Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-04September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 0O0059 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 4, 1996, 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, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. 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. Ms. Patricia Alliger, a resident of Route 250 West, said she lived about one and one-half miles from the County border and has since 1982. Across the road from her are Ridgeway Service Station and Market. It had always been well-kept, but this Spring it was rented. The new people starting putting various items on the front of the property. Then they started bringing in things like lawn mowers and now trucks and bolts. They began expanding this "pile of stuff" that is quite junky. Ms. Alliger said she understood they got a permit from the County to have a flea market on the property. While, on the back of their property, which is not far from the road, they dumped an enormous amount of trees and rubbish, the Highway Department dumped concrete, and then they covered it with chips. The pile grew like a mushroom and the property looks like a junkyard. They built some half shelters that held old broken television sets, furniture, etc. Ms. Alliger said that every time she came out of her driveway, the sight of it upset her. Anyone coming from the Skyline Drive going toward Char- lottesville passes this eyesore. Ms. Alliger called the County's Zoning Department and they gave notice that the site had to be cleaned up by August 29. They did rearrange things on the site; stuff was pushed back off the road and they put bright blue tarps in front of the old television sets and the old furniture. Ms. Alliger said this site was very close to Route 250. Had the Scenic Highway designation still been in place, this could not have happened. She said there seems to be almost no control over this situation as they dump more stuff. Recently the taxes on her land were raised because the tax assessor said he did a view adjustment, the views from her property are so beautiful. This situation is embarrassing. She believes that tourists and other people using Route 250 coming from the Valley and Wintergreen are seeing this. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Bowerman asked if any new use on this property would have required review by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Tucker said it would have depended on what the applicant proposed. He is not familiar with the problem so he will check with the Zoning Department to learn its status. Mr. Marshall asked about the dumping. Ms. Alliger said she knew the erosion control people had been alerted to this situation. She believes the nature of the items dumped violated some laws. They have put in organic matter, old tree trunks, and then covered these up. They used to have a dumpster that was never emptied so the garbage ran onto her land. She complained about that and the dumpster disappeared. Now she thinks they just throw the garbage over the hill on the back of the property. Ms. Alliger then showed Board members some photographs of the site. Ms. Humphris thanked Ms. Alliger for calling this situation to the Board's attention. She said staff would look into the matter and contact her. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meetin9) (Page 2) Mr. Scott peyton w~§"~f~h~"~S'~ m~ The public can make a comment while the Board was discussing Highway Matters. Ms. Humphris said "yes." Ms. Gertrude Peyton, a resident of Greenwood, asked the Board to consider reinstating the Scenic Highway designation on Route 250 West. If that designation had been in place, the situation on the side of Afton Mountain just brought to the Board's attention by Ms. Alliger would not have happened. She urged Board members to drive that route and see what is happening. She said the Entrance Corridor Overlay does not protect the residents. She asked that the Board give back the protection that the residents feel was taken away without fair participation from the community and the people who worked so hard to get it in place originally. She said it happened in August and she understands the change was advertised. However, she does not know a person who saw the advertisement or knew that there was a public hearing on the zoning change. She urged the Board to address this issue for the residents of Route 250 West. Referring to Ms. Alliger's comments about the property on Afton Moun- tain, Mr. Perkins said it is a nonconforming use; it is grandfathered. The owner has no permits to do anything. It can happen despite any setbacks or whatever. He believes that what they have done is illegal, but the use was in effect before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowerman offered motion, which Mr. Marshall seconded, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7 and 5.8 on the Consent Agenda, to drop Item 5.6 from consideration, and to accept Items 5.9 through 5.14 for information. (Note: Conversation related to individual items will appear with the item in question.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded votes: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: Education Programs, $15,496.56 (Form #96007). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on July 8, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriations. Appropriation of $14,000.00 for the Project I/NITE Pfast Grant. Project UNITE (Unified Intercommunity Transition and Empowerment for Youths with Disabilities, USDOE H158A20015 via Virginia Department of Education) has awarded Albemarle County Schools a grant for $14,000.00 to promote successful post-school employ- ment through year-round community-based work experience. Pro- ject PFAST purports to develop a seamless year-round system of transition activities, with particular emphasis on those stu- dents with disabilities who have experienced failure or could not participate in transition programs. The goals and objec- tives are designed to provide awareness for transition assis- tance and by enhancing systems already in place. Project PFAST's goals and objectives have been designed to increase availability, access, and quality of transition services by providing needed job supports during summer months for students with significant disability needs, developing an employer data- base in collaboration with MACAA and both school divisions through a grant awarded by the Virginia Department of Education, and by the development of informational brochures, training materials (to include videos)~ and workshops to promote quality transition planning involving students, parents, school person- nel and community stakeholders. Appropriation of $1,496.56 for the Driver Education Assistant Program Grant from the State Department of Education. During the process of training 350 students at Albemarle High School and 200 at Western Albemarle High School per year, Driver Educa- tion instructors observe students who have almost no driving experience before the range. With time limitations, and a September 4, 1996 (Regular DaY ~eeting) 0000G~ (Page 3) decreasing amount of abandoned rura~ road Space for first time driving experiences, some parents are fearful of teaching their students in an urban highway environment. These funds will be used to develop a guide pamphlet for parents which will include teaching methods and tips for providing progressive learning experiences during the first year of driving. This grant will also provide for an in-car first day (one hour) driving lessons for students and parents at the school range on Saturdays. The target population is 15 year-old students and their par- ents/guardians in Albemarle County. Potentially 76 families will be served. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96007 FUND: EDUCATION PROGRAMS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PROJECT UNITE AND DRIVER EDUCATION ASSISTANT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1350961102132100 1350961102138100 1350961102210000 1350961102420100 1350961102550100 1350961102580500 1350961102601300 1350961102610600 1350961102601700 1350961102600200 DESCRIPTION SALARIES-TEACHER STIPENDS-STUDENT FICA TRANSPORTATION MILEAGE STAFF DEVELOPMENT ED/REC SUPPLIES DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES CEREMONY AMOUNT $8,400.00 2,100.00 810.00 900.00 500.00 300.00 300.00 200.00 290.00 200.00 1330061235132100 1330061235210000 1330061235601700 SALARIES FICA COPY SUPPLIES TOTAL 1,296.56 100.00 100.00 $15,496.56 REVENIJE 2350924000240243 2330016000161210 DESCRIPTION PROJECT UNITE DRIVER EDUC ASST PROGRAM TOTAL AMOUNT $14,000.00 1. 496.56 $15,496.56 Item 5.2. Appropriation: VAACE Grant, $90,000.00 (Form %96018). It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board, on July 22, 1996, approved the appropriation of a grant for $90,000.00 to fund the Virginia Association of Adult and Continuing Education (VAACE) Assessment of the Virginia Adult Education Staff Development System. These funds will be used to develop a system of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses to assess the extent to which practitioners feel their needs for ongoing professional development are being addressed. Recommendations for ongoing self evaluation of specific staff development components and the integration of the system as a whole will be made. The Regional Adult Education Specialist will be the coordinator for this project. (Mr. Bowerman said he is not questioning the School Board's recommenda- tion, and will vote for it, but he does not understand the explanation for the use of the $90,000.00. Ms. Bobbi Hughes said the $90,000.00 will provide School staff with further development opportunities so it can assess students by improving strategies and teaching methods. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is ongoing educa- tion for school staff. Ms. Hughes responded ~yes." Mr. Perkins asked who is the Regional Adult Education Specialist. Hughes said the Regional Specialist'is a person from the State Education office who will be housed here. Ms. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000062 Ms. Humphris said $90,000.00 for an assessment is a lot of money. Ms. Hughes said this person will work not just in Albemarle County, but throughout the State. She is working with the person and making sure the County is in compliance. The $90,000.00 is to be used by everyone in the State assessing adult education.) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96018 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 ADULT CONTINUING EDUCATION GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1321060293111400 1321060293115000 1321060293210000 1321060293220000 1321060293312700 1321060293520000 1321060293550100 1321060293550400 1321060293580000 1321060293601300 1321060293601700 1321060293800100 DESCRIPTION WAGES- OTHER MANAGEMENT WAGE S - CLERICAL FICA VRS PROF SERV- CONSULTANTS COMMI/NICATIONS TRAVEL- MILEAGE TRAVEL- EDUCAT ION MISC DUES MATERIALS COPY SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT- NEW TOTAL AMOUNT $15,027 00 5,000 00 1,551 00 1,715 00 43,520 00 3,200 00 4,272 00 6,720 00 1,100 00 800 00 2,175 00 2,000 00 2,920 00 $9O,00O 00 REVENUE 2321024000240101 DESCRIPTION VAACE STAFF DEVELOPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $90.000.00 $90,000.00 Item 5.3. Appropriation: Alternative Education Grant, $150,000.00 (Form #96019). It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board, at its meeting on August 12, 1996, approved an appropriation of $150,000.00 for the Alterna- tive Education Grant: Project RETURN II is a collaborative alternative education project among the school divisions of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and Nelson County. A grant proposal was received from the Virginia Department of Education for the program to be implemented during the 1996-97 school year. This project is a prototype and named after Fluvanna County Public Schools alternative education program, Project RETURN. Through the use of technology - computers, modems, and software - combined with HOME (a Federal Housing Program) instruction, an alternative education program will be implemented to address the educational, emotional and social needs of students K-12 who have either violated School Board Policy, been expelled or suspended for an entire semester, had two or more long-term suspensions in one year, been released from a youth learning facility or had the School Board recommend placement. Each school division participating in the grant will have three student placements. In-kind contributions required from each division consist of counseling services for students and families to assure the successful transition back into the regular education program and contin- ued success in a program. Albemarle County Public Schools, as the fiscal agent, will provide financial management and administrative management services of the grant. The funds will be received and disbursed according to the appropriation request. (Ms. Humphris said the program sounds wonderful, but $150,000.00 seemed a lot for three student placements. Ms. Hughes said there would be at least three student placements in Albemarle County. It is a consortium made up of three school divisions and each division will have three placements. The costs are large because of the purchase of computers and software. Ms. Humphris said it seemed to her that $41,000.00+ is a large cost for software. Ms. Hughes said it is software for students in grades K-12. It can be used September 4, 1996 (RegUlar Day Meeting) (Page 5) for those students and/or other students. If a student needs independent study in a program they do not offer (for example, Advanced Calculus), that software may be part of this package. This first year, just because of the purchases for the program, it will be more costly. This grant money is coming from the State so there is no cost to the County. Ms. Humphris asked how other parts of the School System will know the software is available. Ms. Hughes said participation by these students must be approved by the high school principals, so they will be aware that this program is available for use by others.) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96019 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 PROJECT RETURN II GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1312263349112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 1312263349210000 FICA 1312263349221000 VRS 1312263349231000 1312263349260000 1312263349301210 1312263349312500 1312263349312700 1312263349520301 1312263349520302 1312263349550100 1312263349601300 HEALTH INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRACTED SERVICES PROF SVC-INSTRUCTIONAL PROF SVC-CONSULTANT TELEPHONE-LOCAL TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL-MILEAGE INST/REC SUPPLIES 1312263349800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 1312263349800710 DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $28,000 00 2,907 00 3,181 00 2,000 00 48 00 10,000 00 11,000 00 4,000 00 1,000 00 5,000 00 4,000 00 15,000 00 22,250 00 41,614.00 $150,000.00 REVENUE 2312224000240500 DESCRIPTION PROJECT RETURN II TOTAL AMOUNT $150,000.00 $150,000.00 Item 5.4. Appropriation: Middle School After School Program , $36,030.00 (Form #96020). It was noted in the staff's report that from December 7, 1993, to June 30, 1996, the City and County rented space on Westfield Road and operated a Teen Center. During FY 1996-97 operating budget discussions, the County Parks and Recreation Department recommended the closing of the Westfield Road site in favor of developing an after-school program at middle school locations. This recommendation was supported by the Children and Youth Commission (CACY) and the original Teen Center Advisory Committee. Concurrently, in December, 1995, Dr. Kevin Castner directed that a Middle School Task Force be established to ensure quality and equity in the Albemarle County Middle School Program. The Task Force was made up of principals, parents and teachers representing all five middle schools along with selected central office personnel. In the Preliminary Report or the Task Force published in June, 1996 a major recommendation is the implementation of two extended day pilot programs at Jack Jouett and Walton Middle Schools as a cooperative effort between the School Division and the Department of Parks and Recreation. A major recommendation for the 1997-98 school year is the expansion of the extended day program to all middle schools. Given the decision already made by the Parks and Recreation Department and learning the direction that the Middle School Task Force was heading, staff members from the Parks and Recreation Department and Community Education division began meeting in May to work out the details of the Middle School Pilot Program. Due to a high level of interest in this particular age group, sports and active recreation will be a big component of the program, along September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 000064 with enrichment club activities such as drama, writing, band, science, etc. The program will be under the supervision of Ms. Amy Smith, the Parks and Recreation Department's Teen Center Director. The estimated budget for the Middle School After-School Program is $36,030.00. The program is designed t° be self-sustaining with all costs covered by program fees. The County currently has appropriated $52,995.00 for Teen Programming. The Teen Center Director's salary and fringe costs of approximately $32,495.00 will be charged to that appropriation along with any expenses for the Middle School Program that are not covered by fees. For example, scholarships for the Middle School Program would be charged against the current appropriation. It is estimated that approximately $15,500.00 will be available from the current appropriation to run other teen satellite activities aside from the Middle School Program. Staff believes that this plan represents a much more cost- effective use of County dollars than was being achieved at the single site Teen Center. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #96020 in the amount of $36,030.00 for the Middle School After School Program, with the understanding that all funds will return to the County in fees or be covered by the current Teen Center appropriation. (Ms. Humphris said she thinks this is a wonderful idea, but the request in one place says the program will be self-sustaining and then in another place says a large part of the funding is in the budget for the Teen Center Director's salary, etc. Ms. Hughes said the part run through Community Education is self-sustaining. They are partnering with Parks and Recreation to offer this program to the middle school students who have no afternoon programs at this time. Ms. Humphris said she has no doubts about the program but wanted to make sure everyone is aware that it is not a self-sustaining program. When the Boards see this later in someone's budget, it should be correctly titled as to whether it is self-sustaining or being supported by tax dollars. Mr. Mullaney said the Teen Center Director would also be working on other activities for teens outside of the middle school program.) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96020 FUND: TEEN PROGRAMS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ESTABLISH BUDGET FOR AFTER SCHOOL TEEN PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1171071021130000 1171071021210000 1171071021310000 1171071021550600 1171071021600200 1171071021600400 1171071021601300 1171071021601700 DESCRIPTION PART TIME WAGES FICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL FOOD SUPPLIES MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES EDUCATIONAL & RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $4,100.00 310 00 18,000 00 150 00 7,320 00 150 00 5,400 00 600.00 $36,030.00 REVEICUE 2171018000189900 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT MISC REVENUES $36.030.00 TOTAL $36,030.00 Item 5.5. Resolution to amend Purchasing Manual to increase the threshold for which competitive sealed bids and competitive negotiation procedures are required. It was noted in the staff's report that State law and the County's Purchasing Manual establish the procedures