Loading...
1996-04-10April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000008 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 10, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Charles Trachta was present to talk about a problem he thinks members of the public are having with the Planning Commission. He suggested that members of the public have been harassed and speakers, particularly women, intimidated at meetings of the Commission. He thinks an applicant should have to prove the merits of his application, and not the public. He said if it is felt that it wastes a board members' time to have the public appear, that person should decide if he wants to continue on the Board/Commission. He also suggested that if any request is strongly opposed, it should not be voted on at the same meeting at which the public hearing is held. He asked that the Planning Commission not be used for a "dress rehearsal" and the Board's meeting for a "final performance". (Note: A copy of Mr. Trachta's statement is on file with the permanent records of the Board.) Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to accept the items on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Item 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 26, 1996, was received for information. Item 5.2. 1995 Annual Report for Allegheny Power was received for information (on file in Clerk's office). Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-94-12. River Heights. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 29 ac from P~A to LI (proffered) located on E sd of Rt 29 approx 0.5 mi N of North Fork Rivanna River. TM32, P5(part), P5C(part) & TM33, P14(part). Site is located in a growth area & is recommended for Industrial Service in the Village of Piney Mountain by the Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 25 and April 1, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg said on November 8, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed ZMA-94-12 but deferred action indefinitely in order to allow additional review. Since that time, staff has met with the applicant (Wendell Wood) and representatives of NGIC (National Ground Intelligence Center - formerly FSTC [Foreign Science Technology Center]). These meetings resulted in a reduction in the area to be rezoned from 63 acres without proffers to approximately 29 acres. In addition, a plan of the proposed development has been submitted with the proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not have a plan for the entire area designated in the Comprehensive Plan of well over 100 acres. The 000009 April 10, 1996 (Regular Night M~etihg) (Page 2) plan is only for the 29 acres requested in ZMA-94-12. The remaining acreage is not a part of this application ~nd would be subject to the same Comprehensive Plan requirements at the time a plan is submitted. Staff focused on provisions for road access and the overall development pattern. A subsequent plan of development would have to be submitted for the remaining properties under a subsequent rezoning request. Mr. Cilimberg said that on this 29 acres, the plan submitted does address a number of issues raised ~n the initial meeting: location of the building; parking; access; location and provision for a road which would be the ultimate road serving the entire development area of 100 acres designated in the Comprehensive Plan; provision through the proffers for the road to be a four-lane, divided road to meet the design needed when full development occurs; how particular utilities will be provided from the main utilities which exist on Route 29 into the facility; the footprint of the facility is delineated; and, the parking area is shown. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would have preferred a planned approach for the entire area. The 29 acres, in and of itself, does not allow for Planned Development-Industrial Park. It is too small of an area. Staff feels that what has been provided meets the intent of planned development and allows for a subsequent plan of development to occur for the remaining acreage. The plan limits access to Route 29 North at the existing crossover. It proffers the necessary improvements to this intersection area to accommodate this development and retains a Level C of service for the intersection on Route 29 (this is part of the proffer). The building will probably not be visible from Route 29 because of its location on the overall site. The building is located well into the site in an area where there is natural buffer, which is to be retained. Any other issues of visibility from Route 29 will be addressed by the Architectural Review Board. There is a provision for the protection of Herring Branch which feeds into the North Fork Rivanna River. There will be a substantial buffer adjacent to Herring Branch and adjacent to the North Fork itself, and a buffer going into the pond area. Mr. Cilimberg said questions were raised as to the employment at the facility. The new proposed NGIC facility will employ about 850. Previously this facility was known as FSTC at its various locations in the City, but due to some reorganization and consolidation within various military service operations, this is now known as the NGIC and it is proposed for this site. There are no proffers which limit the facility to just the NGIC. It will be an industrial rezoning which will allow any of the industrial uses by right. The NGIC is the intended occupant for the facility. The location is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. It allows for the retention of a local employer, and employment expansion opportunities are provided in this facility. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 12, 1996, by a 6/1 vote recommended approval of ZMA-94-12, River Heights Associates, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Bowerman said he understands there was an issue of whether the applicant could make a voluntary proffer limiting the use of this site to just the NGIC facility. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the feeling that this petition has been proffered down to a specific footprint and a facility that meets a need for the NGIC. Any user other~than NGIC, would have to develop this site according to this footprint and this site concept. Mr. Bowerman asked if there were another alternative. Mr. Cilimberg said the property would have to go through a rezoning process. Mr. Bowerman asked if as a practical matter, this rezoning is limited to the NGIC use. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not assess the request to determine that, but it can be assumed because of the specificity of the proposal. There is the possibility of the applicant proffering down this petition to one of the by- right uses in the industrial district that would allow for a facility such as the NGIC. According to the Zoning Administrator that would be Office Use. Mr. Marshall said the Board cannot legally limit this petition to only the NGIC. