on this site would look like. She thinks it will be difficult to place the monolithic building on this site without doing so much damage to the site that it would create the sort of nightmarish pictures that were shown to the Board. At this point, the applicant seems to be willing to give up on that idea. She asked why that is not now important to the developer. Mr. Rooker said the genesis of a 65,000 square foot building limit came about through a number of interests and reasons. One was so the external appearance of the building would not look like the typical Super Wal-Mart design. The developer has addressed that in his proposal handed out today. He has proposed that the largest building be designed so it will look like a building no larger than 65,000 square feet. That addresses the external aesthetic issue. Ms. Thomas said her question is really about the footprint. Mr. Rooker said there were three reasons why the 65,000 limitation was important to the Commission. The second was a concern that if the business failed, there would be a giant "white elephant" surrounded by asphalt that would be a detriment to the community. It was important that the buildings be smaller, or easily subdividable so they could be adapted to other uses if the larger use failed. The applicant has addressed that issue by saying the buildings would be easily subdividable into 65,000 square foot or less units so it could be adapted to other uses. The third reason, which Ms. Thomas is asking about, is that by limiting the building size and the pad size to 65,000 square feet, the buildings can be adapted to the land better and with creative design substantially reduce the amount of earth that will have to be moved. He said the Commission had asked the County Engineering Department to give a footprint for a 210,000 square foot building with surrounding parking. Ms. Thomas said there are magnificent old growth, 300 year old white oak trees that have another one hundred years of life on this site. She thinks the chances of keeping any of these things on site is better the smaller the footprint. She is not for turning the whole site into a park except for a little bit of commercial. She does feel this is a valuable site because of its location and public investment in the way of roads, and water and sewer. She thinks the smaller the individual building footprints are, the better the chance will be of saving some of the things that are unique on this site. Mr. Rooker said it is a question of the extent to which that might take place. The Commission did incorporate into the proposal that was passed that large specimen trees on the site be saved to the extent possible. The Commission was mindful of the fact that the developer could develop the property as industrial, and then all the things being discussed could be a moot issue. He could go out tomorrow and start harvesting trees. Mr. Marshall said if there are multiple buildings, there is more chance of failure of the small business than the larger business. He does not want to see a bunch of small stores that will just compete with other small stores. He wants a superstore there that will attract people so it will help the other smaller stores in the shopping center that is already there, and the new shopping center that has been proposed. Mr. Martin said this is why he did not want to allow this presentation this morning because he knew it would become a competitive thing. He thinks the Board members need to direct questions to someone, let them answer, and move on to the next question. He does not want to get into a "tit for tat" debate. He asked if Mr. Marshall had a specific question for Mr. Rooker. Mr. Marshall asked if there can be a super size store on this site as opposed to an industrial site. Mr. Rooker said "yes." In the square footage chart provided, the developer is talking in his proposal now (which is different from the original proposal), of 250,000 square feet of retail space. Under the proposal passed by the Commission, 225,000 square feet of that space can be on the first floor. ~The Commission indicated that buildings could be linked together. In talking about separate building units, it did not mean the buildings had to have exterior space between those buildings. They could be opened up and there be an interconnection between those building with the idea that a store such as Target could have 65,000 square feet in the main store, with a Target Lawn and Garden beside it with interconnected doors. There could be a Target grocery on the other side with interconnected doors to 000302 July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) that. The Commission was trying to meld the type of shopping people living on the south side want, with preserving the site. Mr. Martin asked if what the applicant wants is basically what the Commission approved, with some improvements, and the applicant is proposing less of a distinction from the 65,000 square foot footprint the Commission suggested. Mr. Rooker said that is correct, but the applicant wanted to eliminate the requirement for two-story space. Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Thomas has concerns about the unique site attributes. One of those aspects is the approach to the site, the hill that is there and the trees that are on the site. With the 160,000 square foot maximum limitation imposed by the Commission, with the additional 110,000 square feet available, is it possible to retain the unique features Ms. Thomas referred to and get the development as approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Blaine said ~yes." He said his client is not a developer; he owns the property. There is no site plan at this point because there are no binding agreements with any users or developers to build a building. The best chance for this project to be something to benefit the community, is that Mr. Murray is a lifetime resident of Albemarle County. These design criteria are unique in Comprehensive Plan language and will address these concerns, and also provide a project that will be successful. It is not in anyone's interest to have a project which will not succeed. It has to be a project which reflects market realities. Two-story buildings are not required in any of the zoning districts. The planning objective Mr. Rooker mentioned is to reduce impervious surfaces so it is protective of the environment. What they propose is a performance standard approach, protect the environment using the types of practices that Mr. Cox described in his presentation. Those were mentioned in the December 15 work session, along with a lot of detail. There is no new information on their approach to go above and beyond what the ordinances call for. There has to be a project which reflects market realities. When it is said that one-third of the building space has to be second story, how will they know that retail tenants will be attracted to that space? Does anybody know of a Target or Wal-Mart that has retail tenants, if not their own store, on the second level? There is no project in this community, or elsewhere, described in Mr. Rooker's hand-out, that has been successful. He understands there are places, such as in metro-Atlanta and Miami, where there are two- story department stores being built again. The land prices in those areas are tremendous, and the rent they can charge is great. That will drive the specific design features, not the government. What his client has to do is concentrate on what can be done from a performance standpoint to preserve the environment and yet have a successful project. Mr. Martin said he is not being disrespectful, but there are a hundred questions to be asked. He is trying to set up an environment where as many of those questions can be asked and answered today. Second, lunch is ready, and the Board needs to decide what it is going to do about that. Ms. Humphris said her first question has to do with access. From visiting the site, and seeing the bridge into the site, and with the County's policy now that there be two methods of access to residential neighborhoods, she wondered what would happen if anything happened on the entrance on Bent Creek Road. If there were an emergency, how would it be dealt with? She did not remember reading a discussion of this in the Commission's minutes. Mr. Blaine said it is not unique to have a single access to such a development from an arterial way. Until recently, there was only one access off of Route 29 North to Wal-Mart and Sam's. Ms. Humphris said that Berkmar Drive was planned, and the Board knew there would be other access to those facilities. Mr. Blaine said the other question is about adequate fire protection. They design a project that has adequate fire protection. Ms. Humphris said that is only part of it. She asked if Susan Thomas had something to say about the access. Ms. (Susan) Thomas said staff talked to the Fire and Rescue Division about the single point of access from the safety standpoint. Mr. Bruce Crow said he would be more concerned if it was purely residential. From a planning standpoint, staff has always considered that to be a weak part of the proposal, because with this kind of a traffic generator, with the single access point it becomes more imperative that that function well. Then, that gets into the jurisdictional question of Bent Creek Road being in the City and VDOT not being the final authority on whether improvements are made, and what improvements are made. From a planning standpoint, with something as big as the original application, the single access point is not a plus. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 29) Mr. Humphris said in the revised proposal (the sheet handed out today) she gets anxious when she reads language saying "shall be encouraged for two- story buildings and facades" and "to the extent possible". She thinks the Board must be more sure of exactly what is being done. History will tell the Board that anything adopted has to be more specific. Ms. Sally Thomas said she has three pages of questions, and most would take much shorter answers than the Board has been getting so far. Ms. Humphris said when the Board set this work session it did not know there would be a new document that would take 27 minutes to present, a revised proposal the Planning Commission did not see, and that the Board had not seen before today. The Board started today at a disadvantage. She said the plan was to do this today, to have the public hearing and possibly vote next week. She does not see how that is possible because there are many more issues that have to be discussed. Ms. Thomas said she is willing to come back after lunch with her questions, but she is not sure that is possible today. Mr. Martin asked the pleasure of the Board; continue, come back after lunch, schedule another work session? Either way, he said the Board will have to limit the answers. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Ms. Thomas be allowed to ask five questions and see what happens. Ms. Thomas said on the revised proposal there is language saying ~mixed use plan is encouraged", and she asked if there are plans for residential, which is her definition of mixed use. Mr. Blaine said the proof will be in a rezoning application, a PD-SC plan. That plan would show everything that is required in a PD-SC plan. For a Comprehensive Plan amendment, they cannot tell that there will be ~x" amount of square footage on the second level, etc. until they have some users. What they have shown so far is a good guideline of design features which they will tell a developer are the criteria which are important for developing this site. Ms. Thomas said she understands there has to be a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning and site plan approval. But, if the Board does not make specific what is expected on this site with this Comprehensive Plan amendment, then when someone comes in for a rezoning and the Board says this is not what we expected, she does not think the Board will have been fair to the applicant. She said the more the Board expresses at this time about what it expects from this type of development on this particular piece of property in order to get the Comprehensive Plan amendment more clear, the fairer the Board is being to the applicant. Ms. Thomas said there is an issue about "knitting" together this use with its surrounding land uses. She has not seen any knitting whatsoever. She asked staff what they would feel could knit together this site. She assumes this would mean walking, bicycle access, other road access, maybe even from Avon Street Extd. She asked what staff sees as an important component so this would not be an island or a ~big box in the middle of a moat." Ms. Susan Thomas said staff contemplated that it would be connected from a pedestrian and vehicular standpoint with the surrounding Fifth Street and larger community. Also, staff would want transit available on site. The real knitting together came in the scale of' the proposal. Staff felt that with the resources that this applicant has, and with the scope of the project, it would quickly become the center of the neighborhood. That was one of the reasons why, should the big box for reasons of its own unrelated to the local economy, decide to leave that location, there would not be a neighborhood center that is empty. That was the genesis of the 65,000 square foot linked spaces. Staff talked to other local developers about what happened with Bradley's Department Store in Seminole Square in the City, and what could be expected to come into a big box space when it is vacated. The answer was "another big box." If another big box is not interested, the store sits vacant. Seminole Square sat for a long time until the old Bradley's space was subdivided and one-third portion is still not filled. The real knitting, in staff's opinion, came with the scale of the proposal, and how it would fit into the neighborhood. Beyond that, the architectural treatment, the way in which the buildings lend themselves to adaptive reuse, the pedestrian and vehicle connections, the transit, and the whole aesthetic side of it were important points that could draw it together with the neighborhood. Ms. Thomas said when talking about commercial use in Neighborhood 4, does it include the proposed South Pointe commercial center, and does it include what is already on Fifth Street in the City? Ms. Susan Thomas said ~no." Neighborhood 4 is deceptive, because she does not know how much retail is needed when the City is right next door. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 function as one neighborhood and South Pointe will do a lot to provide additional retail July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) 000304 to that neighborhood. Then, there is the Willoughby Shopping Center across the street, and the City at large. Mr. Martin suggested that Ms. Humphris ask one question. Ms. Humphris said in the presentation there was a notation about the ~Willoughby Center Soccer Field." She said that on the picture in the presentation there is a very large building that appears to be just at road level at the entrance to the site. She was told that about 20 feet would have to be taken off of the top of the hill to provide enough space for the footprint, but obviously, if the picture is accurate, the whole hillside would be taken down, and that includes those absolutely spectacular trees Ms. Thomas mentioned, plus all of the rock outcroppings. Those would be a marvelous thing for any developer to build around to make an astonishingly beautiful site right in an urban area. She wonders why that building is shown now as being at that level. Mr. Blaine said this is an example of trying to conceptually show an amenity that is important to the project, but without any representation that that is the site plan. That is only to give an orientation of where there would be separation of recreational uses and where the shopping area would be. That was not intended to be a representatio~ of the site plan. All the features mentioned are amenities. The developer has to look at it in terms of his self-interest. If they are amenities that will make the project and the site more attractive, they will be enhanced and preserved. In the presentation Mr. Cox gave, he said that thirty percent landscaping as an enhanced proffer is much more than is required under the PD-SC District. The owner understands what this community wants, and will not sell this project to a user or developer and that is why the owner is making these design criteria. Ms. Humphris said the Board is having to deal with all this new information that was received today. Mr. Blaine said none of the information in the presentation is new. It has all been a part of the file. What is new, are the ~tweaks", which Mr. Rooker addressed, to the design criteria that were recommended by the Planning Commission just with respect to the size of the building and the total size of the user (which is a concession on the part of the owner). He feels Ms. Humphris is suggesting that the applicant is not to make any additional information available, or any concessions from what the objectors are in the opposition. In all due respect, he disagrees with that point. Mr. Martin asked what the Board members want to do from this point. He asked if there is need for a second work session. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant understands that if the Board approves a Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the designation for this site, that there are still major obstacles. The Board only has the Comprehensive Plan amendment before it next week, and not the rezoning. Mr. Blaine said they understand. Mr. Martin asked if the Board members would like to continue with this work session after lunch. Does the Board want to hold a second work session, and move the public hearing to another date? Mr. Davis said the Board can hold the public hearing, or continue the public hearing and have a work session scheduled in between. If the public hearing is canceled, there would need to be a readvertisement and that would delay it a month. Mr. Marshall said he is ready to go to public hearing next week, and then do what is necessary after that. Mr. Martin asked how many Board members want to do something other than have the public hearing next week. Ms. Thomas said she has many more questions she needs answered. Mr. Bowerman said he is at the point where he won't get any answers to his questions until the applicant puts something down on paper. Mr. Marshall said that won't occur until after this hearing. Mr. Bowerman said all the questions being asked are design issues and they are PD- SC uses. That is when it will come up and be addressed. Ms. Thomas said she has questions about traffic generation figures, about the amount of commercial land that is needed in the County, about the amount of residential land already in the growth areas, and things that are appropriate at a Comprehensive Plan amendment stage. Mr. Martin said he thinks some Board members want to move directly to the public hearing, and others want more information before that public hearing. He does not believe there is going to be an agreement on that, so someone needs to make a motion on how to proceed. Mr. Tucker said staff has possibly two hours of closed session items that need to be taken care of today. That can be done during lunch, of after today's meeting. Mr. Martin said a decision needs to be made in public, so the Board can't adjourn to lunch until it decides. Mr. Marshall said he can't meet 000,30 July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) after four o'clock today. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board can go ahead with the public hearing, but that does not mean it can't continue the work sessions after that hearing. This is not something the Board has to force itself to do. The Board has to take the time that is needed to get the answers. Mr. Martin said Mr. Perkins is suggesting the Board hold the public hearing, and after that hearing decide whether to vote on the question or have additional work sessions. Mr. Perkins said he is not anticipating a vote being taken right after the public hearing. Ms. Thomas said that is fair to the public who is aware that the public hearing has been scheduled. Also, they may raise some other questions that need answers. Questions cannot normally be answered during a public hearing. It would take at least a month after the public hearing according to the Board's schedule. Mr. Marshall said that is fine with him. Mr. Martin said the public hearing will stay as scheduled and the Board will decide after that hearing what additional information is needed. Ms. Humphris said the public needs to understand that the Board will not vote on the request after the public hearing because there is a need for another work session. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board needs more information about what was presented today from staff before the public hearing. If not, there will be a brief overview at the hearing, and the Board will take comments. Mr. Martin said "no." Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Session: Legal and Property Matters. At 12:55 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into closed session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to Boards and Commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of specific properties for school sites; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the transition of Charlottesville to town status, and regarding specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Session. At 3:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Humphris that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member,s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall (Mr. Marshall left during the closed session to attend a previously scheduled business meeting.) Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Ms. Humphris nominated for appointment as the Jack Jouett District representative on the Board of Social Services to replace Ms. Karen L. Powell who had resigned, Ms. Elizabeth D. McIvor, with the term to begin immediately, and expire on December 31, 2001. Ms. Humphris nominated for reappointment to the JAUNT Board of Directors, Mr. Juandiego Wade and Mr. Clifford R. Buys with new terms to begin October 1, 1999, and expire on September 30, 2002. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) 000206 (Page 32) Ms. Humphris nominated for reappointment to the Land Use Classification Appeals Board, Mr. Dan M. Maupin, Mr. Fred W. Shields, Jr., and Mr. Montie Pace. New terms to begin September 1, 1999, and end on September 1, 2001. Ms. Humphris nominated for appointment to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Planning & Coordination Council Technical Committee to replace Mr. Rick Huff who had resigned, Mr. Thomas Foley, new Albemarle County Assistant County Executive. There is no set term for this appointment. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to note that the Board accepts the recommendation of the County Executive to appoint and hire Mr. Thomas Foley as Assistant County Executive effective July 1, 1999. He then gave second to all of the nominations offered by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 11. Briefing on changes to Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Davis said the 1999 General Assembly substantially revised the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (the "Act") effective July 1, 1999. The new legislation requires that all public officials read and familiarize themselves with the Act. The new Act does not have a great impact on this Board. Some of the exemptions for discussions in closed session have been narrowed. The Board can no longer discuss the use of property that is owned by the County, and that exemption has been utilized in the past. Mr. Davis said the meaning of ~litigation" has been redefined. However, the Board has been following the new definition already, so this change does not affect this Board. Another change results from an Attorney General opinion regarding the personnel exemption. It opines the Board can only discuss personnel decisions of persons the Board either appoints or employs, and supervises. Many people are somewhat troubled by that opinion and some government agencies are going to seek clarification of that opinion. He said it could be very limiting if followed to its logical conclusion. This opinion focused specifically on school boards and said they could not go into closed session to discuss who they would select as chairman. That overruled an opinion from the 1980's that said this was permissible. The law did not change, only the Attorney General's opinion. Unless the General Assembly changes the statute in the next Session, it is the presumption that the Attorney General has interpreted this section correctly. Until then, the Board could choose to ignore it or follow it. Mr. Davis said the procedure for a closed meeting was clarified again. However, the Board has already been following the procedure that was clarified. Mr. Davis said some people in the State had a practice of not providing minutes before they were approved. This Board's Clerk has been making draft minutes available, and the Act now specifically states that draft minutes must be made available. There is a more specific requirement as to how one responds to requests for public records which puts more burden on staff when a record is only partially producible, and partially not producible. Staff now has to give a detailed explanation of what is being produced, and the volume of material that is not being produced. It has been clarified that only the direct cost for producing the document may be charged, which is not dramatically different. Mr. Bowerman asked if that includes hours of labor. Mr. Davis said "yes", but just for the cost of producing the record. Mr. Bowerman said that does not include research and determining what is to be made available. Mr. Davis said that is right. You can charge for search time, but not for the actual cost of what was done to prepare the record originally. Mr. Davis said the Act now deals specifically with electronic data. If it is in a computer data base, any information requested has to be produced in the form requested. If someone asks that they be given data on a Web page or to an E-mail address, if the agency has that capacity, that has to be done. The other significant change in the Act relates to police and law enforcement records. If a record is not from a current investigation where the informa- tion would endanger a~ investigation, or it does not reveal a confidential July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 33) informant, that information has to be produced. That will have an effect on the Police Department. Mr. Davis said the changes to the Act are not significantly different than what the County has been doing. The committee which rewrote these changes is still meeting, and there will be additional changes next year. Some of the changes that they pursued last year were, keeping minutes of closed meetings, and further limiting closed meetings and they will be argued again. Also, being pushed is the idea of creating a State office to arbitrate disputes over FOI requests. There was no action to be taken on this report. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Year 2000 Legislative Proposals for submission to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) . Mr. Tucker said VACO has requested that the County submit its legislative proposals to be addressed in VACO's 2000 Legislative Program. following proposals are submitted for the Board's consideration and transmittal to VACO for discussion in their Summer steering committee sessions. The Request legislation to provide counties with enabling language to operate farmers' markets. There has been local interest in exploring the possibility of operating a farmers' market in Albemarle, but a recent Attorney General's opinion ruled that counties do not have the express legislative authority to do so. Request enabling legislation to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As Albemarle pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the county or state makes land use decisions in designated areas. Request legislation to preclude the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) from erecting towers in their right-of-way without permission from the locality. Currently, VDOT allows cellular companies to erect towers on their right-of-way with rental fees accruing to the state. VDOT als0 uses these towers for their own equipment, such as cameras and road monitoring equipment. Provide high-growth jurisdictions with management tools for coping with residential development. Such enabling legislation should include: 1) the authority to impose school and road impact fees; 2) the authority to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances; and, 3) provide statewide funding for a Purchase of Development Rights (PRD) program for localities who establish