for the procurement of goods and September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 000965 services by the County. If the cost of a procurement is expected to exceed $15,000.00, the County must procure the goods or services by either the competitive sealed bid or the competitive negotiation procedure. If the cost of the procurement is not expected to exceed $15,000.00, the County may procure the goods or services using less formal, yet competitive, procedures. Effective July 1, 1996, the Virginia Public Procurement Act authorizes public bodies to increase the threshold to $30,000.00 for these procedures. Staff requests the Board to adopt a resolution to amend the Purchasing Manual to increase the threshold to $30,000.00, thereby enabling procurements not expected to exceed $30,000.00 to be made using less formal procedures. (Ms. Thomas asked why it is a 9ood idea to change the threshold. Mr. Tucker said it is being done to mirror the State law which changed in July. It makes it easier, on certain occasions, to be able to purchase outright when it is known that a sole source is the proper place to purchase. Staff thinks it will be beneficial to the County. It will give staff the authority to purchase in this manner if the Manual is amended.) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual re- quires competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for the procurement of goods and services estimated to exceed $15,000; and WHEREAS, Section 11-41 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the Virginia Public Procurement Act, was amended effective July 1, 1996, to authorize a public body to establish written purchase procedures not requiring competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for single or term contracts if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $30,0oo. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual to provide that competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for single or term contracts shall not be required if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $30,000. BE IF IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Section 4 of the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual is hereby amended by substituting "$30,000" wherever "$15,000" is stated therein. Item 5.6. Sister City Affiliation, Membership in Sister Cities Interna- tional. It was noted in the staff's report that the Chamber of Commerce, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville were previously affiliated with sister cities in Italy. This exchange program commenced during the 1976 U.S. Bicentennial Celebration with Prato and Poggio a' Caiano, Italy. The goals were to foster a relationship between the localities through cultural, economic and educational exchanges. The formal linkage began to dissolve in 1991 due to resource issues, travel/safety concerns and the availability of other private sector exchange opportunities. The finances and organization for the program were ultimately thought to be better sponsored through the Chamber of Commerce, volunteer groups, or individual education divisions, rather than the general government. More recent requests for sister city interests have been directed to other potential sponsors in the community. Recently, Dr. Justiano F. Campa of the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center forwarded information to City Council and the Board concerning possible membership in Sister City International (SCI). His goal is to have these two localities formally affiliate with the county and city of Mendoza, Argentina. Mendoza is thought to be similar to this area in many ways, including size, University accessibility and resource availability, thus making it a strong Sister City match. Dr. Campa would like to recommend official membership in SCI so the linkage with Mendoza could be proprietary. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) O000G6 He also proposes that if the County and City are willing to sponsor the application and provide the annual membership fee, he and his volunteer organizational committee would handle the management and administration of the program. When this matter was brought to the Board recently by Mr. Marshall, the Board requested that staff investigate the benefits of joining Sister City International (SCI) and examine other Virginia sister city localities. Research indicates SCI will act as the catalyst to locate, formalize and coordinate sister city contacts, while the financial, administrative and management responsibilities remain with the individual locality. For the $600.00 yearly membership fee for areas 100,000 to 300,000 in population, SCI provides technical and informational assistance on building, funding and managing a Sister City program and provides eligibility to student exchange grant programs and access to training opportunities. There are currently 25 Virginia localities known to have sister cities, and the arrangements vary from place to place. Some jurisdictions coordinate all activities within the government and fund trips with public money, while others use outside volunteer committees to manage and finance the sister city programs. Several localities bypass SCI and manage their sister city programs on their own. Regardless of the organizational method, there is a significant time and resource commitment to manage these programs well. Staff has talked with Dr. Campa who indicates he is willing to be the focal point for coordinating activities related to the sister city affilia- tion. Staff recommends that, should the Board desire to proceed with the formal relationship through SCI, it should also be willing to assume the management of the program should Dr. Campa or others no longer be employed in this area. (Ms. Thomas asked what the Board is approving if this request is approved. She noticed that it was on the approval portion of the Consent Agenda. Ms. Humphris said she wishes it had not been so listed. Mr. Tucker said staff wants the Board to know that if it approves joining the SCI, there may be a time when the County would need to take the responsibility for the program, which can be difficult and costly. It is basically the same as when the County had the sister city relationship with the Italians. There are many issues involved with joining the SCI. Ms. Thomas said she is enthusiastic about exchanging ideas and people (she worked very hard as a citizen on the Italian exchange), but she is hesitant about jumping into this because it was a lot of work. That connec- tion did have a historical connection, it was an easy and attractive place to visit for students and others, but the program did die out. Mr. Tucker said Dr. Campa is the lead person now, but if he were no longer in the area