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He did not know if Mr. Wood could proffer the petition for only NGIC. He asked the County Attorney to address that question. Mr. Davis said that technically he could, but if he did that and NGIC did not use the property, Mr. Wood would be left with no reasonable use of his property. He would have to come back to the Board who would then be compelled to rezone the property to allow him to have a reasonable use. April 10, 1996 (Regular Night M~eti~g) 0000~0 (Page 3) Mr. Bowerman asked if the property would not be rural areas. Mr. Davis said "no", it would have no use at that point. It would put the County in a position of approving a rezoning if that circumstance arose. Nothing would prevent Mr. Wood from proffering that if he wanted to entice the Board to rezone the property. Mr. Martin said Mr. Davis had used the words ~no use". He asked if Mr. Davis was making the assumption that if NGIC did not use the property, it could not be used by anyone else. Mr. Davis said if Mr. Wood proffered that the property would only be NGIC and then NGIC did not use the property, Mr. Wood would be left with no use of the property. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Cilimberg had said the proffer for the traffic was only to take care of this development's traffic. She wanted to know if that is just this one building, or all of the development that could take place at the end of the four-lane road. Mr. Cilimberg said the improvements that have been proffered are to deal with this road and the Briarwood development when it connects to Route 29. The assessment for signalization and the level of service will have to take into account not only this road and its traffic, but also that from Briarwood. Mrs. Thomas asked if the road on this side of Route 29 will take into account all of the residential and other uses that may take place at the end of that road. Mr. Cilimberg said the traffic generation to be used to assess a Level C service will only be for this one area because the remainder of the property will not be zoned. Until the land is zoned, there will be no significant traffic to measure. This improvement can only be based on what is known from the zoning that exists which is the zoning for Briarwood and this development, as well as the RA property, which is a limited amount. Mrs. Thomas said Mr. Cilimberg had said he would prefer a totally unified plan for the entire area. With such a plan, it would be known how much traffic would be at this intersection, but as it is now, only the traffic from this one use will be known. She wants to be sure the County can require more at that intersection after a great deal of residential development has taken place on that road. Mr. Cilimberg said the development called for in the Comprehensive Plan is industrial. There is no residential in the plan. If the remaining land were to develop, it would have to be rezoned. At that rezoning stage, the rest of the plan would be needed and the ultimate improvement would be known. What the County has at this point is the allowance for the road itself to meet ultimate development. Mrs. Humphris asked if the roadway is a four-lane, divided roadway. Mr. Cilimberg said ~yes". Mrs. Humphris asked if there are plans for turn lanes. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. There is to be a phasing of the road as the actual development occurs. But, the allowance is for the design and the right-of-way for the full four lanes, with the turn lanes necessary for this development. Mr. Davis asked if the Board members had copies of the latest proffers received today from the applicant. Mrs. Humphris said she did not believe the Board was to receive proffers on the day of a public hearing. Mr. Davis said these were revisions that were generated yesterday. He received the proffers in his office this afternoon. Mr. Cilimberg said they were not substantive changes, basically, typographical errors. Mr. Davis said there are some clarifications, but they are not substantive in nature. At this time, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing and asked the applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, to speak. Mr. Wood said he would give a brief summary of the request and then answer questions. The road is dedicated to a width of 100 feet for the full length, and that also includes turn lanes from Route 29. He said that most of the Board members have visited the site. After the last meeting, he invited the League of Women Voters (LOWV) to the site. He resents the gentleman's characterization that he attacked someone (see statement of Charles Trachta under ~Other Matters Not on the Agenda"). He absolutely did not attack anyone from the LOWV. He believes they had some misinformation, and they acknowledged that. He does not want to lose this facility having worked with the NGIC and GSA. They have a copy of the proffers and agree with them. He did not make changes in the proffers until he was called by County staff, and it was mostly small things, such as adding capital letters, and an ~a" or Wand". Mr. Davis said it was a little more than that. It involved timing as April 10, 1996 (Regular Night M~etihg) 0000ii (Page 4) to when property would be dedicated so it was clear it was upon the County's request, fixing some section references, and specifying that the traffic signal analysis would be to the County's specifications. Mrs. Humphris suggested that when the Board members get a copy, Mr. Davis go over it slowly and point out the changes. Mr. Davis agreed. Mr. Wood offered to answer questions. Mr. Perkins asked if this property will be bought by the Federal government. Mr. Wood said "yes". Mr. Perkins asked if the government will do the building. Mr. Wood said originally it was to be a leased facility, but now it will be purchased by the GSA and owned by them. Mrs. Thomas asked if there is funding for that in any budget. Mr. Wood said he is not sure of the process, it is not funded, but it is approved, but not appropriated. Some moneys have been appropriated for architectural plans, a feasibility study, test borings, etc. None of the work mentioned in the staff's report was done by him or his staff. All of the work has been done by the Federal government. Next to speak was Ms. Katherine Hobbs, President, Charlottesville- Albemarle League of Women Voters. She read into the record a statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office, and concluded by saying that despite their concerns that this proposed rezoning is not part of a planned development preferred for this site, the League believes the negatives are outweighed by the benefit to the community of the proposed use. Ms. Babette Thorpe was present to read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council (copy on file in the Clerk's Office). She noted that Albemarle County may be on its way to making the same mistake Northern Virginia counties have made by overloading its inventory of industrial and commercial office space so that is bears no relation to the number of people expected to live in the area over the next 20 years. She requested that this rezoning be deferred and considered during the Board's discussion on the growth areas as to whether the County needs this land in the industrial inventory at this time. If, after that discussion, the Board finds that the property is essential to the industrial inventory, PEC once again asks