Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1998-08-05
August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000090 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 5, 1998, 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, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve items 5.1 through 5.9a and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Item No. 5.1. Request to set a public hearing for October 7, 1998, to abandon public easement of Route 866 (Greenbrier Drive) from Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) to the Einstein SchoOl. Greenbrier Drive was dedicated to public use with the development of the Townwood Development and was originally to become part of the extension of Greenbrier Drive from Whitewood Road to Hydraulic Road. The only users of the road are the Einstein School and the Townwood development. The Townwood Property Association is requesting this abandonment mainly to prevent future through traffic. This section of Greenbrier Drive was scheduled to be improved with the construction of the Greenbrier Drive Connection. The Board voted not to connect Greenbrier Drive. The developer wants the bonds posted for the road, which were being held by the County until the road was accepted in the State System, released. If the abandonment is approved, the developer of Townwood will be responsible for improving the road to meet private road standards and turn it over to the Townwood Property Owners Association, Inc. The Townwood Property Owners Association, Inc. has agreed to grant a bicycle access easement as requested by the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Association realizes that if the abandonment is approved, the maintenance will be their responsibility. Currently, the Association has assumed all of the mainte- nance, from pot hole repair to snow removal. Staff has reviewed this request and supports the abandonment with the condition that a permanent bicycling access easement be granted. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors schedule a public hearing for October 7, 1998 to consider this abandonment. By the above shown vote, the Board set a public hearing for October 7, 1998, to abandon public easement of Route 866 (Greenbrier Drive) from Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) to the Einstein School. (Note: This request was subsequently withdrawn at a later date.) August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Me~ngi (page 2) 00009 Item No. 5.2. Appointment of member to Public Defender Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. James Hingeley, the newly appointed Public Defender, is in the process of creating a citizen advisory committee, which owuld work with the Public Defender Office in its start up phase, as well as serve as an ongoing mechanism for citizen input. He is asking the local state legislators, the City, and the County, to each appoint a citizen member to this group. At this time there are no requirements for the position except an interest in the work of the public defender office and a willingness to commit time to the commit- tee. If the Board supports appointing a citizen member to the newly created Public Defender Citizens advisory Committee, staff will advertise for the position and set up interviews in accordance with our approved process for board and commission appointments. By the above shown vote, the Board agreed to appoint a member to the Public Defender Citizens Advisory Committee being formed, and requested that the Clerk advertise for applications. ~.~--~ ,~.~' ........ ~ ~) into thc~a~ tc ~.~j'~ .... Systcm ~= lli~k;-:ays. (Removed from agenda. ) Item No. 5.4. Adopt Resolution to support "Child at Play" sign on Copper Knoll (Route 1740) in Forest Lakes Subdivision. A resident of Copper Knoll Road (state Route 1740) requested that VDoT install a "Child At Play" sign on Copper Knoll Road in the Forest Lakes subdivision. Copper Knoll is approximately 0.10 miles long. There are 24 homes and approximately 36 children on the cul-de-sac street. The resident contacted Planning staff and requested a "Child At Play" sign be located near the beginning of Copper Knoll Road. Staff recommends the Board endorse a resolution for VdoT to install a "Child At Play" sign on Copper Knoll Road (State Route 1740). Ms. Thomas asked if there is a "sunset" clause to review whether these signs will be needed in the future. Mr. Tucker said he did not believe VDoT checks on them. Mr. Martin said the signs will always be needed. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the residents on Copper Knoll Road are concerned about traffic on their street and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children at play in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the residents believe that a Child At Play sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDoT to install the necessary "Child At Play" sign on Copper Knoll Road (State Route 1740 Item No. 5.5. Request to set a public hearing for September 2, 1998, on Law Enforcement Block Grant Award. The Department of Justice has awarded Albemarle County $44,340 ~n federal funding, with a required local cash match of $4,926, for a total of $49,266 available funds for a public safety initiative. This funding is for the two-year period of FY98 and FY99. The purpose of the grant program is the reduction of crimes and improv- ing public safety. The funding formula is based primarily on the County's 000092 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Me~ih~) (Page 3) part I Uniform Crime Report offenses over a three -year average. These grant funds may be used in the following areas: Law enforcement support for hiring, training and employing on a continuing basis new, additional law enforcement officers or support personnel. If new personnel are hired there must be a net gain over the unit of local government's current appropri- ated budget, in the number of law enforcement officers who perform non-administrative public safety service. Paying overtime to presently employed law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel for the purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel. Establishingcrime prevention programs involving the coopera- tion between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control, detect, or investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals. Procuring equipment, technology, and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions. Staff has recommended using these grant funds for overtime to current officers concentrating in southern area of the county. The Esmont community is an area in the county identified as having a number of order maintenance and crime issues that need to be addressed. The area is small enough that the impact of any additional police presence should be recognized by the citizens of the community and have an effect on crime and public safety in the area. In addition, the Scottsville area would benefit from the increased presence of an officer. The concept is to utilize one officer on a part-time basis to be assigned to the Esmont and Scottsville areas to provide a part-time neigb_bor- hood police officer. The grant funding would be used to provide overtime coverage to restaff for shortages causes by removing this officer from the patrol shift or investigations division. The neighborhood officer would be assigned to answer calls in the area, when on duty, and to conduct or assist with all follow up cases in the area. The officer would also be assigned to deal with any neighborhood problems and be a liaison for the community with the police department. Staff also envisions locating a neighborhood police station in the community and staffing it during some hours so citizens could come to a safe environment and speak with an officer about any concern they may have. Duties would include: Liaison with all TEAM area schools: churches; civic associations; senior groups; neighborhood watches; Southern Albemarle Organiza- tions; and public safety committee chairperson (Town of Scottsville) -- Identify and meet all community leaders in TEAM area Random vehicle, bicycle and foot patrols in TEAM area, especially Scottsville Concentrate on meeting people, even door to door visits with businesses and residents in area -- Handle all follow-up investigations assigned in the TEAM area. The following requirements must be met prior to expending any grant funds: At least one public hearing must be held regarding the proposed use of Block Grant funds prior to the obligation of any funds received. Steps should be taken by the unit of local government to encourage the fullest possible participation in the public hearing. Prior to the obligation of any funds received under the Block Grants Program, the unit of local government must establish or designate an advisory board that includes the following represen- 000093 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) tation: Local law enforcement agency, local prosecutors office, local court system, local public school system, and local non- profit group (eg. education, religious, or community) active in crime prevention or drug use prevention or treatment). This appointed board would give a non-binding recommendation to the County Executive on the use of the funds and grant proposal. Staff recommends that a public hearing be advertised on the proposed neighborhood police officer initiative to be held on September 2, 1998, to meet the grant requirement. By the above shown vote, the Board set a public hearing for September 2, 1998, on the Law Enforcement Block Grant Award. Item No. 5.6. Appropriation: Pass Through of Governor's Opportunity Fund Grant for GE Fanuc, $150,000 (Form #98004). On December 14, 1994, the Board approved a resolution requesting Governor's Opportunity Fund Grant monies in the amount of $150,000 to be used for training facilities related to the expansion contemplated at G.E. Fanuc. The project has now been completed, the expansion has taken place,a nd the state has remitted funds in the amount of $150,000 to Albemarle County for processing payment to G.E. Fanuc under the terms of the Governor's Opportunity Fund agreement. The following appropriation will enable the County to forward those funds directly to G.E. Fanuc per the agreement made in 1994. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NLIMBER: 98004 FUND: General PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PASS THROUGH OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP GRANT TO G. E. FANUC. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1 1000 89000 567206 DESCRIPTION G. E. FANUC/ECONOMIC DEV'L GRANT AMOUNT $150,000.00 TOTAL $150,000.00 REVENUE 2 1000 24000 240606 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT VA. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $150,000.00 TOTAL $150,000.00 Item No. 5.7. Appropriation: Virginia Commission of the Arts Grant, $150 (Form #98003). The Virginia Commission of the Fine Arts awarded Albemarle County a Local Government Challenge Grant for $4,750 for FY 1998/99. The grant is to be distributed between the Piedmont Council of the Arts and the Virginia Discovery Museum. During the budget process, the Challenge Grant was projected to be $4,600 and was included in the original appropriation to the Piedmont Council of the Arts and the Virginia Discovery Museum. This additional appropriation reflects the increase in the amount of the grant awarded, which is an addi- tional $75.00 to each organization. Staff recommends the Board approve Appropriation #98003 in the amount of $150. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: August 5, 1998 (Regular DaY Meeting) (Page 5 ) · ~ ~ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER: 98003 FUI~D: General 000094 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM VA. COMMISSION OF THE ARTS. DESCRIPTION PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE ARTS AMOUNT $ 75.00 TOTAL $ 75.00 EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1 1000 79000 560410 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT VA. COMMISSION OF THE ARTS $ 75.00 TOTAL $ 75.00 REVENGE 2 1000 24000 240418 Item No. 5.8. Dance Hall Permit at Star Base Alpha facility on Westfield Road. Mr. Robert C. Colley, President of Piedmont Amusement corporation, requested that his request for a permit to operate a dance hall pursuant to § 3-11 of the Albemarle County Code be granted. On June 11, 1998, aproval was given to Star Base Alpha to conduct entertainment events that would include dancing as part of the entertainment choices offered at the laser tag facility located on Wes~field Road. This approval was for an occasional event for a very specific time frame as indicated in Ms. McCulley's letter dated June 11, 1998. Mr. Colley had submitted a request for a dance hall permit on December 9, 1997, and wishes to re-activate that request at this time. He has met the requirements for application under the current Dance Hall Ordinance and has further offered to voluntarily hire an off-duty police officer for the two events remaining under his approval in the month of August, if warranted by the Police Department, as well as to require parental or guardian approval for the ordinance for any attendees under the age of 18. Mr. Colley further indicated that no alcoholic beverages will be served or allowed on the premises. Staff recommends that the Dance Hall Permit be issued pursuant to the County Code, given that all requirements of the Ordinance have been met. Ms. Humphris said she was still not clear on the details of this matter and whether the request is going further or not. She asked the Board whether they thought young teens are protected by the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said the ordinance was simply to enable the applicant to hold two events in August, allowing music and dancing as part of what is already going on at this location so the owner can determine whether to hold such events in the future. Mr. Bowerman said he is satisfied that the intent of the application is correct, and that this would be a fair test of such events. If a special use permit is applied for, the request would come back before the Board for a dance hall permit. Mr. Davis said there has been some confusion surrounding the applica- tion. Ms. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said her decision was based on the fact that this is an accessory use to what is already in place, and, conse- quently, zoning approval is not required. If the owner decides to continue offering such events, another application would have to come before the Board. It was not clear whether the limited use requires a dance hall permit. Mr. Davis said he determined a dance hall permit is required because the permit requirements are so broad. If the Board does not approve the dance hall permit, the owner would be in violation of the dance hall ordinance. Approving the permit makes the applicant responsible for meeting the Dance Hall Ordinance requirements pertaining to safety, guardian's written consent, etc. Mr. Martin said since this is an accessory activity, the owner cannot charge separately for the event. Now that it has been determined that a dance hall permit is required, the owner will have to ensure that he has parents' signatures or escorts, which makes this sound like a dance function. . 000095 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Me~ihg) (Page 6) Mr. Davis said the problem is the definition of "dance hall", and that the event description clearly fits the definition. Ms. Humphris said there was some question about advertisements promoting the two events. Ms. McCulley's memorandum to the applicant was specific, and Ms. Humphris did not know how the applicant could not have understood its contents. She said this was not a fair test, since it is an a accessory activity. Therefore, if the applicant requests a special use permit, and says these two events went smoothly, this will not have been a fair test. Mr. Bowerman said the test would not be criteria for whether or not the permit should be approved. Mr. Martin agreed, saying the applicant just wants to see if there would be any participation by teens. Ms. Humphris asked what the advertisements said. Ms. McCulley said she did not understand from discussions with Mr. Colley, the applicant, that he would advertise the dance events separately. Mr. Colley has said he is going to use a local teen band from 10:00 p.m. until midnight, set up between the game room area and the laser tag area, and will not charge a separate fee for dancing. He just wants to see whether customers are interested in live music. Ms. Humphris said she was surprised at the television ads she saw for the events. Mr. Martin said the applicant's intentions could have been misquoted by the press. By the above shown vote, the Board approved the Dance Hall Permit at Star Base Alpha facility on Westfield Rad. Item No. 5.9. Set public hearing to transfer ownership of Monticello High School property to the Albemarle County School Board as required by Virginia law. Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveying any interest in County-owned property. Section 22.1-125 requires that title to all school property be vested in the School Board. At the current time, the Monticello High School property is owned in fee simple by the County. Transfer of the portion of the property encumbered by the high school site to the School Board needs to occur contemporaneously with the completion of construction and opening of the new high school. Staff recommends a public hearing be set for August 19 1998, to consider conveying the subject property to the School Board. By the above shown vote, the Board set a public hearing for August 19, 1998 to consider conveying ownership of Monticello High School property to the Albemarle County School Board. Item No. 5.9a. Resolution Endorsing the Establishment of the "Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities". By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution endorsing the establishment of the "Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communi- ties'': A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE "VIRGINIA COALITION OF HIGH GROWTH COMMUNITIES" WHEREAS, many jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia are experi- encing rapid growth; and WHEREAS, rapid growth presents unique fiscal and infrastructure develop- ment challenges in jurisdictions that are experiencing this phenomenon; and WHEREAS, issues of growth management are of major concern to local elected and appointed officials in these high growth jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 1998, twenty-four jurisdictions attended a high growth forum and concluded that there is the need to address common issues in a more unified and strategic fashion; and August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000096 (Page 7) WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, and, therefore, local governments must rely on the Virginia General Assembly for much of their authority; and WHEREAS, the economic well-being of the Commonwealth of Virginia is dependent upon the economic development of its local jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the high growth local governments in the Commonwealth of Virginia are interested in establishing a partnership to help raise the awareness of the Virginia General Assembly to local growth management and fiscal impact concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervi- sors that it hereby endorses a partnership of jurisdictions in the Common- wealth of Virginia that are experiencing rapid growth to be known as the "Virginia Coalition of High Growth CommunitieS;'' and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports the participation of Albemarle County in the Coalition. Item No. 5.10. 1998 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 5.11. Annual report on attendance of directors to the JAUNT Board, was received for information. Item No. 5.12. May, 1998 Financial Report, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 5.13. Monthly update on the FY 1998/99 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & Public Works as of July 22, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.14. Copy of ABG Financial Services, Inc., Monitoring Report of site visit to Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts), was received for information. Item No. 5.15. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts) monthly bond and progress report for the month of June, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.16. Copy of notice of public hearing on an application for an Executive Sedan Carrier Certificate by Mr. John D. Patterson, Jr., on behalf of Royal Motor Cars, Inc., was received for information. Item No. 5.17. Copy of notice of public hearing on an application for a Limousine Carrier Certificate by Mr. John D. Patterson, Jr., on behalf of Royal Motor Cars, Inc., was received for information. Item No. 5.18. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for May 21, 1998, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 5.19. CoPy of Planning Commission minutes for JUly 7, July 14 and July 21, 1998, were received for information. Item No. 5.20. Letter dated July 27, 1998, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportati°n, to Ms.'Ella W.' CareY]~ Clerk, re: transportation matters discussed at the June 3rd and July 1st Board meetings, was received for information. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 000097 "We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the June 3rd and July 1st Board meetings. The Department's policy for programming secondary six year road improvement funds directs that 70% of con- struction funds be allocated within the initial year of construction. This provides sufficient commitment of the minimal funds specifically allocated to indi- vidual counties for improvements. The Department does not always apply this same restriction to the Inter- state, Primary and Urban programs. As these are statewide programs utilizing much greater funding sources, more flexibility can be exercised. Revisions to the Tentative Primary, Program FY 1998-99 were forwarded to the Department's Central Office. Corrections have been included in the final document. The estimated construction costs for the Connector Road to UVA are included in the construction costs for the Route 29 Western Bypass (the design of the Connec- tor Road to UVA was approved concurrent with the design for the Route 29 Western Bypass). The prelimi- nary engineering costs were shown separate from the Bypass in order to indicate that the Connector Road proposal was under study. A formal speed study has been conducted for Miller School Road (Route 635) from Route 250 to the entrance to Miller School - just south of Route 637 south. Three speed monitoring locations were established with the 50th percentile speeds ranging from 52 to 57 mph and the 85th percentile speeds ranging from 57 to 63 mph. Based upon these speed samples and a review of the existing signing and roadway geometrics, it is not realistic to lower the present 55 mph speed limit at this time. We will install additional Curve Warning and Advisory Speed (35 mph) signs and advise the County Police of the radar results. We are reviewing the addition of bike lanes within the pavement along Old Brook Road (Route 652) and Northfields Road (Route 3427) between Rio Road (Route 631) and Carrsbrook Drive (Route 854). Potential changes will be discussed with the Board prior to implementation. · ..... ~. ...... The Department has completed a review for a multi-STOP condition at the intersection of Br0okmere Road (Route 1418) and Woodbrook Drive (Route 1417). Additional STOP signs will be installed on the Woodbrook Drive approaches, in addition to the applicatiOn of cross- walks on all four (4) approaches at the curb cuts. The Department will await for consensus from the homeowners' association before installation of these measures. The Department has agreed to allow the full, continu- ous operation of the traffic Signal at Route 20 and Mill Creek Drive (Connector Road) after the initial flash mode. I have discussed potential pave in place improvements on Route 707 with Mr. Harold Whitlow. Improvements to this 0.35 mile long roadway can occur within the existing 30-foot right of way. The estimated construction cost to surface treat an 18-foot-wide pavement with a two-foot shoulder is approximately $40,000. This work can be scheduled to occur during the summer of 1999. 000095 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) We have conducted a cursory review of the restricted structure on Route 683 for possible damage due to logging activities. No damage to the structure is apparent at this time. A formal bridge inspection will be completed in the near future. We have removed several dead limbs from the tree overhanging Barracks Road (Route 654) west of Montvue Subdivision. If there are any questions, I will be available to discuss them at the next Board meeting on August 5, 1998." Item No. 5.21. Letter dated July 22, 1998, from the Honorable James S. Gilmore, III, Governor of Virginia, to the Honorable Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., providing notice that Albemarle County has been awarded a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning Grant in the amount of $10,000, was received for information. Item No. 5.22. Comparison cf final allccaticns fcr Intcrstatc, ~rimary TT~'~- .... 4--'1~ .............. ~ .... ~ ............ 4 .... (REMOVED FROM AGE,A) Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: July 3, December 4, 1996; May 13 and May 20, 1998. Ms. Thomas indicated she had been asked to read the minutes from July 3, 1998, but she had previously approved them with corrections. Mr. Perkins said he had read the minutes of May 20, 1998 and found one typographical error. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of May 13, 1998 and found them to be in order. Ms. Thomas offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve the minutes as read, with typographical changes to be made to the minutes of May 20, 1998. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. HUmphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters .... Ms. Thomas followed up on her concerns about the possibility of damage to a bridge on Route 683 caused by logging trucks. Ms. Tucker, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) Resident Engineer, said the trucks have caused no damage. Further she stated that all structures are inspected annually. This bridge was inspected twice this year due to Ms. Thomas's concerns. Mr. Tucker said the Orange County Board of Supervisors has asked the Board to appoint a Board member to serve on a committee examining the four- laning Route 15 from'Gordonsville to 1-64. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin agreed to co-serve on the committee. Mr. Perkins asked if Route 707 could be paved next summer. Ms. Tucker replied, "Yes, improvements can be done within the prescriptive easement." Mr. Perkins asked if there is special pool of money for the Pave-In-Place Program. Ms. Tucker replied, ~Nol funds come from the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan." Because right-of-way and plans are not needed, Route 707 can be paid for by County-wide incidental money. Generally that fund consists of $200,000 to cover annual expenses County-wide, including pipe installation and replacement, traffic devices, etc. Mr. Martin asked that at the next Board meeting Ms. Tucker provide an explanation of the '~Pave-In-Place" Program. He has told citizens the Program August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) is part of the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. 000099 Ms. Tucker said the paving can be done under the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan or the Pave-In-Place Program. Roads that qualify for Pave-In-Place are generally already in the plan for paving. The stretch of road Mr. Perkins was asking about is a short stretch of road. It could be placed into the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan to ensure that County-wide incidental monies are not used~ Ms. Thomas added that there may be land-use issues that need to be considered. Mr. Martin said the Board must be fair to all constituents, and that he needs to be clear on the process. Since he was not sure how this particular road request came about, he wondered whether his constituents will now be calling him to ask about getting their roads paved under the Pave-In-Place Program. Mr. Tucker,said the Planning Commission is going to review the Six- Year Secondary Road Plan and look at the Pave-In-Place process. He will bring their findings to the Board in October. Ms. Tucker said it is VDoT's intent to itemize these requests. The Board can then determine priority in the Six- Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Perkins said it would be helpful to know which roads qualify for the Pave-In-Place Program. Ms. Tucker said there are over 200 miles, and VDoT has not prepared a list. Mr. Perkins said probably only a few would meet all the Program's criteria. Ms. Tucker said the list is a full-page long. She agreed to examine the process to be sure applications are all handled in the same fashion. Mr. Martin said he, too, would like to know how many roads there are that could be considered for the Program, and whether the County should handle the requests in a different fashion. Ms. Tucker said she was not sure what is involved in assessing all the roads, but since each road must be thoroughly examined, it is a fairly involved process. Some roads are easy to review, while others are more involved. Mr. Bowerman said there is general misunderstanding of what pave-in- place means. He also would like to know which roads qUalify for the Program. Ms. Tucker said VDoT handles requests as they are received. Mr. Perkins repeated that there are not that many roads, and that traffic counts should be done anyway. Ms. Tucker said traffic counts on gravel roads are only done every 12 years. Mr. Martin said he has no problem with the process as he understands it, and requests must go through the Six-Year SeCondary Road Plan. He added that he continually hears from constituents who want their dirt roads paved. Ms. Tucker said there is a list of projects on the priority list. If they qualify for the Pave-in Place Program, they could be moved up the list. Ms. Thomas expressed concern about the acceleration and deceleration lanes at 1-64 and Route 29 South. Ms. Tucker said VDoT is aware of this and the interchanges at several other intersections, and that they have been included in requests for the preallocation hearing. Ms. Humphris expressed appreciation for VDoT's promptly trimming an overgrown tree on Barracks Road. Ms. Humphris said she heard on the radio this morning that Georgetown Road is being paved. She said the public was not given adequate notice. Ms. Humphris said a VDoT employee, who works for the Research Council, called her to complain about the lack of coordination of timing of traffic signals from Route 29 North through the City. Ms. Tucker said she Would look into the matter. Ms. Humphris asked if Surface Transportation Funds (STP) could be used to fund PhasD II of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Other localities seem to be getting large amounts of money, while Albemarle County receives none. Ms. Tucker said she did not know about criteria for that funding, bUt she would look into it. She added that recently a federal Safety project awarded the County some large monies for the Rio Road guard rail project and the August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) O00iO0 Hydraulic Road five-laning improvements. This was money in addition to the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan allocations. Mr. Tucker asked if STP funds can be used for either secondary or primary roads. Ms. Humphris said that only secondary roads were mentioned. Mr. Marshall asked how the County can get cOnsidered for these funds. Ms. Humphris said Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) member could make the request, but the Board does not have to wait for the CTB. Mr. Tucker said he would draft a letter on behalf of the Board. Ms. Tucker noted that the Board's request for the Annual Primary Urban and Interstate allocations usually detail all the County's requests. Ms. Humphris said no one pays any attention to that report. .She asked why VDoT did not suggest that STP funds be requested for funding primary roads on behalf of the County. Ms. Tucker said she did not know, but it makes sense to her. Mr. Benish said the County"s Six-Year Primary Road Plan is broken down by funding sources for primary funding. Staff could also ask that priorities in the secondary system be considered as well. These are pots of monies VDoT spends based on priorities. Ms. Humphris questioned how much the CTB members from the County have requested on behalf of the County. She wondered if the County should have been asking for STP funds for years. Mr. Bowerman said he appreciated Ms. Tucker's work with the Woodbrook community and the application for bike lanes on Old Brook Road and Northfields Road. Mr. Bowerman said he continues to receive calls expressing concern about a stop sign at the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Hi!lsdale Drive. He suggested the stop sign be removed since there is not much traffic from Old Brook Road and Branchlands Drive. Ms. Tucker said V DoT is looking into that intersection, as they have also received phone calls. Mr. Marshall said the opening of Mill Creek Drive will not occur before August 14, 1998, because the road is being used for construction purposes. He asked the Board when they would like to hold the grand opening of the road. It was agreed to hold it at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 19, 1998. Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering, said he hopes to have traffic signals installed by that time. He thanked Ms. Tucker and VDoT for working with him on the project ..... ~ ..... · ........ Mr. Martin asked that VDoT permit Mr. Deane, a local resident, to maintain a memorial to his family members killed in a recent automobile accident. Ms. Tucker said she has spoken with the Mr. Deane and his relatives to explain the need to balance public safety with the family's need to grieve. She said motorists have said the memorial is a distraction. Mr. Martin said he is willing to help in any way he can. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Tucker, Mr. Davis and he recently met with the Mayor of the Town of Scottsville's, who is trying to resolve an ongoing battle over signage used by two companies who operate competing rafting services on the James River. He asked that VDoT work with the two companies to resolve their differences. Ms. Tucker said she has been working with the two compa- nies for some time. Only highway-authorized signs for special events are currently allowed in VDoT rights-of-way. VDoT cannot set a precedent for allowing advertising signs. (Note: At this time, the Board moved to the 10:00 a.m. public hearing.) Agenda Item No. 9. 10:00 a.m. - Public hearing on a request to amend Section 12-41.1 of the County Code to include West Leigh Drive in West Leigh Subdivision into the County road system for law enforcement purposes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 20 and 27, 1998.) O00101 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) ~ ._..~ ~.; Ms. Thomas disclosed that she lives in this area, but the Commonwealth's Attorney said she has no conflict of interest. Mr. Tucker said for approximately 30 years, West Leigh property owners have operated and maintained West Leigh Drive, a private road dedicated to the public. West Leigh Drive connects two county roads, OldBallard Road and Route 250 West. The County Code provides that roads not in the State mainte- nance system may be added to the County road system for law enforcement purposes, west Leigh property owners recently voted at an annual meeting to bring traffic enforcement on West Leigh Drive under State law enforcement regulations. The Police Department conducted two traffic surveys on West Leigh Drive to determine whether or not there is a speeding problem in this area. These results indicate that traffic on West Leigh Drive is operating at an average speed of 25 mph, which would not warrant a high priority for traffic enforce- ment. However, the Police Department did find that a high volume of traffic (over 590 vehicles) used this road daily. Based upon this type of vehicle activity, the Police Department supports the need to have the authority to enforce traffic laws on West Leigh Drive. Staff has determined the request meets the criteria for inclusion of West Leigh Drive into the County Code under § 12-41.1, o~ § 9-601 of the proposed County Code, for traffic enforcement by the police Department and recommends approval. Mr. Tucker then asked the Board to delay action until it reached Item 12 on the agenda, recodification of the County Code, so it could all be adopted together. Ms. Humphris said she did not know what criteria was used when the recommendation was made, and asked if it was based solely on the Police Department's.statement. Mr. Tucker said Engineering also looks to see if the road will handle the traffic. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. Grice Whiteley, representing the property owners association for Section One, said West Leigh homeowners have been maintaining the road privately for 15 years. Concerns have mounted each year because of increased traffic. The property owners association conducted its own survey and found that 600 vehicles move along the road and over the railroad tracks each day. Vandalism, speeders, four-wheel vehicle damage and safety are issues of concern. He asked that the County assist them by controlling traffic and making arrests. With no one else present to speak, Mr. Marshall Closed the public hearing. Mr. Davis again recommended the Board delay its vote until after they adopted the recodification of the County Code. It was the consensus of the Board to do so. Note: At this time, the Board moved to Agenda Item No. 10.) Agenda Item No. 10. 10:15 a.m. Public hearing to authorize dedication of right-of-way for Mill Creek Drive. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 20 and 27, 1998.) Mr. Tucker said Mill ~Creek Drive was constructed by the County to provide access to Monticello High School and to serve as a connecting road between Avon Street and Route 20 South. Right-of-way for the road was previously dedicated based on the original design alignment. However, minor modifications during construction caused a small section of the road to be located outside the dedicated area. State Code requires a public hearing to be held in order to dedicate County property for this purpose. Additional right-of-way for the road, approximately 2,800 square feet, must be dedicated to public use. This is a requirement for VDoT to accept the road into the state system for maintenance. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 000 102 With no one present to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize dedication of right-of-way for Mill Creek Drive. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation by Mr. Ken Schwartz: Proposal for Design Resources Center. Mr. Ken Schwartz made a presentation On the Design Resources Center for the greater Charlottesville region to the Board. He said the idea of a community center began four years ago, as the brainchild of the University of Virginia School of Architecture. It was envisioned that such a Center would support sustainable and intelligent growth with design as a major force of community empowerment and engagement. Mr. Stroud Watson, Director of the Design Resources Center in Chatta- nooga, Tennessee, visited Charlottesville to present to a wide group of people from the County, City, and University, a presentation on Chattanooga's experiences with their Center. Following Mr. Watson's visit, a visit to Chattanooga was organized, and 23 individuals from the Charlottesville/Albemarle/University of Virginia community visited the Center. Mr. Schwartz said although Chattanooga is different from Charlottesville in many ways, nonetheless, the Center provides an example of how a design resources center can be developed to work with government and private sectors. After the Chattanooga visit, a meeting was held during which there was follow-up discussion, and minutes of that meeting were distributed to the community. The purpose of the meeting was to identify ideas from the commu- nity on how to begin a Center in this area. At the same time, the Virginia Environmental Endowment offered to contribute $200,000 in support of the University's Institute of Sustainable Design, $30,000 of which is being directed to the Design Resources Center as start-up funding. Since that time, the mission of the Center has been designed. Mr. Schwartz said it will be an independent, community-based resource to empower citizens of the greater Charlottesville-Albemarle region with the necessary desig~ and Planning tools to assess, envision and enhance the vitality and sustainability of the community. The Center will use design as a tool to foster productive dialogue among the public sector, University administration, private sector, developers, and the public about complex issues related to growth, development, urban design, and their short- and long-term impacts on the community, economy and environment. It is intended that the Center will "render visible" design and planning issues critical to the Charlottesville-Albemarle region in a neutral way, such as opportunities for public-private partnerships for student housing, foster- ing socially responsible, environmentally intelligent economic growth, and suggesting viable alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle and new road construction. It will become a visible, public place for residents of the region to view and discuss current development proposalS~ and, when appropri- ate, suggest alternative scenarios and portray them in an accessible way. The Center will develop approaches in exploring possibilities for key vacant or underutilized sites. It will provide resources and educational materials about design and development to the public, as well a specialized publications and studies for developers about innovative design and development strategies. Finally, the Center will provide technical expertise (through the University faculty) to assist localities in the implementation of new strategies. Current projects underway include assisting the Fifeville CommUnity Workshop to develop better visualizations of the many options and issues discussed over the past two years in the City. The Center has also Offered to assist with the DeVelopment Area Initiatives Study. Mr. SChwartz said the Center will not intrude upon the County's procedures already in place, and 000 03 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14 ) .... ~, ~,~.~ ? ~! .~ ~! .,, ,.~,~ ...~,:,~. ~:: ~:~ ~ :~.?~ ~ :~:~: :~ ;, will not be redundant. Instead, it will offer services neither the County or City are currently doing. One spec±fic project is to develop, design and organize an Internet presentation that helps to support the public materials that have developed. He said this is consistent with the Center's goal to assist the public. Mr. Schwartz said he is Director of the Design Resources Center and a faculty member of the University School of Architecture. The Center falls under the global umbrella of the University's Institute for Sustainable Design, working with issues pertaining to the City, County and University. Other persons involved with the management of the Center include Mr. Christian Mitchell, ASsistant Director of the Institute for Sustainable Design, and two colleagues, Ms. Jennifer Ackerman and Ms. Karen Midkiff. In addition, there are two consultants working on a high-technology project. Mr. Schwartz said Ms. Humphris and Mr. Tucker had expressed concern and interest about the project. They were Concerned about the duplication of effort. He said the Center does not want to duplicate effort; rather, it is hoped the Center will take on projects not being handled by the City or County due to lack of resources. To avoid duplication it will be necessary to keep in close contact with City and County staff. Ms. Humphris and Mr. Tucker also questioned what practices will be used. Mr. Schwartz said the process requires open communication, and leadership and continuity are required to see the project through. The Center is currently located in Madison House, but it is hoped it will relocate into a storefront location in the community, and begin reaching out to the County and beyond. There will eventually be a presentation on the Center available via the Internet. Mr. Schwartz added that most design resource centers have taken five to ten years to mature. Long-term financing is required, preferably a combination of private and public funding. Mr. Schwartz said $10,000 from each of the three entities (City, County and University) would provide start-up funds and one year's funds to get off the ground. This support will be valuable as he approaches foundations requesting financial support. The Center has already received $30,000 from the Virginia Environmental Endowment. The Center has also received $6,000 in private donations, $10,000 from the University, and signs of support from the City. Mr. Tucker asked if there will be an oversight committee or board. Mr. Schwartz'said the Center's work plan calls for an eight-person citizen and governmental ·representative bOard to help guide decisions. His idea is to meet quarterly with representatives from the City, the County, the University, a business person or someone from the Chamber of Commerce, and a prominent architect from the cOmmunity. ~ Mr. Bowerman asked that Mr. Schwartz present his written comments to the Board, and he did so. Mr. Bowerman then asked about the timetable for installing the steering committee. Mr. Schwartz said he hopes the committee will be in place by the end of September. To that end, he asked the Board to suggest a person or persons to serve on the steering committee. He said he would prefer not to have directors of planning, because that coUld result in duplications of the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) discussions. He will ask the City and the University to do the same. He added that he would make the final determination of who serves on the committee. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board should submit a list of recOmmendations for each position available on the committee. Mr. Marshall questioned the need for the Design Resources Center. He also expressed concern about Mr. Schwartz serving on the City Planning Commission while serving .as Director of the Center, due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Schwartz said he maintains contact with many people in- volved, which could help keep activities on track. Mr. Marshall disagreed, saying Mr. Schwartz could not remain neutral and still serve on the Planning Commission. Mr. Schwartz said he would take any action necessary to avoid a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Humphris agreed that the idea of rendering visible design could be valuable to the community. However, when reading the materials Mr. Schwartz provided the Board; she became concerned that the proPosal could go much further into the individual planning efforts of the three entities. That would no doubt require more staff time from everyone, since the turnover in August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 0001O4 graduate students would make it difficult to maintain continuity. Numerous PACC, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and County projects would result in duplication of efforts. She added that the Center could not answer questions regarding specific zoning regulations, etc. Ms. Humphris said the process would have to be in writing before anything could be in place. Mr. Schwartz agreed, but felt that progress needs to be made and problems then sorted out. The steering committee will assess the clarity of the work plan. 'He said there have been no problems in other localities, as design resources centers do not play a governmental role. Ms. Humphris agreed with Mr. Marshall that there may be a conflict with Mr. Schwartz's serving on:the City Planning. Commission. Mr. Schwartz said he understands the Board's concern, and he wili~ consider the issue. Ms. Thomas said this might be a way to leverage some monies in the budget with expertise and by the Design Resources Center. She asked if staff could explain how they see this as being helpful. In the Crozet area, there is money in the budget to deal with the design of crozet as a viable commu- nity, and she wondered if staff would want to have the Center as a resource. Mr. Tucker said staff discussed the proposal after a presentation was made to the Planning Commission. Staff's perspective was that the Center could be helpful on a project-by-project basis. If everyone supports the visible rendering idea, the County does not have the tools, for example, to assist with the development in Crozet. The development community could possibly benefit from the Center. Staff did not envision the Center being a burden on them. Mr. Schwartz said there has been significant leveraging and investing on the part of philanthropic entities that have brought millions of dollars into other communities. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned that this puts too much power in one man's hands. Mr. Bowerman said if the University's Board of Visitors and the City participate with the County in the process of laying out a concept of a design, a fourth party could play a useful role in rendering the visual concept. Ultimately the issue would then go before the governing body that makes decisions on each project. There has to be a clear process outlined as to how this would function, and a clear delineation of duties. Mr. Martin said it would be helpful to have visible rendering so that governing bodies do not have to solely rely on developers. However, this could create problems if the process becomes even further removed from constituents. Ms. Humphris said Madison House is not easily accessible to constitu- ents. She also said Mr. Schwartz should not have the authority to appoint the majority of the members to the steering committee. Mr. Perkins said he believes there is good and bad design Most development is done with private money, and developers may not be able to afford the designs suggested by the Center. At 5his time, Mr. Marshall asked that comments be closed. (Note: The Board took a break at 11:00 a.m. and returned at 11:15 a.m.) (Note: the following two items were discussed concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: (RFP-97-23), Request approval to hire consultant for assistance in developing a Wireless Telecommunications Policy. Agenda Item No. ll.A. Appropriation: Consultants, $72,250 (Form #98005) Funding for Telecommunications Mr. Tucker said the County issued an RFP for a Consultant to assist in the preparation of a Wireless Telecommunications Policy. This RFP included as part of the scope of services, the following items: meet with representatives of the i~icenSed WireleSs telecommUnica- tion providers; prepare extensive mapping of current service areas and identify potential areas of service; 000105 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) {Page 16) ~ ~ 3. prepare extensive mapping of current wireless telecommunications facilities and structures capable of accommodating wireless telecommunication facilities; 4. prepare extensive mapping of resources considered critical to the County to ensure their preservation; 5. develop standards for acceptable levels of wireless telecommunica- tion service; 6. develop design standards for the construction of new facilities; 7. provide information on future technologies and how they may impact future service demands and facility needs and how these new technologies may integrate with existing technology and facili- ties; and 8. meet with staff, elected and appointed officials and the public in order to complete the above objectives. Mr. Tucker said the consultant is not responsible for the preparation of a policy or ordinance. This RFP covers the broad policy development only and does not address specific site evaluations. Another RFP, RFP 97-24, covers the specific site evaluations. A request for funding for RFP 97-24 will be forwarded to the Board when negotiations with the selected vendor have been completed. It is anticipated that these negotiations will take less than a month. Three responses to RFP 97-23 were received. Staff reviewed the re- sponses and selected two of the respondents for an interview. A five-member selection committee was formed by staff to conduct these interviews. This committee was comprised of Ms. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Bill Finley, Mr. Rick Huff, Mr. Jack Kelsey and Mr. Bill Fritz. Each of the candidates was evaluated on their ability to satisfactorily perform the scope of service. The committee unanimously recommended that negotiations with the firm of Kreines and Kreines be conducted. The committee chose this firm due to its response to the RFP and demonstrated ability to complete the work requested by the County. The respondent demonstrated an ability to perform the work based on the level of knowledge, ability to express the knowledge in an understand- able format and completion of similar work for other localities. A copy of the scope of work from the proposed contract is on file in the Clerk's office. The total contract price is $72,250. It includes $60,000 for the completion of the work and $12,250 for expenses related to five trips to Albemarle County. A breakdown of the various costs is included in the report. The proposed cost that was submitted by the other respondent t© this RFP was from $50,000 to $80,000. It is anticipated the vendor will provide the County recommendations as to siting criteria, facility design criteria and mapping of resources within the County. Mapping will include resources considered critical to the County and existing structures potentially capable of accommodating telecommunication facilities. This information will be developed after defining acceptable levels of service in the various parts of the County. Information regarding levels of service will allow identification of potential service areas. Information will also be provided on future technologies and services avail- able in the next five to ten years. The firm of Kreines and Kreines has demOnstrated an ability to complete the work necessary for the development of a comprehensive telecommunications policy. Further, they have demonstrated that they are the firm most capable of providing the requested information. Staff recommends the Board approve the appropriation for this project and authorize the County Executive to sign the contract for award to Kreines and Kreines. Mr. Bowerman asked if the vendor will visit the area. Mr. Tucker said they will provide on-site visits to gather and provide information that will help staff develop policy. Mr. Bowerman clarified that this consultant would assist the County in deciding its own criteria for site selection, and would not be the one making recommendations on individual applications. Mr. Tucker said that was true; someone else on retainer would consult with the County to provide such recommendations. Ms. Thomas asked about ~strength of signal" maps. Mr. Tucker said he does not know who will be providing them, but he thinks it will be left to staff. Ms. Thomas said it would be good to have these maps when examining applications. 000:1.06 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Perkins said a presentation on the growth of telecommunications was provided at the Planning District Committee meeting in Virginia Beach. He asked that group how satellites figure into towers applications, and whether towers will eventually be done away with. Satellites could possibly reduce use of towers in rural areas, but not in urban areas, due to signal interfer- ence problems. He added that Nelson County has a policy stating that a tower is by-right as long as it is on a wooden pole and under a certain height. These applications are handled administratively. Ms. Humphris said the height of towers is higher than that of telephone poles. Mr. Perkins said the height of poles could be limited. Mr. Martin questioned why the Board will pay consultants to examine each site, when, as Mr. Perkins said, applications could be handled by-right with conditions. Ms. Humphris disagreed, saying it is critical that the Board knows everything it can about each tower before it is approved. Mr. Perkins said staff would still receive special use permits for requests with special conditions, but handling some applications by-right might encourage applicants to use a different site. Ms. Thomas said "combiners" will be on the market within the next two months that will enable up to six companies to use one tower. Motion was offered by Ms..Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the appropriation and authorize the County Executive to sign the contract for award to Kreines and Kreines. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. (The appropriation is as follows:) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER: 98005 FUND: General PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1000 81010 312700 PROF. SERS. - CONSULTING $ 72,250.00 TOTAL $ 72,250.00 REVENTJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $ 72,2500.00 TOTAL $ 72,2500.00 (Note: the following four items were discussed concurrently.) tised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 1998.) (Adver- Agenda Item No. 12. Adoption of an ordinance to enact a new code for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be entitled, "The Code of Albemarle County, Virginia, 1998" (deferred from July 15, 1998). Agenda Item No. 12A. STA-98-01o Subdivision Ordinance (deferred from July 15, 1998). Agenda Item No. 12B. To consider imposing or increasing certain fees in an ordinance to recodify Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land (deferred from July 15, 1998). Agenda iteTM No. !2C. ZTA-98-06. SectiOn 32.0 Site Plan of the Zoning Ordinance (deferred fro~n July 15, 1998). August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Davis said the County Code has been revised to incorporate all the recodifications discussed at public hearings, as well as the Zoning Ordinance, subject to public hearings by both the Planning Commission and the Board, and amendments to the Site Plan Ordinance, which is part of the Zoning Ordinance, and also subject to public hearings by both entities. Staff recommends adoption of the entire package. One issue that was left outstanding was the definition of "immediate family member" in the Subdivision Ordinance. · Staff has prepared a memorandum explaining the definition. The finding is that there are some lending regulations restricted by lot size, but staff found that the current division provisions of the Family Subdivision Ordinance is not a common way to handle that issue, and therefore this should not present financing problems. Mr. Martin said the financing issue was a situation brought to his attention by an individual. He asked if there are any other considerations and suggested allowing a provision where someone could request a special use permit for a spouse. Mr. Davis said since this in the Subdivision Ordinance, which is a ministerial ordinance, there is no way to provide for special use permit provisions. Ms. Thomas said someone could always simply sell a parcel of land for one dollar. Mr. Martin said there might be other legitimate reasons someone would not want to use a family division. Mr. Davis said an applicant could still do a rural division or a two-lot subdivision. The family division issue boils down to not having to make improvements to roads when making a division. Someone can nearly always do a rural division, if they have road frontage and are doing a five-acre lot, or a regular subdivision, if they can provide access to the lot, meeting the Ordinance's standards. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said the only situation where it is more advantageous to do a family subdivision instead of a conventional subdivision is when property is served by an old easement and serves several other properties. If a conventional subdivision is done, an applicant has to upgrade the road to all the properties in a regular subdivi- sion. With a family division there is no upgrade required. At the same time, there is a certain inequity, because there is increased traffic on the road, possibly to the detriment of all the property owners served by that easement. Mr. Marshall said he is still not satisfied with the answer to the financial question. He said Mr. McClure, a citizen, said one of his family members could not obtain financing unless they went through his spouse. Mr. Davis said there is still financing available, although it might not be the financing they want. Mr. Marshall said the Board has to look out for people who have difficult financial situations. Mr. Martin said he shared Mr. Marshall's concerns. He is not too worried about large lots owned by developers, but he is concerned about financial hardship and asked if there is an escape clause. Mr. Davis said that is not available under the Subdivision Ordinance. There is a tradeoff between the Family Division in the Subdivision Ordinance and the few people who might be affected. Ms. Thomas said someone could always divide off a piece of land in a subdivision. Mr. Martin said not everyone can afford to upgrade the roads. Mr. Bowerman said those costs would only be created when someone creates more lots than they have children. He added he has never seen a problem like the one described by Mr. Marshall or Mr. Martin. Mr. Davis said leaving in the term ~spouse" circumvents the Ordinance. There is no escape clause, even under the current ordinance. Mr. Marshall said using the spouse designation was done to help out a family member to get financing. Mr. Davis said the purpose of the Ordinance is not to assist people get financing, and that if Mr. McClure did what Mr. Marshall described, he circumvented the current ordinance, which should not have been allowed. Mr. Bowerman said the situation Mr. Marshall outlined cannot happen. He suggested that inclusion of the ~spousal" change be separated from the vote on recodification. Mr. Davis said he had called other institutions who said there was financing available. The only situation that could be problematic is when a bank plans to sell a mortgage to a secondary market. Mr. Marshall said some people do not have the education necessary to shop around for lenders. Mr. Davis said this is a complicated issue, and that staff wants to examine the Family Division further. Minor adjustments added by the Board August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000'108 were to increase the holding period and change the definition of "spouse", as a policy issue for the Board. Ms. Humphris said she favors changin9 the "spousal" definition in the Code. She added that the Commission is examining this issue. Mr. Martin said he had no objection as long as the Commission discusses the situation Mr. Marshall and he have described. The Board needs to, when considering any changes, consider how it impacts lower- and middle-income people. Mr. Bowerman said staff needs to suggest situations, if any, where someone might be adversely affected by the proposed change. Mr. Perkins asked that staff also examine Rural provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance for situations where houses already exist, but new road standards would apply if adding a new house, under this revised ordinance. Mr. Davis said there is an incremental increase in development on a road, and the next person to build a home is affected by the additional cost. Mr. Keeler said there are two issues involved in the Family Division section of the Ordinance: to whom it applies, and what standards will be applied. There are advantages to family divisions where properties could not otherwise be divided. This is because of VDoT and other regulations. The cost of subdividing could be higher than the value of the land. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board be provided a recommendation on this issue sometime early in 1999. He further recommended the Board delete "spouse" for now, and change it later if reasons to do so are identified. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an ordinance adopting and enacting a new code for the County of Albemarle, Virginia; establishing the same, providing for the manner of amending and supplementing such Code; and providing when such Code and this ordinance shall become effective. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Perkins said this ordinance is very complex and not something the average person can read and understand. For example, on page 715 in the Water Resources section, the ordinance states that agriculture items are exempt, but then states that they require payment of a $40 fee. Mr. Davis said the Water Protection Ordinance has not been changed. He thinks this document is much easier to understand. He added that their version of the Lighting Ordinance was much smaller than what was finally agreed upon. Mr. Bowerman said the way the Code is adopted now makes it much easier to use than in the past. Ms. Thomas noted there is nothing in the Code Index. Mr. Davis said it is ready, but will not be given to the Board until the actual Code is distrib- uted. Mr. Davis said the Code will be available in hard copy and on both the Internet and Intranet soon. ADOPTION OF CODE ORDINANCE NO. 98-A(1) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA; ESTABLISHING THE SAME; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING SUCH CODE; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH CODE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia pursuant to authority contained in Section 15.2-1433 of the Code of Virginia, as follows: Section 1. The Code entitled The Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia of 1998 consisting of Chapters 1 to 18, each inclusive, is adopted. This Code is a recodification of the Code of the County of Albemarle of 1975 and all amendments thereto. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Section 2. 