responsibility could fall on the County's shoulders. Staff is saying that if there is a need to have an exchange with Mendoza, Argentina, that exchange could take place as Dr. Campa has proposed with just the medical community. Mr. Tucker said there are other exchange programs with students from Argentina in the County's School system. He does not know of any major benefit to the County from this program. Mr. David Toscano, City Council member, had suggested to Mr. Marshall that the Board consider the request. If the Board chooses to move forward with the program, staff is assuming that Dr. Campa will take the lead. However, if Dr. Campa moved away and the sister city relationship were still active, it could fall to the City and County to maintain the program. Mr. Marshall said the University could also take the lead. It is his understanding that the most benefit will come from exchanges at the Health Sciences Center. Mr. Tucker said that is what Dr. Campa is encouraging. Ms. Humphris said it is the County's money. Also, some of that respon- sibility is bound to fall on the County sooner or later. The County is not just going to pay out money and do nothing. After the initial discussion, she thought the Board would get more information, but all that was received was a flyer about the benefits of membership in Sister Cities International which does not do the work. SCI collects the money and provides a little bit of know how, but the work is still done in the community. She thinks there is a good chance that eventually the County would be responsible. Since the County has so many things of significance pending, she does not see taking on September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 0000 7 another responsibility when it is not a pressing need or anything the public is clamoring for. There are other ways of accomplishing the same thing. Mr. Tucker said the County has accomplished all of the visits from the Russians and Ukrainians without a sister city being involved. It has taken a lot of staff work, and it was not an official sister city approach. Mr. Marshall suggested tabling any decision until the Board gets more information as to whether the program would be worth the money. Mr. Tucker said rather than table the request, let Dr. Campa know the County is interested in what he is attempting to do, but is not necessarily interested in following the sister city approach. The County will not get $600.00 in benefits from the program. Mr. Martin said he thinks it is the time and effort involved and not necessar- ily the fee. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board declined participation in the Sister City International program as proposed by Dr. Justiano Campa. Item 5.7. Resolution for Airport Access Funds 649) Improvements. Airport Road.(Route It was noted in the staff's report that a total of $450,000.00 is available in one fiscal year from the Virginia Airport Access Fund. The first $300,000.00 is unmatched and the remaining $150,000.00 requires a dollar-for- dollar local match. The Virginia Department of Transportation has advised that Airport Road is eligible for two allocations from this fund. Airport Road was granted its first allocation of $450,000.00 in fiscal year 1995-96. Airport Road improvements are currently scheduled in the County's Six- Year Secondary Plan to be completed in mid-2001. Airport Access Funds will be used in combination with secondary construction funds to either expedite the project or cover costs in excess of the current $2.47 million estimate. The $150,000.00 local match in FY 1996-97 can be covered for the most part by excess Capital Improvement Program funds in the Revenue Sharing line item. While $500,000.00 was budgeted, the County has been approved for $358,919.00, leaving $141,081.00 uncommitted funds available. Approval of a resolution requesting $450,000.00 in Airport Access Funds in FY 1996-97 for improvements to Airport Road (Route 649) is requested. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is desig- nated by the Virginia Department of Aviation as a commercial service airport in the Virginia Transportation System Plan; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport currently accommodates over three hundred thousand (300,000) airline passengers annually, generates eighty-five thousand (85,000) airport operations per year, retains approximately sixty-five (65) based aircraft at its facilities and is the Commonwealth's sixth largest commercial service airport; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has modi- fied the Virginia Airport Access Fund Program to increase allo- cations for eligible projects to four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) and increase the scope of eligible items for funding through this program; and WHEREAS, Route 649 in Albemarle County serves the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Route 649 is designated as an Entrance Corridor by the County of Albemarle, and Route 649 qualifies as an eligible project for receipt of Airport Access Funds; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated that Route 649 is eligible to receive two (2) allocations from this source of funds; and September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) in Airport Access Funds for Route 649 in Fiscal Year 1996; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has programmed Six-Year Secondary Road Funds to improve Route 649. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IF IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors does hereby request the CTB to provide in Fiscal Year 1997 an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) in Airport Access Funds to design and con- struct improvements to Route 649 in Albemarle County. BE IF IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Albemarle County pledges its efforts and resources from its Six-Year Secondary Road Fund to obtain necessary rights-of-way/easements and utility adjust- ments requisite for construction of said improvements to Route 649. Item 5.8. Earlysville Forest Water Company (EFWC), Request for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the State Corporation Commission. It was noted in the staff's report that the nearly 200 homes in the Earlysville Forest community receive water from a well system run by the Earlysville Forest Water Company (EFWC), a private, unregulated utility. The residents are concerned that with no oversight from the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to regulate service and rates, the EFWC may charge excessive fees as compared to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). The neighborhood formed a committee to investigate the situation and requested staff to verify their results and evaluate the