that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to require a special use permit for new large industrial and office uses, and that the applicant be encouraged to present a development plan for the entire tract. Mr. Charles Trachta, Vice-President of the Woodbrook Homeowner's Association, was next to speak. He opposed this project, not because the project itself is wrong, but because he does not trust Mr. Wood's real intentions. He challenged an implication by Mr. Wood that unless he (Mr. Wood) is granted this project, the NGIC will leave Albemarle. Mr. Trachta said he has contacted people at GSA who have told him there is no money in this year's budget to buy Mr. Wood's proposal. He has also contacted the local Senators and Congressman, and based on those conversations he feels the vote on this project should be postponed until some definitive answers to his questions are received. Mr. Trachta said if Mr. Wood will proffer that NGIC will be the tenant of the property, he will withdraw his opposition. He feels that if the property is zoned as Mr. Wood requests, including unlimited water and sewer usage, Mr. Wood may get impatient with dealing with the NGIC, GSA and all the other governmental agencies and seek out a new tenant. (A copy of Mr. Trachta's full statement is on file in the Clerk's Office.) Ms. Lisa Harman, President of the Earlysville Area Resident's League, spoke next. She said there are a number of aspects which speak in favor of the proposal. One is that it provides expansion capability for an existing, local employer with a good reputation. It is near an area that has several industries at this time, and it is near the proposed industrial park the Board reviewed last night (UREF) . The other is the Service Level C on the roadways, which is over and above what the other park is looking at. On the other hand, there are negatives of the project. Ms. Harman said she sent out a newsletter to members of the Resident's League (they have 109 paid members) and received responses from about one-third of those members and all were against this particular development. Part of the reason is that people who live in the rural areas best appreciate those areas and the type of lifestyle it provides. Some of their members are concerned about the history of this project feeling the change of designation in the'Comprehensive Plan in 1994 was done flippantly. At that time it was speculative, and perhaps it should have reverted to a rural area instead of keeping the industrial designation in the April 10, 1996 (Regular Night M~etihg) 0000i2 (Page 5) Comprehensive Plan for this property. There is concern about the footprint of the building, and if NGIC did not have the funds to purchase the building, that could be a problem because it could be easy for the applicant to say he could not use the land with the proffers, and petition to have the proffers removed. Ms. Harman said a lot of residents in Earlysville lump this property with the huge industrial park the Board has been looking at since it is in the same general area. More and more acres of industry is frightening. Another problem is encroachment on surrounding rural areas, and the impact of such development on agricultural and forestry uses. This is significant because the rural areas have not yet been studied for the Comprehensive Plan update. That study is not to begin until the end of next month. Alsoi ~the growth areas have not been determined at this time, and yet there is talk about new industry. Ms. Harman asked that the Board take these concerns under consideration in making the decision regarding the proposal tonight. She also suggested that when proffers are presented at the last minute, they be read aloud so that people from the public who are present to speak to an issue have a chance to hear the proffers Mr. Ed Strauss said he lives in Western Albemarle County and represents only himself. Over the last 25 years, he has sat back amused at how the Board decides who comes into Albemarle County and who does not. He has not seen any method, any plan. When it suits the members, they confer with staff, and when it does not suit, the Board opens the conversation to throngs of people. The Sistine Chapel could not be built in Albemarle County in the environment that has been created. Mr. Strauss said he built a house in 1989 and needed a 30- foot variance. He came to a meeting and there was one person who opposed the variance unless he agreed to put his trash cans on a certain side of the house. He said the Board will always cause these people "to come out of the woodwork". Either develop the County, get the revenue, fund the budgets, or not. These people are all right. They need a secure facility. They are not going to build near homes and not where there is any risk to them. This is a good area for NGIC. It was picked for its remoteness and its access. He urged the Board for once to approve something that might benefit somebody who has to work. This facility will neither hurt nor improve the quality of life in Albemarle. Mr. Strauss said his opinion is just as good as any Senator in Washington talking about money. So what if this man wants to make a profit? He is the one speculating. If NGIC is not coming here, why waste all this time? Mr. Wood is bound to have better things to do then draw this up and aggravate the Board. Every time he looks at the TV he hears the Board saying this is an urban county, so if Albemarle is urban, it doesn't have rural areas. There are areas of open space. Albemarle is not rural anymore and needs to take care of its people. They need to work, go to school, pay taxes, and live a joyful life if at all possible. There are people who never lived in the country before. They buy a place and they don't know what they are getting and they don't know what is expected of them in a rural environment. Mr. Strauss asked that the Board approve this plan and get onto something else. Ms. Karen Strickland said she is a Comprehensive Plan watcher. She reminded the Board of how this land got into the Comprehensive Plan, and that is the reason she is opposed to it. Every time the Piney Mountain, Hollymead area has come up for revision in the Comprehensive Plan, the staff recommended denial, and the Board said look at it again. The Board wanted to say ~welcome" to a Fortune 500 company. It was always against the staff's position, and she commended the staff for continuing to stick with this area, because the Board has been doing what it wants for political reasons. She thinks that saying ~yes" to this plan would be business as usual Its piecemeal, its sprawl, its strip developmen~ with no overall planning for the area. Saying "no" would be a philosophical statement of determination that it is time to say we want to study the Comprehensive Plan to determine how the whole area will work. There are no compelling reasons, no crisis, no urgency for this decision at this moment. Ms. Strickland commended the Board members for the questions asked earlier tonight. At the Planning Commission she said it was disturbing, because they only heard that the 700 jobs were going to leave the area, and that is why the decision was made. She also wanted to know where the road will go and if it will go through all