000109 Ail provisions of the Code shall be in full force and effect from and after August 5, 1998. The provisions appearing in the Code, so far as they are the same as those of the ordinances in the Code of the County of Albemarle of 1975 adopted April 21, 1976 and all amendments thereto adopted subsequent to that date, shall be considered as continuations thereof and not as new enactments. Section 3. Ail ordinances of a general and permanent nature previously a part of the Code of the County of Albemarle of 1975 and enacted on or before August 5, 1998, and not included in the Code or recognized and continued in force by reference therein, are repealed. Section The repeal provided for in Section 3 shall not be construed to revive any ordinance or part thereof that has been repealed by a subsequent ordinance that is repealed by this ordinance. Section 5. Any person convicted of a violation of the Code shall be punished as prescribed in Section 1-115 thereof, or as provided specifi- cally in such other applicable section of the Code. If any section of the Code is subsequently amended and no penalty is provided, the general penalty, as provided in Section 1-115 of the Code, shall apply to the amended section, unless a penalty is provided in another section in the same chapter which is specifi- cally applicable to the amended section. Section 6. Any and all additions and amendments to the Code, when passed in such form as to indicate the intention of the Board of Supervisors to make the same a part of the Code, shall be deemed to be incor- porated in the Code, so that reference to the Code shall be understood and intended to include such additions and amendments. Section 7. Ail ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. Section 8. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the board of supervi- sors that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance and the Code are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance and the Code shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Ordinance and the Code. Section 10. This ordinance, and the Code adopted hereby, shall become and are effective on August 5, 1998. (Note: At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 9.) Agenda Item No. 9. 10:00 a.m. - Public hearing on a request to amend Section 12-41.1 of the County Code to include West Leigh Drive in West Leigh Subdivision into the County road system for law enforcement purposes. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) ( Page 21 ) '~ ,,; ,,, ,~ ,,~',~'~ ~ ~,:',;,~ ~, Motion was offered bY Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to amend Section 12-41.1 of the County Code to include West Leigh Drive in West Leigh Subdivision into the County road system for law enforcement purposes. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. The adopted ordinance is set out below: ORDINANCE NO. 98-9(1) ........ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A~D REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE VI, SPEED LIMITS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles, Article VI, Speed Limits, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 9-60!, Private roads designated highways, as follows: ARTICLE VI. SPEED LIMITS Sec. 9-601 Private roads designated highways. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-1307, the following private road or roads are hereby designated as highways for law enforcement purposes; 1. Greenbrier Drive within the subdivision of Townwood; 2. West. Leigh Drive within the subdivision of West Leigh. (Ord. Of 12-15-93; Code 1988, §12-41.1; Ord. 98-9(1), 8-5-98) Agenda Item No. 13A. Work Session: ZTA-98-03. Lighting Ordinance. Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, said the Board held a public hearing on ZTA-98-03 on June 10, 1998, and deferred action until August 12, 1998. They directed staff to prepare a proposal (which was approved by the Board on June 17, 1998) to assemble a task force to specifically &ddress areas of concern and to propose revisions to the ordinance within the framework of the original resolution of intent. The task force's revisions were to be pre- sented to the Board at a work session today, with a public review/hearing scheduled for August 12, 1998. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance with minor changes on April 14, 1998. Th April 20, 1998 draft of the ordinance required that all outdoor luminaires installed or replaced after the adoption of the Ordinance be fully shielded, if equipped with a lamp equal to or exceeding 3,000 lumens. The task force is recommending the following changes to that ordinance: Due to enforcement concerns, for single family and other uses which do not require a site plan in residential and Rural Areas (RA) districts, now only high intensity discharge Lights (includ- ing mercury, metal halide, high and iow pressure sodium), will require shielding, regardless of lumens output. That means halogen, incandescent and fluorescent lights for single family residences will not be regulated, but mercury vapor yard lights, for example, will require a shield. Enforcement will be simpli- fied because no measurement of lumens will be necessary. The original shielding requirement (for luminaires equipped with a lamp of 3,000 lumens or greater) remains in place for commercial, industrial, multi-family and other uses which require a site plan. All the lighting requirements in the Zoning Ordinance have been consolidated in this new section 4.17 except the industrial performance standard for glare (4.14.3), (which includes welding glare, for example). The site plan requirement (32.7.8.2) has been changed to read that outdoor lighting must now c0mply with August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) ~ '~ 4.17. The parking lot requirement (4.12.6.4) has also been changed to read that parking lot lighting must now comply with 4.17. The existing one-half (~) footcandle limit (for parking lot lighting spillover onto roads, residential and RA districts) is not being changed at this time, other than it is being moved to 4.17. 3 o The definition of "fully shielded luminaire" has been replaced by ~fully cutoff luminaire." The concept remains the same: no light may be emitted above the horizontal plane. All lights must be mounted horizontally - no tilting. The exception is that decora- tive fixtures (such as architectural streetlights) are now permit- ted if they meet "full cutoff optics". This means that, although shielded, a reflective globe usually permits a slight amount of uplighting. The definition of outdoor luminaire is specifically written to exclude internally illuminated signs. Thus, a floodlight which is directed at a monument sign, for example, is an outdoor luminaire; but a sign with internal fluorescent illumination is not. Exemptions have been added for holiday decorative lighting; lighting of the Virginia or American flag; sensor lighting; replacement of inoperable lamps and components; and replacement of a damaged luminaire which is one of a matching group. The intent is that wholesale replacement of a group of luminaires would comply with the ordinance. The intent of this ordinance has always been to simply require that all new outdoor lighting be fully shielded. This ordinance meets that intent, with a change to the residential requirement which will allow more Practical enforcement, and a change to allow certain decorative fixtures. Any other lighting issues (a retroactive ordinance regulating existing lighting, footcandle requirements, etc.) may be addressed at a later date through a committee with community-wide representation. Ms. Scala said staff recommends approval of ZTA-98-03 as recommended by the task force. Staff also recommends review of the ordinance (specifically the waiver provisions) after 18 months, to see if any changes are warranted. Mr. Bowerman said this ordinance makes it much easier to identify acceptable and unacceptable lights. The measurement:of the half-foot candle will be addressed separately. The Chamber of COmmerCe felt that someone ought to be able to have a decorative light too, so regulations were written for those lights. Ms. Scala provided the following definition of "decorative lights", which read, "manufacturer-provided or manufacturer-installed full cutoff optics". Mr.~ Bowerman added that the physical description Will be included with the site plan. Ms. Thomas asked whether other flags could be excluded. Mr. Davis said that could create First Amendment constitutional problems. He suggested stating that any non-commercial flags protected by the First Amendment be exempt. Any commercial flag would have to comply with the ordinance. Ms. Humphris asked whether five days' written notice prior to consider- ing a request to modify, waive or vary (§4.17.5) is adequate. Mr. Davis said this is the sandard set by the state Code. Ms. Humphris asked about holiday lighting (§4.17.6), which says that lighting which is temporary and discontinued within seven days of the end of the holiday, is acceptable. She noted that businesses advertise the Christmas holiday from November through March. Mr. Bowerman said seven days is a definite deadline following the end of a holiday. Mr. Davis said the Board could limit the restriction to residential holiday decorations. Mr. Bowerman said staff wanted to keep it simple, bUt Still have a date by which lighting should disappear. Ms. Scala said this gives homeowners some flexibility. It Was the consensus of the Board to defer this matter until September 12, 1998~ Mr. Marshall ClOsed the Public hearing, but the County Attorney pointed out that it can be reopened. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bob WatsOn, representing a c°alition of builders, realtors and the Chamber of Commerce, what he thought about the ordinance. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23 ) "~: ~ :;": Mr. Watson said the ordinance is more balanced now, and that the three organizations support it. Ms. Thomas asked 'about low-pressure sodium lights. Ms. Scala said they are a high-intensity discharge lamp, and most exceed 3,000 lumens. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:25 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into executive session pursuant to §2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to Boards and Commissions and to discuss personnel matters relating to the performance of Specific employees; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding a claim asserted against the County. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session. At 2:00 p.m., motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded 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 executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13B. Work Sessions: CPA-98-01, Mountains; ZTA-98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions; and ZMA-98-10,' Mountain Overlay District. Ms. Scala said the Board held a public hearing on the proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Ordinance amendments and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) on jUn~ 10, 1998, continued discussion on JUn~lT]'~1998, and deferred action on all three amendments Until August 5, 1998. The Board directed staff to present a proposal to them (which the Board approved on July 1, 1998, and which is on file in the Clerk's office), regarding how to proCeed with the review of the MOD Ordinance. The Mountain Committee met twice in July to discuss public hearing comments and the content of the latest version of the ordinance. The committee's comments are on file in the Clerk's office. Staff was asked to be prepared to review the CPA and the latest version of the ordinance, and discuss the Committee's recommendations regarding the ordinance at this Board meeting. Using the Proposed zoning maps, staff was also asked to present several examples of how the ordinance would affect specific mountain properties. All three amendments were ready be adopted at this or a later scheduled meeting. The Mountains section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies mountain resources, as well as why and how they should be protected. Although moun- tains have been discussed in all previous Comprehensive Plans since 1971, this section is a more detailed discussion, based on the committee's 1995 Mountain Protection Plan. The Mountains section is an integral part of Chapter Two, the Natural Environment section of the Plan, which the Commission' has most recently been working on. The importance of adopting the CPA, whether alone or along with the proposed MOD ordinance and maps, is nhe Comprehensive Plan is used to gUide all land use decisions. The 1992 Open SpaCe Plan defines moUntain areas, which have been used in discussions of cellular tower locations, rural August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting).:?.~...I (Page 24) 000 i.t3 preservation developments, and other develOpment proposals in mountain areas. The proposed CPA will provide additional data and guidance assembled by the Committee to inform future land use decisions. The Committee's suggestions indicate continued support for the most recent version of the MOD Ordinance. They recommend that more time is needed to educate the public about the ordinance. Additional public information sessions regarding the proposed ordinance as suggested by the Committee are desirable, but will require staff time and resources, which will affect other projects. Staff recommends (1) notification of the public through a newspaper ad or direct mailings (direct mailings require more staff time, but may be more effective); (2) one-on-one meetings between staff and property owners to be scheduled in the County Office Building, rather than several County locations; and (3) maintaining current information on the Mountain Ordinance on the Internet site. Zoning maps may be adopted without the ordinance. Adoption of the maps alone, without the full MOD Ordinance, would implement the MOD soil erosion provisions in the Water Ordinance. Ms. Scala said staff recommends adoption of CPA-98-01. Staff further recommends the Board decide which specific provisions of the ordinance it may wish to pursue, notify the publi~ of its intent, and schedule additional meetings in September for further discussion. She advised the Board that Mr. Perkins discovered an error in the Debris Flow section, regarding slope percentages. She said the proposed Ordinance states that debris flows'occur on slopes greater than 26 degrees, which was equated to a 67 percent slope. That is incorrect. A 2:1 slope, which is roughly a 50 percent slope, works out to 27 degrees, so a 26 degree slope would be 48.5 percent. Mr. Marshall said before he could adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), he needed to know what this means to the public. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide, but it is treated like law. Mr. Davis said when Planning staff does its analysis of whether or not a rezoning is appropriate, they refer to the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. The MOD and Water Protection Ordinances are already used; this provides further guidance on elevations in the Comprehensive Plan. During development requests for special use Permits, this would be a resource to the Board. P[r. Tucker said it will be especially helpful dealing with special use permits in the RA districts. Mr. Bowerman asked what the effect would be if this is not passed. The Comprehensive Plan currently references slopes when discussing towers, and he asked if that would suffice, if the Board is not willing to adopt the language to which other sections refer. Mr. Davis said the language proposed does not enhance the~ability to deal with towers. The Board~urrently relies on the Comprehensive Plan for guidance, so the arguments can already be made. Mr. Marshall said without the ability to have purchase of development rights (PDR's), the Board is essentially downZoning property, Which economi- cally impacts property owners. Mr. Davis said the adoptiOn of the COmprehen' sire Plan does not downzone Property, and the ordinance may or may not downzone it. Landowners still have sufficient use of their property. Ms. Scala added that the Comprehensive Plan would have no impact on by-right or subdivision applicatiOns, but staff would be able to use it in cases nOt covered under those applications. Mr. Martin said adopting the CPA would not mean adopting any regula- tions. The objective is to pursue additional protective measures. Mr. Marshall suggested the Board find out what it may pursue, but Mr. Perkins said that would require further study. He felt it made no difference whether or not the CPA is passed. Mr. BOwerman said the Task Force ~ecommended the CPA be separated from the MPO, so there could be modification of language in the MOD ordinance, if it is ever adopted. The CPA itself is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The second issue, regarding maps, is more complicated. Thirdly, the Board should take all the time it needs to finish the language. Ms. Scala said the Board can adOpt the CPA without any further regulations, and it will still serve a very useful purpose. When someone asks the Board to make a land use decision, the Board can look to the CPA for ~uidance. 000 . 