and locally fund such a program. Request legislation from the state to broaden the revenue sources available to localities in the form of a local option sales tax, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions and a local option income tax. Mr. Bowerman said he has never heard of a "local option sales tax." Mr. Davis said it has been in VACO's proposals in the past. Mr. Tucker said a lot of states allow a local option sales tax, but it has an ending date. Mr. Davis said that in Northern Virginia they are enabled to have a local option gasoline tax in a transportation district. Mr. Bowerman said he would rather fight for a local option income tax. Ms. Thomas said she is a member of the VACO Finance Steering Committee and she has received a copy of legislation called ~Five-for-Five" which is where five percent of the real estate tax rate is deducted and five percent would be added to the income tax rate. The Virginia Municipal League (VML) has worked out which locality would lose revenues and which would gain revenues under this legislation. In almost all cases, everyone is a winner. Albemarle came out several hundred thousand dollars to the good. One of her responsibilities on this committee is to represent this Board and other counties. She will have a copy sent to the Board members so she can have their comments next week. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 34) Mr. Bowerman said he would like to remove the local option sales tax from the list of requests. It is similar to the issue with the sales tax. It is a serious thing. He does not want to dilute what the Board is requesting. Ms. Humphris said there is a downside to that legislation. Ms. Thomas said one of the down sides is that the state is saying the locality should cut its real estate tax rate, and the state will return some of the income tax to the locality. Then, if funds are tight, and they can only return four percent in that particular year, the locality could raise its real estate tax rate. That would not be very popular. That was the main thing that VACO brought up, just how '~cast in concrete" will this portion of the income tax be. Mr. Tucker said he attended a meeting on the future of cities, and one of the main topics discussed was the state starting to pick up items such as all of the local contribution for jails, all of social services, all of the schools. He does not know if that would ever happen, and it would have to be over a very long period of time because there is a lot of money involved. There was no further discussion of this item. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Perkins asked about the VACO meeting in November. Mr. Tucker said reservations have been taken care of. Ms. Thomas mentioned the visit of the Italians. She said she had asked what big issues were on their agenda, and they said cellular towers, a conference center, electric high tension lines over a school, and how to get tourists to visit more than just their one site and leave without having spent any money. Ms. Thomas said the two groups have a lot in common. She said that originally Poggio 'a Caiano, the town, was connected with Charlottesville. The City of Prato, because it had a bigger population, was connected with Albemarle County. It is an industrial city producing a lot of textiles. The surrounding area has vineyards and olive groves, and is more apt to have commonality of interest. The City of Prato has dropped their connection with the County. About two years ago, a County of Prato was formed, and it is a lot bigger in population. Ms. Thomas said she is going to Italy this Summer, and she would like to propose to this new County of Prato that there be the kind of relationship between Albemarle and this new Prato, that Poggio 'a Caiano has with Charlottesville. Mr. Bowerman asked if the big town is part of the county, or separate. Ms. Thomas said it is not separate. She needs the Board's concurrence in this and she thinks it will make a better exchange than was taking place with the City of Prato. What money the Board has put into this dates back 15 or more years when there was a student exchange. She said this is not much of a monetary burden. She would like to be able to take with her a resolution saying this Board is interested in continuing this exchange with this province of Prato. She asked if it will be okay to have this resolution on the agenda next week. Ms. Humphris said she is not wildly enthusiastic about it and never has been. She would just as soon not. Mr. Perkins said he would support a resolution for Ms. Thomas to take with her. Mr. Martin said he would also support a resolution. Mr. Bowerman said if she wants to take something with her, he will support a resolution. Motion as offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to draft a resolution and place it on the Consent Agenda for the next meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Ms. Thomas had received a communication from the Peacock Hill Homeowners. She said the fascinating part, other then committing the County to $2.0 million worth of water pipe, is that the residents feel the County has a responsibility because it approved a subdivision on a community well system. The Board originally said there had to be one gallon per minute per house. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 35) The developer came to the Board in 1984 with a rezoning of some sort and in 1985 asked if the rezoning had freed him from this gallon per house per minute requirement. Planning Department staff said "yes" they had been freed from that requirement. Based on that, they feel the County "set them up" as a community destined to fail in terms of their wells running dry. Their developer drilled ten wells in order to find the three that he originally started out with. Their argument is interesting, and she thinks it gives the Board pause over what is being done in the Rural Areas. Mr. Bowerman asked the dates of Planning Commission actions. Ms. Thomas said it was 1984 and 1985. Mr. Tucker said the standard changed from one gallon to about one-half gallon per minute. There was a forty-eight hour flow requirement. Basically what the County followed was the Health Department's standards. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the presumption was that after one of these well systems was approved by the County and it failed, they could come back to the County for relief. Mr. Davis said that is not a legal requirement. Mr. Martin said that is why the Board has not approved one for a long time. Ms. Thomas said she had given the wrong dates. It was in 1985 that there was a rezoning that said that the central water system had to be designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards. Then, in 1987, they requested that the County amend that condition from one gallon per minute per house to one-half gallon per minute. In a letter that was signed by Ron Keeler, it said that the ZMA in 1985 "supersedes and replaces the conditions put on you earlier. While no specific language was included in ZMA-85 it essentially repealed and replaced those conditions. No further action is necessary by the applicant to vacate that special use permit's requirements." She said, from reading information she was sent, they were left with no requirements and they have continued to build houses and are building new houses at this moment. Mr. Tucker said that was based on the PUD plan originally approved, so they would have to prove that they had one-half gallon per minute to serve those houses. Mr. Bowerman asked if new lots were added to the PUD. Mr. Cilimberg said the PUD had a certain number of approved lots which were developed, and they are not creating new lots. Ms. Thomas said they have filled up the lots they had permission to build on, they have run out of water, and are trucking in water. Mr. Davis asked if this should not be directed to the Service Authority. Ms. Thomas said they met with Mr. Cilimberg, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bill Brent, and others, and are looking for alternative locations, but they want some help. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. David Hirschmann has been actively involved with this matter. Ms. Thomas said when she and Susan Thomas went to Richmond a few weeks ago, they learned about a Jim Jacoby who has designed and built Target and Wal-Mart stores in mixed use applications including two-stories. It was staff's recommendation that the development, no matter what size it is, have a mixed use of the property. She feels the Board could get a lot of information from this person. He is willing to talk to the Board via telephone. The Board could do this before its meeting with the School Board next Monday. Technically, it could be done with a conference telephone call. She regards it as an opportunity to get more information. Mr. Perkins said it might be more helpful to have a brochure and see examples of where they have done that. He was in Norfolk and went to the McCarthy Center which has 3.0 million square feet, and it is three stories. It has a recreation center on the third floor. Mr. Bowerman said it is a function of economics. Ms. Thomas said that is why she would like to talk to someone who has done it successfully. Ms. Humphris said she would be glad to participate in a conference call. She thinks the fewer people involved the better. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to ~see pictures. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Jacoby has projects located all over the southeast, so the circumstances in which they were doing projects would be very different. Their projects are in all types and styles because the brochure shows several "strip centers", one floor shopping centers. Mr. Bowerman said where there are high rent districts, one will find two- and three-story retail mall type, inside and outside, buildings. Mr. Cilimberg said the topography plays a part in this also. July 7, 1999 (Regular Meeting) (Page 36) Ms. Humphris said she had some serious questions directed to her last week about open burning. She said somebody in a tree business was bringing, by truck, to an area privately owned by someone else who had given him permission to burn all this stuff, and burning it behind houses on Old Forge Road. She called Mark Spicer about it and was told that it was permissible. She said in reading Section 6-406 of the County Code on open burning, she does not believe it is permissible to transport stuff to burn. Mr. Bowerman said one of the issues by all of the volunteer fire companies is the number of violations being written by the Fire Office, and those tickets are being blamed on the volunteer firemen. They are even writing tickets for people burning on their own property because it violates some provision of the Code. Mr. Davis said his office is looking at the issue. They believe there may be a fire code violation. There may even be a zoning violation. Mr. Martin said Powhatan County has passed a resolution regarding Gen. Robert E. Lee and the things going on in Richmond. He assumes the Board would not want to be involved. Mr. Tucker said it has been taken care of, the pictures have been changed now. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to July 12, 1999, for Joint Meeting with School Board. At 4:10 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion to adjourn this meeting to 4:30 p.m. on July 12, 1999, for a joint meeting with the School Board. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None.. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. ~ C~ahai rma~~ Approved by the Board of county Supervisors tOk'lq Initials ~