the way to Route 600 so that people who live on that side would not have to go all the way down Proffit Road and around. That is the kind of thing she thinks should be fit together. April 10, 1996 (Regular Night. Meeting) (page 6) , 0000 Mr. Donald Lyon said he is the President of the Raintree Homeowner's Association. He agrees with what he has heard from everybody tonight. If the government is going to come regardless of voting tonight, or postponing, they will come. He sees no reason to put it to a vote. Postpone the vote until the picture comes into clearer focus. He does not see why there is a rush. Mrs. Humphris invited Mr. Wood to speak again. Mr. Wood said he would like to respond to a couple of misstatements. Ms. Hobbs referred to 250,000 gallons being used in the Camelot plant, and he thinks it is actually 120,000 gallons currently being used out of a possible 360,000. He said Mrs. Strickland made a number of misstatements of fact again. She said that the staff has never recommended this area to be in the Comprehensive Plan, but staff did recommend that this area be in the growth area.. This land cannot be accessed from Proffit Road. The land is bounded by the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Mrs. Humphris asked that Mr. Wood not reference people in his statement, but only the facts. Mr. Wood said he felt that way when he was sitting in the room tonight. He had dealings as recently as 10 days ago with GSA and they requested that he appear tonight. That is why this plan is going forward. GSA has a reason for doing it. He finds it unusual that they would be asking him to do this, and spending money to do this, if they are telling someone else they are not going to do it. Mr. Wood said this is not his proposal. NGIC and GSA people had a meeting (he thinks some of the Board members attended that meeting) at the County and put this plan forward. Mr. Cilimberg said there was a meeting in July with a number of representatives, but he is not sure any Board members attended that meeting. Mr. Martin said he attended that meeting. Mr. Wood said that is the way it is. They came and sat in on that meeting. Someone characterized that this is something he is promoting. This is the result of GSA doing research and a study to pick sites. Mr. Martin said he would like to correct one thing Mr. Wood said. Mrs. Strickland was asking about access to Route 600 and not to Proffit Road. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris said the next step is to have Mr. Davis review the new proffer form with the Board (new form was distributed to the Board members). Mr. Davis said for purposes of clarification, he would like to explain the history of the proffers in order to get a perspective of the time line in the review. The proffers which were sent to the Board members for tonight's meeting were received on March 4, 1996, for the March 12 Planning Commission meeting. Those proffers were reviewed by staff and there were a number of clarifications and comments made and discussed by the Commission. As a result, the Commission voted on this petition based on a number of agreed changes to be made to the proffers. Those changes were made and delivered to the Planning staff on April 5. The County Attorney then reviewed those amended proffers (which were not sent to the Board), made comments to Mr. Wood yesterday, and then today staff received another set of proffers which made some minor changes to the proffers received on April 5. Mr. Davis said he would point out the changes. Proffer #1 is that any revisions to the proffered plan will be those revisions recommended not only by the Site Plan Review Committee, but anything that is recommended by the Commission and/or the Board of Supervisors. There are some site plans that can be appealed to the Commission or the Board, and the Commission or Board could require any changes felt to be necessary to the proffered site plan without going back through a rezoning process. In Proffer #2 the words "and maintain" were added in the third line to clarify that the access to utilities and features applied not only when they are installed but also when maintained so maintenance would not be prevented by this proffer. Proffer #3 added clarification that the right-of-way shall be dedicated upon request of the County. Any location, design, modifications, could be made at the request of the Department of Transportation, "or by the County" so the County could have input into any modifications of the location and design of the roadway. 0000 4 April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) In Proffer ~4, the last sentence was added to give a standard for how the vegetation must be maintained. In Proffer ~5, the first sentence is a clearer statement that there shall be maintained a Level of Service C, and, the last phrase of the second sentence was added to say that the entrance road right-of-way and easements necessary to maintain a level of Service C shall be dedicated upon the request of the County. In Proffer ~6, the first sentence was modified to say the proffer runs with the owner rather than with the developer. Mrs. Thomas said the comma was in the wrong place. Mr. Davis said that grammatically the sentence could be improved. Mrs. Thomas said to move the comma from behind "its" to in front of ~its". Mr. Davis said it now includes wording that the signal analysis will be done upon the request of VDOT and the County and it will be made to the specifications of VDOT and the County. Also, the cost will be borne by the owner, rather than by the developer, if there is a distinction. Mrs. Humphris said it should read "owner comma". Mr. Davis agreed. Mrs. Thomas asked if that means the owner will pay for the signal? Mr. Davis said "yes". Mrs. Humphris said if there were no more questions concerning the proffers, the matter was before the Board. Mr. Martin said if the Board had already approved the North Fork Business Park (UREF), and if the Board were talking about an industry moving in from outside of the community as opposed to one that is basically consolidating, he would have more questions and concerns than he does with the current situation. The Board has not approved the North Fork Business Park and this is basically a consolidation of an existing facility. Last night, the Board listened to the discussion about the North Fork Business Park and heard that their plans are for far in the future, so things need to be limited because it is a 20-year built-out. Tonight the Board has seen a very specific plan, and now he hears that this should wait until there is a bigger plan. He does not understand. The most important thing to him is that this is for consolidation of existing facilities. This would be in an area where there is water and sewer available, and although there are some concerns, the Board has been assured by the Albemarle County Service Authority at other meetings that they expand when needed and not based on what might happen in the future. He is inclined to approve this request since he feels the Commission looked at it thoroughly. Mrs. Thomas said she hopes this will be for the NGIC. She thinks proffering the footprint is as close to that as the Board can get and probably as close