4 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Tucker said there are provzsions in the ordinance now that allow an applicant (outside of the watershed area) to apply for a special use permit to put up additional units. In that instance, the Comprehensive Plan might give staff guidelines as they make their recommendations. Mr. Marshall said staff has adequate resources at their disposal now. He feels the only thing this does is take away the property rights of individuals while the Board really wants to curtail land speculators. Regarding the purchase of development rights, Ms. Thomas said the Board is sending the message that it is not important to protect the mountains. Mr. Martin said the Board is in favor of doing something to ensure the beauty of the mountains. The CPA addresses some measures that would help in that regard. Most of the measures outlined in the CPA are all agreed upon by everyone, but there might be disagreement among Board members regarding the MOD Ordinance. There are no rules and regulations for enforcement; there are simply suggestions and recommendations. Those who voted against the MOD Ordinance were seen as development-oriented and hating the mountains, while those who voted for it were painted as mountain lovers and having no problem taking away property rights. Mr. Marshall said he shared Mr. Martin's concerns. He does not want to cause property owners to spend money they may not have. He believes current landowners are already doing a good job of protecting their mountain property, and he is concerned those people will be forced into selling their land to developers. Mr. Bowerman said the consensus of the Board was to adopt the CPA. It simply codifies what the Board has been doing for years. It also allows, when reviewing a special user permit, consideration of where property is located. This may have an impact on a developer who wishes to expand the number of lots that can be constructed on a parcel of land. Mr. Bowerman then moved the adoption of CPA-98-01, and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Two, The Natural Environment, to include a section on ~Mountains", including a list of mountains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map descrip- tion of Mountains by contour elevation, and stated that the Board shall deal with the other two issues separately. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins asked if adopting the CPA would create a new water resources area. Mr. Davis replied, "No." Mr. Perkins said that meant the mountains would remain part of the rural areas. Ms. Scala said the Board would have to adopt the MOD in order for that section to apply. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the maps are part of the district. Mr. Davis said the Comprehensive Plan does not establish an overlay district. The water resources areas referenced in the Water Resources Ordinance are not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Marshall suggested the Board make a decision on adopting the MOD before adopting the CPA. Mr. Perkins said the Board is not ready to adopt the MOD. Mr. Martin said emphasis has been placed on protecting resources and promoting public safety. He asked if the CPA really protects public safety. Ms. Scala said two areas the Committee identified as public safety items are access for emergency vehicles and the potential for debris flows. Mr. Martin asked if there has really been a problem with public safety. Ms. Scala said if a fire truck could not reach one house, it could affect neighbors. Mr. Bowerman said this came into play recently when there was a huge wildfire on one side of a mountain. Mr. Martin said the Comprehensive Plan and MOD were not begun with protecting public safety in mind. Ms. Thomas said the Committee's report included public safety, although concerns were not neces- sarily listed in terms of their priority. The theme reappears throughout discussions, and she therefore disagrees that safety is not of importance. Mr. Perkins said this is a double-edged sword. If the Board puts too much emphasis on public safety, it could force people into building expensive roads where they are not needed. The Board could also be creating the expectation that someone's home will be protected, but that cannot be guaran- teed. The Board cannot protect everyone from everything. Ms. Thomas said public safety addresses more than fire trucks. It addresses protection from erosion and other damage to property. Mr. Martin said he was not implying public safety is unimportant, but it does not seem to be a predominant factor. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 26) Mr. Marshall said the purpose of 'the CPA is to Prevent growth in the County. That cannot be done, but growth can be controlled by what is already in place. Ms. Humphris said the CPA states clearly what the vast majority of the County citizens have asked the Commission, the Board and staff to do; come up with a statement of what the Board values in the natural environment of the County's open space resources and possible ways to Protect them, in light of the fact that the County is going to grow? There must be something in writing that explains what the Board values. This will enhance property values, because the Board is showing a commitment to protecting what is valued. Mr. Marshall said passing ordinances that take away the rights of homeowners goes against the' forefathers'wishes. Mr. Perkins said he would vote for the CPA, although he disagrees with some of the contents and considers them mainly suggestions, not laws. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Perkins, saying that the suggestion that property owners are not good stewards affronts landowners who are good stewards of their property. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has stopped at the mountains and the rural areas. The County has a land use assessment that recognizes that there is an important component that urban areas also get from that resource, whic is between $5.0 and $6.0 million per year. This is in recognition that this is important property, and a value is paid by all citizens to protect them. Roi1 was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. (At this time, the Board took up the discussion on ZTA-98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions, and ZMA-98,10, Mountain Overlay District.) Ms. Scala said Section D, page 3, which mentioned constructed embank- ments, will be placed under General Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and will apply County-wide to driveways and building pads that are constructed. If a slope is created, it may not be constructed steeper than 2:1, unless it can be shown to be stabilized. This means that side slopes have to be stabilized when grading is done. Nor does the plan regulate the grade of driveways or the turning radius. The purpose is to prevent soil erosion. The Committee was split on this requirement. Some members felt it should be kept in the ordinance and adopted, since the Engineering Department tries to follow this guideline now, but it is not in any written form. Other members felt it should not be adopted at this time because it should be included separately, or at least not included in discussion on the mountains. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was disagreement on all of §4.2.01. Ms. Scala replied, "Yes." The Committee's view is that there would be more cost upfront due to grading, but that stabilized slopes reduce erosion, and it would cost less to maintain the property than if erosion occurred. Mr. Marshall asked why someone should be forced to build further down from a ridge, where the site is more visible, when building on a ridge may disturb less land and be less visible. Ms. Scala said a prOPerty owner can apply for a special use permit. Mr. Marshall said all homeowners need now is a building site and a building permit. A parcel on top of a mountain could sell for a lot more money than one lower on a mountain, representing a loss of money to the owner. Ms. Scala said everyone needs to consider what is best for the County as a whole. Mr. Bowerman said the Board accepts that a good view is imp0rtant, but has to address the fact that different locations have their own characteris- tics. Moving a site lower can still provide a view and not impact the rest of the public. There are situations fOr which ~criteria can"be °Utl'i~d~and approvals granted by the Commission andthe Board for environmental. and economic development in a certain location. Mr. Marshall said telling someone they cannot build on a mountain devalues their prOperty. Mr. Bowerman said the right that exists today may August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) O00116 not allow a developer to put a building site on a ridgetop. This will allow each application to be examined individually. Every legislative act requires an element of trust. Ms. Scala explained what the proposed MOD states about the location of homes on mountaintops. Section 30.8.4, item C, addresses the situation where a landowner wants to create a building site on a ridge for a new house. The landowner may obtain a special use permit if a development right would otherwise be lost. The Committee was concerned whether that would be the only criteria, but the section further states the landowner must meet the intent of the MOD to approve a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman clarified that someone could ultimately lose a development right if they Could not move a site further down the slope. Ms. Scala agreed that was a possibility. Mr.~ Bowerman said there would also be a possibility that, if there were purchase of develoPment rights, those rights could be purchased, if the Criteria was met. Ms. Scala said Section 38.4.d. is the second provision allowing someone to apply for a special use permit. If a building site exists below a poten- tial site, a landOwner may want to move it further up on the ridge if it would be better environmentally. The Committee also wanted to see specific criteria listed for special use permits so landowners could see upfront whether they stood a good chance of getting one approved. She said it would be difficult to write specific criteria that would guarantee acceptance. An applicant would have to meet the intent of the MOD, meet general special use permit criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, and follow the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas said if someone had five development rights, it is possible they could find only four sites. Without the change to Section B.2, someone could have been guaranteed a development right they did not really have. Mr. Martin said the way the language had been written previously, someone would have been given a right only if the ordinance took it away. If the right was lost for other reasons, there is no guarantee they would get it back. Ms. Scala said Section C would say if someone had a building site on the ridge and the ordinance said they cOuld not build there, and the only reason they could not build was because of the ordinance, a special use permit is a way to retrieve the develoPment right. Ms. Scala then, referring to uhe bulletin board, provided examples of the impact the MOD would have on certain properties~ In the first example, Mr. Howard, who has approximately 200 acres on Carter's Mountain, has a lot of potential development rights, and he could develop as many as 14 building sites. Some of his property is inside the MOD~ some is outside the MOD, and some is on the ridge. By conventional development under the ordinance, he could develop the small lots outside the MOD, he could develop 21-acre lots inside the MOD, provided he has building sites (it appeared that he had three), and he could not use the three or four sites on the ridge area without a special use permit. Under'thle MOD, staff would probably recommend he do a Rural Preservation development, clustering houses in the lower area. Ms. Thomas asked if there is a road there that can be accessed from that property. Mr. Marshall said, "Yes." Mr. Bowerman asked if the road that leads from the doWnSlope to the top of the ridge allow access to other properties along the ridge~ Mr. Marshall said, mit could. It is a logging road." Dr. McCluskey has two parcels on Carter's Mountain, one is over 100 acres, and one is about 65 acres. Most of his property is outside the MOD, and only one small part would be affected. He has lots of building sites, especially down below the ridge, as well as some on top. He could build on knolls. If he wanted to build on the MOD, he would have to cut off 21-acre parcels that are totally inside the MOD. 'OtherWise the parcel is not'af- fected. Ms. Scala then showed a map of a parcel on top of Round Top Mountain, but She did not know the °wner's'name. The entire parcel Straddles the ridge, but the entire area outside the ridge area appears to be 25 Percent Slopes. In that case, ~the landOwner would have the right to build one house on the ridge. Building two houses would require a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman asked how many rights exist for that property Ms. SCala replied that she did not know, but she guesSed it had five develOpment rights, 'plus 2ihacr~ parcels~ The landowner could not build on the steep slopes, but could build August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) multiple houses on top, if he has building sites. Mr. Martin said that meant the landowners could, at this time, build on as many sites for which he has building sites and development rights. Mr. Bowerman added the landowner could do an RPD. Ms. Scala said the area down below would then likely be put into the easement, because it is unbuildable, and then he could possibly cluster the houses. He would still require building sites for each house, and a minimum of two acres for each house. If the ordinance is adopted, by-right he would have the right to build one house. Mr. Perkins said if there was one parcel to the west that was off 25 percent slopes, and it was divided off, he could build there. Ms. Scala said the entire area is 25 percent slopes. Mr. Martin said this meant this landowner's rights could be reduced from eight to nine possible sites to one site, if the special use permits were denied. Mr. Bowerman said the landowner could still do a rural subdivision on the top. Ms. Scala said that would depend on how many building sites he has. He would be required to get a special use permit for all but one house. Without an RPD, he would have to cut off 21-acre parcels, so he could possibly build five lots. Mr. Bowerman said he would need drainfields and water. Ms. Thomas said the topography may limit building sites in that location anyway. Ms. Scala said if the landowner developed five lots, he would have to get either a state or private road approved. Ms. Scala said the owner of the Rosemont Subdivision is concerned. He would currently be allowed to build one house on the property, which is eight acres. Most of his property is in the ridge area, and he wanted to know if he could build on the ridge. Ms. Scala researched the matter and said the area off the ridge is nearly all on 25 percent slopes. Therefore he could still build one house in the ridge area, as he can do now. Ms. Julia Campbell owns 45 acres on Lewis Mountain, which is zoned R-1. It is in the growth area, and most of it is on 25 percent slopes. If there is public water and sewer, she is not required to have a 30,000 square foot building site. There are few building sites available. She has about 13 acres outside the MOD, which would not be affected. She could build on that if she has the building sites available. There may be one site in the MOD outside the ridge area that could be built by-right. Therefore if the MOD is put in place, she would have to get a special use permit in order to build any more houses. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Campbell could ask for a special use permit in the R-1 to cluster houses under existing regulations. Ms. Scala said she could cluster in R-l, but would still need to have building sites available. Mr. Bowerman said she could use her division rights on the ridge by coming in with a subdivision. Mr. Keeler said she does not have division rights; this is R-1 density. In the urban residential districts, a developer has the choice of a conventional or clustered development. Under clustered development, 25 percent of the site must go into open space. Therefore, she would have cluster development available to her, requiring 30,000 square foot building sites. Mr. Bowerman said she could have the open space because of the 25 percent slope~ on the downside. ................ Mr. Keeler said this is the urban area. There is no distinction made between critical slopes in rural and urban area applications. The County has been more receptive to waive them in growth areas. Mr. Davis said the draft ordinance does not address this situation for a special use permit, because it speaks in terms of development rights, and there are no development rights on R-1 property. Unless the ordinance is modified to recoup density, Ms. Campbell would be prevented from having further development on the ridgetop unless it is the first house. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible that one scenario is better than another, for reasons the Board has not even considered. Mr. Davis said the Board may want to allow zoning other than RA to recoup its density by special use permit, since that would be consistent with what is proposed in the RA district. Ms. Scala said there are few mountains in the growth areas. The committee reviewed this request and thought the mountains in growth areas should be treated the same as those in the RA. Ms. Scala said Mr. Gerry Fisher's lot on Heard's Mountain lies entirely in the MOD. There is significant high elevation, and a lot of critical slopes in the area, so building is limited under the current ordinance. Mr. Fisher cannot use all his development rights since there is a lack of building sites. One entire parcel is on 25 percent slopes, so he could only get one building permit there now. There is a six-acre parcel with the same situation. He would need to obtain a special use permit in order to build on the ridge. He could develop small or large areas down lower, if he has development rights. Some other lots have two and three development rights, so he could develop August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~8 (Page 29) three 21-acre parcels on each. One parcel has enough building sites to utilize three building sites outside the ridge area. If he wanted to build inside the ridge area, she thought there might be three building sites, but he would need to obtain a special use permit. Mr. Fisher has development potential outside the ridge area. Two parcels are limited by steep slopes. One parcel goes up into the ridge area. He would be allowed to build one house on that entire parcel, Under the present ordinance. Ms. Scala said the next example, on Buck's Elbow Mountain, is huge, and its ridge area is very flat. Parcel number four is on the ridge, so the owner would have the right to build one house on the ridge by-right under the new ordinance. Right now he would be allowed to build as many houses as he has building sites, which is probably one. Mr. Bowerman said some parcels have more development rights than' they have building sites. Each site must be examined separately. Ms. Scala said this parcel lies mostly on the ridge, but has some sites outside the ridge area. Ridge sites would require a special use permit. Access is another issue, if the owner wants to do a lot of division there. The biggest parcel is limited by the ordinance because of the special use permit provision. Anything outside the ridge area is a potential building site by-right. Mr. Marshall asked how the MOD will financially impact individuals. Ms. Scala said some landowners would be impacted more than others. Some could do a building site by-right on a ridge now, but the new ordinance considers how it would impact the entire County's property values and environmental concerns. In the worst case, a landowner would have to get a special use permit to build on the ridge. Mr. Marshall asked if homeowners could be financially compensated. Mr. Bowerman asked whether a landowner who has eight development rights, but only three building sites, could build three sites now, if they are outside the 25 percent slopes. Ms. Scala said if the MOD is passed, it is conceivable a landowner would have three building sites, and some could be recouped in the ridge area, if an argument could be made that new lots would be created because they were lots attached to the development. Mr. Bowerman said it is possible under the current ordinance, that the landowner could do more development on the ridge under rural area preserva- tion, so this is a mixed-bag, depending on the specific property, the specific topography, the building sites on it, and the existing division rights. Mr. Martin said this is not a mixed-bag, because mixed means "more or less", and he has only seen examples that show "the same or less". Mr. Marshall said Mr. Fred Scott, Jr. had a survey done on his property by Shoffner Appraisal Company. Mr. Scott provided the Board a copy of the letter he received from Mr. George C. Shoffner. Mr. Shoffner's findings were that the MOD would have a significant impact on Mr. Scott's property, devalu- ing it by $600,000. Ms. Humphris said this ~s one person's opinion. She said Mr. Shoffner's letter read, in part, ~were the MOD to be in effect, the land value would be its basic agricultural value, or about $1,035,000. Therefore, deducting the 'After value from the 'before' value, indicates a value loss of over $600,000" Ms. Humphris said the MOD would not return the value of the land to basic agriculture; it would still have development value. Mr. Scott said he does not believe in putting houses on the spine of a hill. He selected some obvious sites for building sites. In every case, if he wanted to develop, he would want to keep the pastures free, and put houses in the trees, still affording good views. Each lot would be in the MOD and outside the MOD. Because of that, all 20 sites would have had to be moved from the obvious site down into what would be a more intrusively-viewed site. Mr. Davis said 21-acre sites would not have to be located lower. Mr. Scott could put the houses exactly where he is proposing them, even if the MOD is passed. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Scott could put 21-acre sites in the MOD, even though he has 21-acre sites outside the MOD. Mr. Perkins asked what happens if a 21-acre lot is half in and half out of the MOD. Mr. Davis said if there is a building site outside the MOD, that is where the house must be built. Mr. Shoffner said when a new lot is created in the MOD, it becomes discretionary as to the special use permit. Mr. Bowerman said that is simply a 21-acre lot and does not require an special use permit, unless it is ~n the ridge area. Mr. Shoffner said some of Mr. Scott's lots could fall in the ridge area. Ms. Thomas said if the lots are drawn intelligently, they can all be drawn within the MOD and Mr. Scott can build wherever he wants to. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) ( Page 30 ) ~ .~ ..?/~'~i~%~.. 000119 Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Scott could use all his division rights up on ten-acre lots and leave all the rest in open space and pasture. Mr. Shoffner said Mr. Scott would still need to approach the Board with a plan. He suspects a good deal of the value of Mr. Scott's land lies in the ridge area. Mr. Bowerman reminded Mr. Shoffner that Mr. Scott said he did not want to build in the ridge area. Mr. Marshall asked what will happen if Mr. Scott decides to sell his property. Mr. Shoffner had stated that, if Mr. Scott sold the property to someone else under the new ordinance, he could lose $600,000. Ms. Thomas said if somebody else purchases the property and does not use good sense, choosing to build on the spine, that is a different issue. Mr. Shoffner said that creates higher road costs, but higher values for the lots. Taking this out to a five-year sell-out period, and discounting the present value, there will be some erosion of this property's value. Mr. Shoffner said if a lot is on top of the ridge, each lot could easily be worth $250,000. A lot with no views could sell at $90,000 and $130,000 per lot, which is roughly a difference of $50,00 and $75,000 per lot, which is how the $600,000 loss figure was derived. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 3:46 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said Mr. Shoffner assumed there will be only agricultural use of the land if the MOD is passed. Mr. Shoffner said Mr. Scott has not yet determined where the lots are going to be used as building sites. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Scott would still be able to use all his development rights. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 3:48 p.m.) Mr. Shoffner said the special use permit process is discretionary. He is not comfortable with the fact that the same folks who are proposing the MOD would also administer the special use permit process. Ms. Thomas said special use permits and the spine areas go together, whereas the MOD newly-created lots do not have to go through the special use permit process. Mr. Scott has enough lots that a special use permit might never be needed at all, particu- larly if he does not wish to sell or develop the area in the spine. Mr. Shoffner said there is no way to know what a potential buyer might want to do with property. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Scott could put together a subdivision with all the houses on top of the ridge. If that plan is submitted and approved, he would receive value fOr his property. The highest and best use from a land speculator's point of view is to use the ridge top. The argument is that the MOD changes the potential value of his property. Ms. Thomas said there will not be a $600,000 loss, because the land is returning to agricultural value. A lot of the 21-acre lots will go on the hillsides. The choice not to put them on the swine is Mr. Scott's, and it would avoid'the special use permit process. Mr. Scott said Mr. Shoffner's letter demOnstrates the impact of moving the houses down to a lower area. There would be $50,000 difference in the lot sizes. Ms. Thomas said if the land is of only agricultural value, they are of no more value than they are as defined by Virginia Polytechnical InstitUte when looking at orchard land in Albemarle County. Mr. Martin said the Board has been examining this specific case for quite some time now. Everyone needs to agree to disagree with this particular appraisal. Mr. Bowerman Said the conversation has flushed out the issues the Board has been talking about. Mr. Perkins said the discussion has been confusing. If the MOD is intended to keep peOp!e fr°m building on the mountainside, and the Board is~t~elling him that.he 'Can bUiid on the m~untain, side, he sees no reason for the MOD in the firSt place. ~r. Perkins said there are other people from the~pUblic who would like to speak. Ms. Thomas said this was not a public hearing. Mr. Martin said the Board should hold a public hearing. Mr, Marshall mentioned Mr. Tom Olivier had sent a letter to all the Board members. Ms. Thomas said it would help staff if the Board told them what the ordinance should look like before they spend a lot of time creating one. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~O (Page 31) Mr. Martin said he did not think the Board could reach consensus on that issue, and that, since the Board is not ready for the section on constructive embankments yet, it should be left out. He does not like the way Section 30.8.4.C. (iii) was changed to say, ~...the building site of a proposed lot is consistent with the intent of this section 30.8; and (iv) the building site meets the criteria of section 31.2.4.1.", because he said there would never be a special use permit under those conditions. Mr. Marshall said-he cannot support, Section 30.8.4.a that reads, UNo lot or parcel shall be entirely within a ridge area." Ms. Humphris said there are provisions for exceptions listed elsewhere in the document. Ms. Thomas said it is important to avoid being perceived as arbitrary. She suggested rewording section 30.8.4.c. (iii) to state under what basis a special use permit would be given. Mr. Martin said he did not think what was being suggested in that section would ever be approved. He would want to see a list of criteria spelled out. Ms. Humphris said the criteria for all special use permits is already spelled out under section 31.2.4.1. Ms. Scala said if the Board did not think the intent of the ordinance was correct, the entire ordinance falls apart. Mr. Martin said if the Board is taking away a right as the result of the MOD, the division right should not be held to standards as high as the intent of the ordinance. Staff should continue to work on section 4.2.01. The County's standards, in some in- stances, require road standards higher than VDoT's standards. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Martin if removing the reference to gradient in section 4.2.01.a, yet still requiring the slope to be stabilized, would appease him. He replied, ~Maybe." Mr. Davis said the erosion control portion of the Water Protection Ordinance already requires stabilization. In almost every instance the Engineering Department's requirement is that slopes be 2:1, if possible. This simply puts into the Code what the practice is, and builds in an exception that says if someone can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department that it should be more than 2:1, the Engineering Department can approve it, Mr. Keeler said the introductory language is intended to restrict this to extreme cases. There would have to be a vertical fall of greater than five feet on the embankment before this comes into play. He suggested the Board might want to say the same thing about critical slopes. If someone is constructing a driveway and does not exceed a five-fOot vertical cut, the provisions do not apply. Mr. Bowerman said road standards can be applied County-wide. Ms. Scala said side slopes on the road and the slope created when building a building pad do not require any grade on the driveway. The side slopes must be 2:1, as they are now, in almost every instance. Ms. Thomas said this puts the Engineering Department policy under the Soil Erosion Ordinance into this section of the. Code, but if it is removed, it is still..County policy. Mr. Davis agreed, saying the same provision could go under the erosion measures in the Water Protection Ordinance or the Subdivision Ordinance. However, since it applies to site plans and subdivision plans, it was thought this was the best place for it. Mr. Martin said most of the people he has heard from feel this is the most significant section proposed. One person said he would not be able to build on his site under these guidelines. Mr. Davis said the Engineering Department could review such a situation and waive the requirement. Ms. Scala said the forty-foot radius guideline was removed, because it was for private roads only, and Engineering Department staff said the private roads standards already address that, because they use VDoT's standards. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Scala and Mr. Keeler to explain the difference between what the County already has in the current Subdivision Ordinance, building site requirements, wauer requirements and potential road standards, and the MOD. Further, he said there are some situations today where develop- ment rights will be lost because of topography and other existing situations, just as they would under the MOD and the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance. If someone can obtain a special use permit under the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, it is conceivable they will put houses on tops of ridge lines, because it may make more sense economically and aesthetically. The same can be done today. If a landow~ler can demonstrate, for example, that he has six buildable lots, and he wants ~o use those slx development rights, he can obtain a special use permit under the rural designation for clustering. He asked what is gained by adopting the MOD over what can already be done. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) O001~i (Page 32) Ms. Scala said the major effect would be that proposed sites would fall under additional review if they are in a ridge area. There is currently no review. Mr. Bowerman said if a landowner wants to do an RPD on top of a ridge, moving some of his sites onto the ridge, and he wants to cluster, there would be a special use permit review. Ms. Scala said when doing an RPD, staff recommends the rural preservation tract contain the resources the County is trying to protect. Mr. Bowerman asked about the lowlands. Ms. Scala said she talked to someone from Edgehill,"who wanted to know if he would be prohibited from clustering under the MOD. Ms. Scala said there is an historic landmark on that property, which is a working farm. She told him he could present his case, and might have a case for clustering in the MOD. Ms. Scala said the point of RPD is to protect resources. RPD's require a special use permit if they exceed 20 lots; otherwise they simply go to the Commission, if they meet certain design, criteria. The main effect of the Ordinance is to lower development in the ridge areas, pushing it down the mountains somewhat. If done the way the Committee suggested, it may require that small lots be used outside the MOD and only 21-acre lots be used in the MOD. Mr. Bowerman said this could result in dramatic roads being built to the mid-mountain sites. Ms. Scala said it would not impose gradient standards. If constructed embankments are done, it would require stable side slopes on the driveways and building pads, and the Water Protection Ordinance would come into play. A land disturbing activity, as defined in the MOD area, is at 2,500 square feet, as opposed to 10,000 in the rest of the County. Mr. Bowerman asked why it is not enacted in a County-wide ordinance, for any rural area with more than a 25 percent slope. Mr. Davis replied, "You could." Mr. Bowerman said road standards, embankments, and access issues could also be addressed in such an ordinance. Ms. Scala said, in relation to erosion, the MOD would also encourage the Engineering Department to ask for a plan, not just an agreement. Mr. Bowerman suggested doing that County-wide. Ms. Scala said the County should encourage this in areas where there are steep slopes and a better chance of soil erosion problems. Ms. Thomas said that is what would be put in place now if the Board only adopts the map. Ms. Scala said it would not currently require a plan in every case, but it points out areas where soil erosion could occur and gives the Engineering Department justification to ask for a plan. Mr. Bowerman said if the County had a Soil Protection Overlay District, for areas where erosion is identified as a significant problem, it could choose to apply these standards, whether they are lowlands or mountains. Mr. Davis said the Chesapeake Bay Act already authorizes the Board to do that based on soil types and topography. Mr. Bowerman said the Board is trying to protect the resources of the County and encourage sensitive use of the land. There are lots of requirements already imposed. There are lots of critical issues that arise when someone brings in a subdivision plat that are examined. If the County can deal with the ancillary issues of site developments, regardless of location, a lot of the problems would be solved by doing them County-wide. Mr. Davis said one impact of the Ordinance is that it requires, where an existing or future lot is both inside and outside the MOD, the landowner to build outside the MOD. This forces sites to be located down the mountain. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens when access to the site is the critical part. Disturbance because of the driveway could create damage to the land. Mr. Keeler said the major thing the MOD does is to regulate the ridge area more than what zs currently done. Ordinances are already in place to take care of most things. Mr. Martin said this imposes a lot of rules and regulations, as well as layers of bureaucracy and possibly more expense. It may accomplish something, but he questioned at what cost. Mr. Bowerman said if the County can already accomplish this in a different fashion, perhaps the Board should strengthen ordinances already in place and apply them to every- one. The drawback is that it could impact all homeowners in terms of cost. Ms. Scala said adopting the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates it is important to protect the mountains. If there are other things the Ordinance addresses, but that should be strengthened, the Board could address them separately. Mr. Bowerman said there are driveway erosion problems in Mill Creek. Strengthening requirements in that area would increase costs to builders. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) ~' ~ Mr. Davis said the County could strengthen road requirements. There are many way to deal with the same issues. Mr. Bowerman said the Board could end up raising the cost of development, which raises the cost of housing, regardless of where the site is or what is being built on it, but the environment would be preserved. He said there needs to be more discussion on the subject, and he suggested another work session. Mr. Perkins said there would need to be an exception for a single- dwelling on each parcel, with no road standards, or standards that are environmentally friendlier than the proposed County standards. Mr. Davis said this already eXists. Ms. Scala said someone only has to Obtain a building permit in order to build a single-family home, and a special use permit if building three houses. Mr. Perkins said he does not think 'the ordinance is needed. Mr. Keeler discussed the regulations being CoUnty-wide. The County adopted private road ~tandards in 1978, and the issue is examined by a committee every five years. The last committee said the County still needs private roads in rural areas, for environmental reasons. There are two sides to that issue. First, private roads have more stringent standards than public roads. Second, this could open up other areas that could not be developed if the County simply required public roads. He does not know how the County can be more sensitive to the terrain with any design standard, yet preclude development areas that are sensitive to development. Mr. Bowerman said the private road standards used are VDoT's standards. Mr. Tucker said the Board is wrestling with these same issues. What is before the Board now has been changed significantly. A lot of regulations already in place take care of many of the issues raised. The significant change is in the ridge area. The Board needs to decide if it is significant enough to adopt an ordinance, or whether there are other ways of addressing these issues. He suggested the Board might need to reidentify what the charge is to the committee. Ms. Thomas suggested the Board meet with the committee. Mr. Martin suggested using a public hearing to get feedback from the public about changes they would like to make to what has been proposed. Mr. Davis said the Ordinance has not been changed since June 16, 1998, except for one change recommended by the Committee, and the Board already held the public hearing. Ms. Scala said changes were made by the Task Force. Ms. Thomas said those changes are suggestions, but they were not passed by the Commission. Mr. Davis said the public may now be more aware of the require- ment for a special use permit. Mr. Martin said he would'~like to hear from the Task Force. Mr. Tucker said the Board could hold an open house, so that the public can see these examples and talk to staff. Ms. Humphris said there is no point in going to a public hearing, because there is nothing new to present. She said it would be helpful to have an open house forum. Ms. Thomas said it is unfair to ask staff to work on something the Board will never pass. If there are certain things that make it impossible for a Board member to vote on it, she felt they should make it clear. Mr. Bowerman said without the special use permit provisions added to what is before the Board, as suggested, but not recommended by the Commission, he does not think this is a workable ordinance. Mr. Martin said the special use permit was a compromise between taking away rights, while providing the special use permit process so that a lando,~ner can at least ask for it. He said someone should look at all the options and suggest the best place to build. Without that flexibility, the ordinance does not work. He would not support the ordinance without it. Mr. Davis said the alternative would be to have by-right development on the ridge area without a special use permit, whereas this ordinance restricts development on the ridge unless there is a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said it appeared that some Board members would prefer that no development rights be lost. A special use permit does not protect all development rights. He added that just having development rights does not guarantee a landowner will have building sites. Ms. Thomas said the special use permit process is not trusted by the public. They do not think the Board would ever say building a site on top of the mountain ridge is the best place to build. Mr. Perkins said this is only an issue if there are three houses or more. Ms. Thomas thinks the special use August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) ~ permit is flexible to a variety of ridge toP sites~ she thinks the ordinance is fair and effective. 000 .23 Mr. Davis identified two questions for the Board: 1) do you wish to restrict ridge top construction to one house with few exceptions, and 2) do you want building sites to be moved dOwn the mountains, if available. If the Board does not support'these ideas, the ordinance falls apart. Mr. Marshall said if development rights are limited to one per person on the ridge top, the Board is taking away development rights. Mr. Davis said the landowner still would have reasonable use of his property, but his property might be devalued if he is not permitted to develop his property the way he wants to. The special use permit allows someone to be assured they do not lose development rights if they meet certain criteria. There is no legal taking of anyone's property in what the ordinance proposes. The basic premise is there is not going to be much development on the ridgetops unless there are reasons which justify it as more appropriate than in another location. Mr. Bowerman said that is where th'e Board was on June 17, 1998, with the special use permit. Mr. Martin said, based on today's discussion and public input, the Board made a commitment to have a public hearing on the lighting ordinance. At this meeting the Board passed .the CPA. He suggested seeing what the CPA does and letting the rest ride for now. Ms. Thomas suggested seeing if the Board is interested in limiting residential development on ridgetops. That is the defining question. If there is not a majority agreement, the Board should not lead the public on with this any further. Mr. Marshall said he does not want to take development rights away from current homeowners, as that reduces the value of the land. Mr. Bowerman said the Subdivision Ordinance already limits development of mountaintops. If the Board is interested in having sites developed in the best way possible, and the Special use permit process allows that to be done, the Board could look at the sites and evaluate the criteria. Mr. Marshall said people who want nice views are not paying taxes. The landowners who own that land are paying the taxes, and everyone wants them to continue footing the bill. Mr. Bowerman disagreed Ms. Thomas said the Board could do a lot more than what they are doing now to restrict development. Ms. Humphris said the Board members should not just throw up their hands and look at this in another year, just because it is difficult. The special use permit process makes the MOD workable. This is not a taking of property. She said she believed the Board was close to having something that was acceptable. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Perkins wants to manage development on ridge tops for each individual mountain. Mr. Perkins said every mountain and parcel is different. There are guidelines already protecting the ridges. In many cases, the ridge is the Only place to build. He said if an owner wants to build on the ridge line, he should be able to do that by'right. Someone can apply for special use permits if they want to build more than one house. On the other hand, the ridge is not always the best place tO build a hoUse. There are a lot of problems there, due to the wind. There are few Places where you are going to get a 360 degree panoramic beautiful view all the time, so often it is best to place the building site further down. This can be much friendlier to the environment, as well. He felt the Board should move forward, but he did not know how. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 5:08 p.m.) Mr. David Benish, who said he wished.tO speak from the perspective of managing a work program, said the Board adopted the CPA, and staff hoPed to be ready to move forward with the zlatural envirOnment seCti°n of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Now that the CPA has been adopted, staff has a clear idea of the Board's intentions. Ninety-nine percent ~0f the m°untains are in the rural areas, the remaining section of the Comprehensive Plan to be reviewed by staff. He said Mr. Bowerman's suggestions could be considered in the that evaluation. There are going to be some weighty topics in rural areas, based on the directives provided by the Board. Staff needs to move forward on the rural areas, and they relate t° the mountain section. He said if'the Board wants staff to look at other ways to implement mountain protection, that can August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) . .:~. be done. However, if they want staff to lOOk at more issues, he suggests the Board table the issue and discuss the mountains in the context of all the changes to be made to the rural areas. Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering, said the Erosion Control Program exempts foresting and agriculture. This presents a problem. If someone wants to build a home on a rural property, they forest it first, then build a road, and then, at a later date, apply for a building permit. This means there are no driveway standards. Mr. Perkins said it does not matter, if this is for a single dwelling anyway, unless 2:1 slopes are an issue. Mr. Mawyer said this is dealt with as an erosion control issue under either ordinance. The erosion control program is moving forward. In the past 14 months his department moved from having one inspector to three, meaning there are more issues that can be dealt with than in the past. (Note: Mr, Martin returned at 5:13 p.m.) Mr. Marshall suggested the Board table the ordinance. Mr. Benish said staff still needed a consensus from the Board as to how to move into discus- sions on changes in the rural'areas and the impact of mountain development. He suggested that some Board members and staff members could work together. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission had a meeting, and were strongly criticized. The Board was criticized when they discussed the special use permit aspect of this issue, because people perceive it as taking away their right to do what they want with their mountaintops. He said it would be helpful to have staff incorporate mountains into the total picture of the rural areas to see whether it has any effect. Ms. Thomas said staff will come back to the Board and say that mountainous areas are different in certain ways. Mr. Bowerman said what the Board wants done in the mountains might be the very same thing they want done in the bottom lands. Mr. Tuckerlasked what the effect would be if the Board took no action at this meeting. Mr. Davis said today was just a work session. The Ordinance had been deferred to a different date. If the Board took no action at this time, it would remain deferred. Ms. Thomas said the Board has other concerns that are addressed by the ordinance. Therefore, she is frustrated. Mr. Marshall said he will not support the MOD until landowners are compensated for the loss of development rights, and the Board is sure of exactly what is needed. It was the consensus of the Board to have staff examine mountain protection issues when developing recommendations to the Board on the rural areas. Mr. Benish advised the Board this work will take more than a couple of weeks. It will take staff a couple of months before they are ready to make a presentation to the CommiSsion. Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board appoint Mr. Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with said term to expire on March 31, 2000. Mr. Martin moved that the Board reappoint Mr, Jerry Jones to the Jordon Development Corporation, with said term to expire on August 13, 1999, and Mr. Ken Clarry to the Industrial Development Authority, wiht said term to expire on January 19, 2002. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: MS. HUmphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ' Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda· from the Board. Ms. Thomas said' she learned a lOt by attending ~the National Association of Counties (NACo) conference and would report to the Board at the next Board meeting. 000 .25 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) Ms. Humphris said she received a letter from the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District regardin~ a request for additional funds. They said the workload for Albemarle County is the heaviest of all the localities in the district, and are asking for additional money outside of the budget cycle. It was the consensus of the Board to discuss this item in September. Mr. Bowerman informed the Board that he will attend a Farm Bureau Dinner to be held at Western Albemarle High School on September 6, 1998. Mr. Davis said the Planning Commission, at its August 4, 1998 meeting, was unable to hold a public hearing on two matters to be heard by the Board on August 12, 1998, and continued those items until August 11, 1998. ~e asked if the Board wished to hold its public hearings on August 12, 1998, which would mean they would not have seen the minutes from the Commission meeting. It was the consensus of the Board to defer SP-98-18, SP-98-22 and the service area boundaries for the South Fork Soccer Field until September 9, 1998, and to defer Mundie Trucking until September 16, 1998. pproved Dy Board Date ~h~ Initials Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further buszness to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.