as would be desired. The NGIC is one of the most desirable types of industries in the community; it is clean, it employs people in the community, it is staffed with local people, and they pay good wages. It will be off the highway so it will not add to the visual pollution. Its employees are generally well-educated, good citizens, and doing patriotic work. Mrs. Thomas said she would like for the Board members to think what approving this request means. For one thing, traffic on Route 29 North will increase significantly when the County does not know if the Meadow Creek Parkway will be built. If traffic is not increased, then the pressures for more housing will increase. The County does not want that kind of pressure in Earlysville. New families can be housed in Forest Lakes, but the Board will have to commit itself to the kind of infill that has thus far only received word support. The County will have to go in seriously for infill if new industry is to continue on the north of the town. There will either be other ugly, empty buildings in the middle of Charlottesville, or another 600 employee company coming in. GSA, in the past, has been good about being sure its buildings get filled, plus there will be 260 new families brought in, in addition to the 60 families which were quietly brought in last year, and most of these add to the pool of employable spouses. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the County is "living in a fools paradise" if thinks it will get the Buck Mountain Reservoir. That decision can't be made until it is learned if there is a spiny mussel in that water, and if the EPA will accept that another reservoir is needed. Now, EPA does not allow cost to be a consideration, so they could still force the County to go to the James River for water no matter what it costs. Obviously there is increasing pressure for a new sewer interceptor which the Authorities assure they can build, but "they" means the County's water users, it is not free. GSA does not pay taxes, so any payment in lieu of taxes depends on the changing situation in Congress, and that is not certain. This is the very best kind of April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 0000 5 industry and is not supposed to require much of the County. It will require 60 new families which will be well-educated and will be demanding more money per pupil in the school system. She said it is ironic, but if she were to make any limitation on UREF, other than what they have given, she would want to exempt this kind of company from moving in. But, she does think that having the company move from elsewhere in the community because they need larger facilities is the kind of thing that fits into the economic development plan because the County wants local employers to expand because that is the best way to get more local employment. After saying all of that, she thinks the only way the Board can approve this is if it is recognized that there are very serious and expensive decisions which must be made if this petition is approved this evening. Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Thomas if she supported the application. Mrs. Thomas suggested that other Board members speak before she answered that question. Mr. Bowerman said he thought Mrs. Thomas was saying, as the LOWV did, that the negatives are outweighed by the benefits to the community because she listed a litany of issues that this Board and future boards will have to deal with. He thinks the Board started some of those hard decisions when looking at the Meadow Creek Parkway recently and unanimously decided that was something that had to be done. Listening to the well-intentioned comments from the public, a number dealt with whether GSA and the NGIC really are to use this property. It is clear to him that the NGIC initiated this proposition on this site and that is what has caused this application to come forward at this time. He is aware that as bad as Mr. Strauss feels about Albemarle County government, the County does not ~hold a candle" to the Federal government. The Feds have not yet approved their 1995-96 budget, and it probably will not be until the 1998-99 budget that the funds for this project will be included because of the way the Feds operate. It does not trouble him that they have brought the issue at this time for an approval and the funding will not be forthcoming for a number of years. Also, as he listens to the public, he is concerned that this is a ruse to allow some other use on the property. He does not believe that because it is clear to him that in order for any use other than an NGIC type facility, it could not be put in on the footprint because the nature of the operation changes so significantly that the site plan would have to be changed. He thinks it is clear that the only use that can be on the property, for all practical purposes, is the NGIC and that is the proffer. He will support the petition before the BOard tonight although he understands the concerns expressed. He thinks this is an industry the Board needs to keep in the community. Mrs. Thomas asked if there is any limitation on the length of time that this situation can stay in effect without anything being put on the property. Mr. Davis said the plan does not run out. Mr. Bowerman said the site plan will expire in 18 months. Mr. Davis said the proffers remain with the land and are permanent. The site plan shown to the Board tonight is not an approved site plan, but it is a proffered plan so there is no expiration of the plan. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks that is best because it is better to know what is going on the land. Mr. Perkins said he has heard about this relocation for a very long time, and how they were looking for a site where their microwave signals could not be tapped into, and then with the collapse of the Soviet Union he thought they might not be needed any longer. But that is not the case. There are many questions that can be asked about the timing and the location, but this apparently is an area they like. If the site suits them, he does not see the problem with the site, and he intends to support the petition. Mr. Marshall said he has looked at locations before for these people in order to keep them in the community. He will support the motion. With no further comments being made, Mr. Martin offered motion to approve ZMA-94-12 with the six proffers as presented in the Board's packet and then amended this date, and gone over by the County Attorney at this meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Mrs. Humphris said she has not spoken about this petition yet. She considers herself a Comprehensive Plan guardian, and she agrees with Mrs. Thomas about all of the things she said. If this petition is to be approved, the County needs to go ahead with serious planning and try to get the Meadow April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) OOOO16 Creek Parkway, the permitting process for the Buck Mountain Reservoir underway to see if there is a spiny mussel in those waters, and try to do all the things that are needed to be done so that as the County grows it grows in the right way. She believes it is important to keep this facility in the community. She also will support the petition. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. (The proffer is set out in full below.) PROFFER ZMA# 94-12 MARCH 12, 1996 1. Development shall be in general accord with the plans drawn by RTKL Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD, dated February 5, 1996 and signed by Nena Harrell, Vice President, United Land Corporation (the "proffered plans"). The proffered plans shall be modified to be consistent with revisions which are recommended by the Site Review Committee, Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors to address requirements of the Zonin9 Ordinance. 2. Activity within the WRPA (Water Resource Protection Area as identified in the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996) shall be limited to that necessary to install and maintain access, utilities and features recommended or approved by the Water Resource Manager and Architectural Review Board. 3. Right-of-way necessary for a four-lane divided roadway shall be dedicated upon request of the County in general accord with the "proposed entrance road" shown on the proffered plan. The location and design of this roadway shall be modified upon the request of the Department of Transportation or the County provided that the entrance location remains located at the existing crossover as shown on the proffered plans. 4. An undisturbed buffer area shall be maintained on the southern border of this site (from the intersection of Herring Branch and the North Fork Rivanna River to the westernmost portion of the existing pond). This buffer area shall maintain existing vegetation which results in a level of screening equal to or greater than that required by Section 32.7.9.8a. of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section being attached hereto. Where existing vegetation does not provide for this level of screening new plantings shall be established. Vegetation shall be maintained in accord with section 32.7.9.2b of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section being attached hereto. 5. Traffic generated by this site accessing Route 29 at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall not result in a level of service of less than C. Easements and Right of Way necessary to maintain a C level of service at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall be dedicated upon request of the County. 6. The owner, its successors and assigns, shall provide upon request by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County a signal analysis to the specifications of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County to insure a traffic signal is installed when warranted. This analysis must include traffic generation proposed by the Briarwood development. The full cost of the signalization will be borne by the owner, its successors and assigns. April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) oooox? Agenda Item No. 7. Approve FY 1996-97 County Operating Budget. Mr. Tucker said the expenditures for FY 1996-97 total $118,404,105, an increase of $1,014,939 over the County Executive's recommended budget. Am additional $539,726 is shown in revenues to the General Fund, along with $525,788 to the School Fund, and a decrease of $50,575 is shown for the School Division's Self-Sustaining Funds. County Executive adjustments to the recommended budget total $14,248 and includes reductions in Juvenile Detention, the Jail, and JAUNT ($17,500) which are partially offset by minor program adjustments and increases in State salaries for constitutional officers, have increased the Board's Reserve Fund from $150,513 to $166,794. The Board of Supervisor's priorities of $515,002 reflects the return of the Scottsville deputy and the additional full-time position in Juvenile Court, which is offset by the deletion of the $50,000 reserve amount for the Pantops/Wal-Mart bus route which was not funded by the City. Board additions to the School Transfer include $929,987 from the Reserve Fund and $501,495 in one-time General Government Fund Balance revenues for a $1,431,482 increase in the General Fund transfer to the School Division over the recommended budget. The total FY 1996-97 General Fund transfer is $42.6 million, a 9.2 percent increase over the current year. School Fund changes include a net increase of $465,376 from the State, mainly due to the additional No-Loss and Transitional Composite funds, plus a slight increase in projected Foster Care reimbursement revenues of $60,412. A decrease of $50,575 in the Self-Sustaining Funds reflects a reduction in PREP program revenues. Mrs. Thomas said she would like to discuss something that has come to her attention since the public hearing. That is the question about the bailiff in the Juvenile Court. The Board had assumed that another bailiff will be added and that will be two additional bailiffs plus one car. She feels the Board is doing this based on inadequate information. The Board was actually discussing the Scottsville situation when the decision was made rather than looking at the Juvenile Court and its needs. She would prefer that the money be put in the Board's Reserve Fund and the staff be asked to make a report on the real needs of the Court. She believes staff can make this report before the budget goes into effect on July 1, 1996. Mr. Tucker said Mrs. Thomas informed the staff earlier that she would bring up this subject so staff could have a recommendation ready. Staff suggests that in the resolution to be adopted approving the budget, the Judicial Category be reduced to $1,727,433 and the Contingency Reserve increased to $218,211. This additional information will be brought to the Board before the Appropriation Ordinance is ready for adoption. Mr. Martin said he would like for the Board to discuss the amount for the Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE). Last year, SHE requested additional funds and staff did not recommend the additional amount because Albemarle County was already paying more than its formula share as opposed to the City. The Board did give the additional funding. This year, SHE requested $65,000 and staff recommended $57,000, or level funding because the County is paying more than its formula share so the County is in someway subsidizing City residents. SHE's share was increased three percent just as other agency requests were increased. That three percent is about $1800. Their request was for an additional $2922. The difference between what is recommended and what they are requesting is $1122. That $1122 is very important to SHE and he does not believe the County would miss it. He knows it can be said that the City is not paying its share. He asked that the $1122 be added. Ms. Roxanne White said the amount is $1209. Mrs. Humphris said she will support that addition. Mr. Bowerman said he will also support the request, but he would like for staff to total, for the on-going communication with the City about some of these issues, where the County is contributing more than its share, what that total is, and where the money is going. Mrs. Humphris asked how that should be communicated t© the City. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the figure might be helpful at some point. Mrs. Humphris said there are more and more of these situations. Mr. Martin said he April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 0000 8 knows it is being done with the Library and others, and if this were a large amount of money it would be a different situation, but, this is very important to SHE, and it is a small amount. He also supports gathering the information requested by Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Thomas said it is a community perception that things are the other way around, and they were for a while in some areas, but not any more. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has received another memo about the Child Care Resource and Referral program of Children, Youth & Family Services, and she could not understand the memo at all. The arithmetic did not match with what the Board was given in the budget book. Ms. White said what was referred to in the letter is the difference between what they requested and the amount that would make the County's contribution equal to what the City is paying. That is a full request for the County's share. The $26,887 is what they consider to be the County's full share of the program. That is an additional $17,000 being requested. Basically, it makes up for some reductions in United Way funds that they just heard about. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks day care will become an increasingly serious problem. Other communities that are trying to put welfare reform into effect are finding it a serious problem. She is influenced by County staff and the work they did in looking at the difference agencies. She is not willing at this time to put in that money. She said that during the coming year, the Board may find that it has to add to child care programs in some way. Next year, when it is time for Albemarle County to put welfare reform seriously into effect, the Board may find that child care has turned into a major item. Mr. Martin said he feels that as this area moves into welfare reform, child care is an area where the County will have to do extensive research and it will probably cost some money. He would hate ~to put the eggs in one basket" in anticipation of what the County might have to do. A different vehicle for provision of these services may be recommended by staff. He would rather keep this question open. Mr. Tucker said staff does not know why this agency did not get the funds it requested from the United Way. The Board has to be careful about setting a precedent by picking up the difference. Mr. Tucker said if the Board agrees with what Mr. Martin has suggested, that would Increase the Human Development category to $5,643,508 and decrease the Contingency Reserve to $217,002. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolution approving the Fiscal Year 1996 County budget. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1996, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation and Culture Community Development County/City Revenue Sharing General Government Committed Reserve Refunds Capital Improvements Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve General Government Debt Service Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service 5,161,938 1 727,433 9 007,133 2 176,301 5 643,508 2 940,998 2 307,857 5 170,853 192,250 53,100 2,686,500 450,000 113,500 67,172,182 6,337,670 6,845,880 April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Jail Expansion Reserve Contingency Reserve TOTAL OOO0 I.9 200,000 217,002 $ 118,404,105 Agenda Item No. 8. Adopt FY 1996 Tax Rates. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following resolution setting the 1996 Tax Rates. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1996 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of County Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508. Agenda Item No. 9. Adopt FY 1996-97/2000-2001 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and FY 1996-97 CIP Budget. Ms. White said that at the last work session, the Board asked that three changes be made in the proposed CIP. The first change was to put an unspecified amount of planning funds into 1998-99 for the high school pool facility; $50,000 was added in for a study. In FY 2000-01, $3.5 million was deleted for construction of that pool. The second request was to increase the contribution to the Crozet Pool by $50,000. The third change was to delete the Greenwood School Asbestos Removal Project. That took $200,000 out of that project, and put the funds into the Contingency Reserve because the County no longer owns that property. The CIP for the five-year period totals $76,760,120 which is a reduction of $3.4 million from the proposed CIP. Also, the FY 1996-97 budget is $25.3 million. Last year, staff divided the CIP into three funds at the request of the County's auditors; the General Government Capital Fund, the School Division Capital Fund, and the Stormwater Capital Fund. In reference to the Crozet Pool, Mr. Richard Huff sent a letter to the Board explaining the impact of the development schedule on the change in cost of the Crozet Pool. It has been determined that the costs Were underestimated from the beginning, construction costs have gone up higher than anticipated, and, the cost of the construction is not related to the development schedule. In talking to the people involved with the Crozet pool, they said the additional $50,000 could either be a contribution or a loan, either way will make the project work. Also, if the Board is concerned about providing taxpayer money to a private property pool, staff will make another recommendation, possibly that there be funds set aside for children that cannot pay. April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 000020 Mrs. Thomas asked if the Interest Earned figure should not have increased due to the collections from the split billing of the real property tax. Ms. White said the $16.5 million from the'split billing will be used in the first year. Mrs. Thomas said that on the question of the Crozet Pool the Board had already started the policy of helping with the project and whether that is a precedent or not will be up to the Board because it is a unique project. She has no problem with adding this amount of money to what has already been committed to the project. Mr. Bowerman said he expressed that same feeling at the last meeting. Mrs. Humphris asked if further action is needed on that request. Mr. Tucker said the spokesperson for the pool said they would accept any form of funding whether it be a loan or an outright grant, but staff has not worked out the particulars on the additional $50,000, since it did not know if the Board members would agree. Because there may be other people similarly situated who will request similar funding, staff might want to look at different items before making a recommendation. Mrs. Humphris then requested a motion for approval of these items. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt a motion approving the FY 1996-97 through FY 2000-01 Capital Improvements Program totaling $76,760,120, and to adopt the FY 1996-97 Capital Improvements Budget totaling $25,339,827, all as set out on the following sheets. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Pa~e 14) 00002~. 000022 April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) ~.~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o o o ~ m o ' o'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 0000~ April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) ooooa4 000025 April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: October 6 and November 3, 1993; and March 20, 1996. Mr. Marshall had read October 6, 1993, pages 1 10 and found them to be in order. He asked if the equipment mentioned on page 9 relative to measuring noise had been purchased. Mr. Tucker said he thought it had been purchased; it is to be handled through Zoning and the Police Departments. Mr. Martin asked what had happened to the revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Tucker the Zoning Administrator is still working on those regulations. She has been trying to get some help through Virginia Tech. Mr. Bowerman had read November 3, 1993, pages 1 be in order. 26 and found them to Mrs. Thomas had read March 20, 1996, and noted only a couple of typo- graphical errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD Mrs. Humphris introduced Mr. Mark MacGregor, the new director of JAUNT. Mr. MacGregor said he had been in the community for four weeks, and had tried to meet some of the Board members. He thanked the Board and County staff for its support. He is interested in learning the difference in government here as opposed to that in upper state New York. He has been made to feel very welcome. Mr. Tucker said staff had recently learned that the design of the new high school will exceed the height regulations of the R-1 zoning regulations. In order to maintain the design, staff recommends that the property be rezoned to R-15. There is R-15 zoning adjacent to the property at this time. Staff believes that is the most appropriate thing to do, and it will solve the height problem. He said the Board will need to adopt a resolution of intent to start the process. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution of intent to rezone from R-1 to R-15, Parcels 2 and 2C on Tax Map 91, for good zoning practices and other reasons stated in the Code of Virginia. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. RESOLUTION TO INITIATE REZONING OF PROPERTY WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns 107 ± acres of property identified as parcel 2 on Tax Map 91; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors has been advised by its staff that the current R-I, Residential, zoning of the property imposes standards which do not adequately meet the design needs for the public uses intended for the property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the County to consider the possible rezoning of the property to R-15, Residential, to determine whether such rezoning will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or advance good zoning practice, in accordanCe with the provisions of § 15.1-491(g) of the COde of Virginia. April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) O000 G NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County does hereby initiate the rezoning of parcel 2 on Tax Map 91 owned by the County of Albemarle from R- I, Residential, to R-15, Residential. Mrs. Thomas said she is meeting with Mr. Percy Montague at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow morning at the Redfields sales office to look at the land which is proposed to be added to the southern growth area. She is going because she does not know the area. She invited other Board members to also attend. Mrs. Humphris said that tomorrow at !0:00 a.m the Monticello High School site plan is scheduled for review. She encouraged other Board members to attend that meeting also. Mrs. Thomas said that tomorrow morning at 9:45 a.m., Ms. Jane Jacobs, who is receiving the Thomas Jefferson Architecture Award, will be speaking at the UVA Architecture School on the subject of healthy cities. She hopes the Board will continue to get notice of interesting lectures being held at the Architecture School. Mr. Marshall said the official opening of John Grisham's ball park has been rescheduled for noon on April 27 instead of April 20 because it conflicted with the Dogwood Festival Parade. Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris both said they will be on vacation on that date. Mr. Bowerman mentioned Mr. L. F. Wood's proposal for a storage facility on property near the Putt-Putt Golf Course. He said a complication concerning that rezoning has arisen. Part of the rezoning with the proffers included adding an eight-foot strip of property from the parcel zoned Highway Commercial that the Putt-Putt sits on. There is a proffer on that rezoning which says that storage facilities are proffered out of the HC use so the Zoning Administrator has said that they cannot add the eight-foot strip of land to what was rezoned with proffers because the proffers are inconsistent. This matter has to come back to the Board for a public hearing. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board would expedite an application to change a proffer for that portion of the Putt-Putt site (the eight-foot strip only), so it can get to the Planning Commission and the Board can hear it the next day, maybe within five or six weeks. Mr. Martin said he believes the rezoning was approved with few if any conflicts. Mr. Bowerman said he believes most of the issues were addressed by the applicant and the neighbors in terms of their concerns. Still, neither staff nor Mr. Wood noticed that the proffers were inconsistent. It was the consensus that this matter could be expedited as soon as the application is submitted. Mrs. Humphris mentioned an invitation to attend a meeting in Shenandoah National Park on May 4, 1996, to learn about park activities. She said that she and Mrs. Thomas attended last year, and it was a good opportunity to learn about the Park and future plans, plus meet members from other boards. Mrs. Humphris mentioned a recent editorial in the Daily Progress about recycling and the trash haulers. She asked if the haulers do not have to be licensed and provide the recycling services. Mr. Tucker said when the ordinance was adopted, the haulers agreed to provide this service in lieu of the County mandating recycling. The service is to be provided to any household requesting it. Before that time, there were only a few haulers who provided that service. Mrs. Thomas said there is nothing that says they cannot charge extra money for that service. Mr. Tucker agreed, but said that most do not charge for the service. At 9:02 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) regarding a personnel matter relating to a public safety department, under Subsection (3) to consider an April 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 000027 (Page 20) agreement to purchase property for public safety purposes, and under Subsec- tion (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. At 9:42 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to 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 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. ~C~airman ~ iproved by 5ne Board of Supervisors Date Initials