situation. It was determined that water companies serving 50 or more customers are required to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the SCC. The certificate has a dual effect -- it authorizes the water company to be the exclusive water service provider in the franchise area, and it confers jurisdiction on the SCC to regulate the water company as a public utility. In 1985, the EFWC initiated an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Because the ACSA was established by the County to provide public water service, the EFWC was required by State law to obtain the Board of Supervisors' approval before the SCC could consider the EFWC's application. The Board considered the EFWC's application, and declined to take action. The Board's approval ~would grant an exclusive monopoly within Earlysville Forest's assigned territory and preclude future service to the area by the Albemarle County Service Authority." Without a certificate of public convenience and necessity, the EFWC has continued to operate as a private water company and neither its rates nor its service has been regulated by the SCC. Should the EFWC obtain a State Corporation Commission certificate, possible consequences to the County could be: The SCC's regulation of the EFWC is no assurance that the rates will parallel the water rates of the ACSA. The rate structure will only have to be reasonable and just. Unless the EFWC fails to comply with SCC rules and regula- tions, the certificate may not be revoked and the ACSA will not be allowed to provide service in the area without the consent of the SCC. The Earlysville area is no longer within a growth area and the ACSA's service area does not extend beyond the Air- port. Therefore, expansion of water service by the ACSA to the Earlysville Forest community is unlikely at present and in the near future. Based on recent actions to remove Earlysville as a designated growth area in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the lack of plans by the ACSA to extend public water to Earlysville, staff recommends that the Board support EFWC's previous request and the Earlysville Forest community's current request September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 000059 for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the SCC, within the current water service area of EFWC, i.e., Earlysville Forest Subdivision only. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board expressed no objection to Earlysville Forest Water Company's request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission within the current water service area of Earlysville Forest Water Company, i.e., Earlysville Forest Subdivision only. Item 5.9. 1996-98 Work Plan for the County Development Departments was received for information. It was noted that this Work Plan is intended as a communication tool to the many "customers" that the County's Development Departments serve. To keep all interested parties informed and up to date, the work plan is revised and made available yearly. The time frames noted are estimates based on the latest obtainable information and are subject to change without prior notice as workloads and priorities shift. Item 5.10. Notice from the Department of Transportation of a Citizen Information/Participation meeting to be held on September 11, 1996, between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. was received for information. Projects are listed as: Fontaine Avenue (Business Route 29) Project: 7029-104-V03, PE-101; Federal Proj.: STP-037-2(128); Project: 7029-104-V03, RW-201, C-501; Federal Proj.: STP-5104 ( ); From: West Corporate Limits of City of Charlottesville, To: Jefferson Park Avenue. Jefferson Park Avenue Project: U000-104-V09, PE-101; Federal Proj.: STP-5104(124); Project: U000- 104-V09, PE-102; Federal Proj.: BR-5104(123); Project: U000-104-V09, RW-201; Project: UOOO-lO4,V09,C-501, B-607; Federal Proj.: STP/BR-5104( ); Desc.: Approaches and Bridge over Norfolk Southern RR, Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville. This meeting will provide citizens an opportunity to informally review and discuss the preliminary plans for the widening of Fontaine Avenue to four lanes from the West Corporate Limits of the City of Charlottesville to Jefferson Park Avenue and on Jefferson Park Avenue the replacement of the existing substandard bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railway with construc- tion of the necessary approaches. Item 5.11. 1995-96 Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project Annual Report for Albemarle County Public Schools was received for information and is filed in the Clerk's Office. Item 5.12. Copy of letter dated August 22, 1996, from Mr. Shady Clark, Jr., Title I Specialist, and Mr. George H. Irby, Director, Office of Compensa- tory Programs, Virginia Department of Education, to Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Division Superintendent, providing notice that application of the Albemarle County Schools for support under Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, has been approved in the amount of $562,288.00 (State Project No. 002-97-1). Notice received for information. Item 5.13. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority for July 11, 1996, was received for information. Item 5.14. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for July 22, 1996, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: July 31, 1996. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of July 31 and found them to be in order. He then offered motion, which was seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes of July 31, 1996. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 0000 ?0 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Not Docketed: Ms. Humphris said the National Association of County Information Officers has presented to Ms. Lee P. Catlin, Community Resources Office, the 1996 Merit Award for Albemarle County's HOME (a Federal Housing Program) Page on the Internet in the Special Projects Category. The HOME (a Federal Housing Program) Page was selected for this Merit Award in the Awards of Excellence competition which recognizes local government achievements in public education and citizen involvement. This HOME (a Federal Housing Program) Page competed with programs from other counties with populations of up to 500,000. It was one of several hundred entrants. Ms. Humphris thanked Lee and members of the County's Information Services staff, in particular, Ms. Elaine Pack. Ms. Humphris said a presentation was made to the County at a reception for visiting members of the Ukrainian government. The figure is an angel which represents three things and since she does not speak Ukrainian, she does not know what they are. It is a copy of an angel done by a famous Ukrainian artist whose work is displayed in New York City and Paris. The Ukrainians promised to send in written form what the beautiful figure represents. This figure will be added to the case in the Lobby of the County Office Building that will include the Olympic Torch and a gift from the County's Sister City in Italy. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, said VDOT has accelerated the gravel road improvement of Route 610, a gravel road approximately two miles long located off Route 20 North. The project has been accelerated by about three months. Work actually began two weeks ago. Ms. Tucker said she had received a call about the number of large trucks on Route 20, and thought at first it might be due to the Route 610 project, but she has been told that the waste and berm pit are on the site and the trucks are being parked on the project overnight. She does not know the frequency of the trucks that were witnessed. Perhaps it has something to do with railroad work. There is a railroad bridge closed on Route 640 at Gilbert Station and they may be entering off Route 20 or Route 29, but she would assume that Route 20 is the more direct path. Ms. Humphris said she will pass that along. The call came from a gentle-man who lives at Stony Point. He had noticed a sudden change in the number of large tractor trailers, and gravel trucks in particular, that were using the road. He thought it must be because the County had been successful in its quest to close Route 22/231 to large trucks. She told him that was not the case. She will pass the information along. Ms. Tucker said Route 240 in Crozet has been paved and appears to be draining properly. VDOT has marked it for right- and left-turn lanes on Route 240 at Route 810 and at Route 240 South. That was at the request of the County Police who had witnessed a lot of cutting through the parking lot in front of Crozet Pizza. Ms. Tucker said Mr. Marshall had requested information at the last Board meeting about the status of the Route 29 Bypass project with regard to the latest action taken by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The information she has at this time is informal although there may be some written correspondence going on. The MPO approved the project for planned development and right-of-way only. The planned development phase is continu- ing as planned and is not impacted by any MPO action. That means VDOT will take the design to a public hearing which is now scheduled for February, 1997. After the public hearing comes the right-of-way phase. That is all the MPO's action supports at this time. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 0000'7t Ms. Tucker said construction funds are not outlined in the Six-Year Plan until January, 1999 so that gives VDOT two years to discuss and find ways to work with the County on construction funding if that should be the choice of action. Essentially the design and right-of-way part of the process is not impacted by the MPO's action and will move forward. Mr. Marshall asked how much money is expected from the Federal govern- ment. All know the Bypass is going to be built, and he wants to make sure Federal funds are not lost. Ms. Tucker said the majority of the funding is to be from Federal funds. Mr. Marshall said he understands there are two years to work this out with VDOT so the project can qualify for the Federal funds. Ms. Tucker said VDOT considers it has a two-year window in which to address the items the MPO stated were of concern in order to get the construction funding back in the TIP. Mr. Marshall said if at the end of the two years that has not happened, where would the funds come from. Ms. Tucker said that has not been decided. She imagines the design team is currently working on the design of the right-of-way would be a part of that discussion and other issues would be taken up at the Preallocation Hearing each Spring, if not outside of that forum. Mr. Marshall said he wants to be sure the project does not get "put on the back burner" so the funds are lost. Ms. Tucker said she has no specific status on the construction portion of that project at this time. Mr. Marshall again said he does not want the County to lose the Federal funds and wants to know what can be done to prevent that from happening. Ms. Thomas asked if she could make a suggestion. The MPO proposed that the right-of-way, and planning and engineering funds be included in the long- range plan, but said that certain things needed to be addressed by VDOT before it approves of putting in the construction money. They have the next two years to work this out. Mr. Marshall's questions make it appear that nobody is going to talk to each other for the next two years, which is unlikely. She thinks all are aware that some agreements need to be arrived at. Since the Commonwealth Transportation Board unilaterally broke some agreements, it did not seem to be a prudent move for the MPO to approve construction money at this time. There is some unfinished business. Mr. Marshall said the fact that it is unfinished is what is worrying him. Ms. Thomas said the MPO hopes it is sufficiently worrying everyone and will make them get together and recognize, for example, that the Meadow Creek Parkway is an important compo- nent of Albemarle's whole transportation system which at this point has not been recognized sufficiently. Mr. Marshall asked what can be done to insure that this project comes back to this Board to be sure that the Federal funding is not lost. Mr. Martin said the Board needs to make sure that before the MPO votes again next year, that the whole Board discusses how it feels about the whole issue. He thinks it is important for the Board to get an update on progress and discuss how Albemarle's representatives on the MPO are going to vote. Mr. Marshall agreed. He asked if doing this next year is likely to cause a loss of the Federal funds. Ms. Tucker said the project is not to be scheduled in the Six- Year Primary Budget in the next fiscal year anyway. The design and right-of- way are still in the Plan, so the MPO's action is not impacting that schedule. The critical date is January, 1999. If these issues are not worked out by that time, then the funding is impacted. Ms. Humphris said she can guarantee the Board members that she and Ms. Thomas, as the County's MPO representatives, have been and will continue to work hard representing Albemarle County's best interests. Mr. Martin said when Ms. Humphris says "representing Albemarle County's best interests" he assumes that means that the other Board members should at least have some input into what those representatives are doing. He asked if the MPO repre- sentatives see them-selves as something where a decision can be made independ- ently of what the rest of the Board members desire. That vote caught the rest of the Board members by surprise and next year when it is time for that vote again, he would personally like to be made aware of the possible outcome of that meeting in advance of the meeting. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it would be a good idea if the MPO provided this Board and City Council with a copy of the resolution that was passed by the MPO Policy Board. The total resolution gives an enormous amount of background on everything that led up to the vote the Policy Board took. It shows why the MPO reached the conclusion it did (a need to stop and look at what was happening in regard to the agreements that had been in place for five 000072 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) years, and which were unilaterally changed in February, 1995 by an act of the Commonwealth Transportation Board and without any word to the Board of Supervisors or City Council). It is important that all members of this Board and City Council have a full understanding of what is happening. She and Ms. Thomas will try to see that that takes place. Ms. Thomas said the whole resolution is based on the agreements that this Board has voted on in the past few years so there is absolutely nothing new. It seemed new because it is the first time construction was an issue. Mr. Martin said this is a multi-million dollar decision that the MPO made. Before that decision is brought up and voted on again, he thinks the Board members should be made aware of not just the resolution the MPO passed this year, but also the mind set going into that meeting and the rationale behind that mind set. He appreciates the fact that Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas work so hard on those committees. He does not have the time to do it and he appreciates the fact that they have the time and do an excellent job. He is simply saying it is a decision that the rest of this Board members should be informed of and feel comfortable with prior to it happening as opposed to afterwards. Ms. Thomas said she thinks when the Board members see the rest of the resolution they will feel better. Mr. Marshall said it is obvious he needs to understand more about it, along with the other Board members, the MPO and VDOT. He does not want it to come down to a point where the project would have to be paid for by Virginia taxpayer's money when the Federal funds were available. He appreciates the fact that the MPO is trying to put pressure on VDOT to get them to come around to the County's way of thinking, but, at the same time, he does not want to gamble with that much money. Ms. Humphris said nobody wants to have taXpayer's dollars misspent. That, of course, is one of the MPO's responsibilities. The MPO is keeping a careful eye on how those dollars are spent. Mr. Marshall said looking at this issue from an individual's point of view, he is looking at a power struggle between two entities. He does not want it to be that way. He wants it to be a meeting of the minds. Ms. Humphris said she is not looking at it as a power struggle. She is looking at it as the work the MPO representatives are charged with doing. Based on many years of work on the MPO, she feels the MPO does know it is representing both the City and the County in the planning of the future transportation network for this area. She thinks the MPO does a good job and is well-informed, and power is not what it is about. They are about representing the citizens of this community and making sure what happens here is in the best interests of everybody. Mr. Marshall said it becomes a power issue if the MPO does not approve this project and VDOT cannot get the Federal funds, then the MPO is depriving VDOT of the Federal funds. Ms. Humphris said there are a lot more ingredients to this situation that are being talked about. Mr. Marshall said he under- stands that, but he needs to simplify some of this in his mind. It appears to him that the MPO is depriving VDOT of construction funds by its vote at this time. Ms. Thomas said VDOT does not need the construction money until 1999, so they are not being deprived of anything at this time. Mr. Marshall said the point is that there must be some sort of agreement in two years. Ms. Humphris said that is true and that is the intent of the MPO and they cer- tainly hope to reach an agreement within two years. Mr. Marshall said he has been told that VDOT might put the project "on the back burner." Ms. Humphris asked why VDOT would do that since they are the ones that want to build the road. Mr. Marshall said VDOT can build the road with or without Albemarle's agreement. In the final analysis, if they build it entirely with State funds, then everybody has lost. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that at the Board's October day meeting the MPO's resolution should be available for discussion. He thinks the Board should hold a work session to find out what led up to the decision of the MPO. He heard the word ~network", and there are a lot of roads that will be a solution to the local problems and those throughout the State. He thinks it is important that this Board understand the information the MPO had. That does not necessarily mean the Board will agree with what the MPO has already done or that it would preclude the Board from agreeing with the MPO next year. Mr. Bowerman said he was at the MPO meeting and he heard the resolution read. He knows there are a lot of elements to the TIP. There has been concern expressed that some elements of the plan are not going to be included in the total plan for this community and those elements are necessary. That is all that is being said at this time. Nothing is being delayed, but it has given 000073 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) the opportunity to work out the things Mr. Marshall is talking about over the next two years before construction funds are necessary. He does not think it is a power struggle. He thinks it is a question of this community making sure it gets all the pieces to the solution. Mr. Marshall said he had heard some things on the radio indicating it is becoming a power struggle between the local CTB members and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman said he believes holding the work session would be very helpful. Mr. Marshall said he thinks it would be important to have Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Myers present at that work session, and he so requests. Mr. Robert Tucker asked for an update on Route 682 and the erosion control measures being taken by V DOT. Ms. Tucker said that is being reviewed today under the present weather conditions. They have also installed addi- tional erosion siltation devices, some check dams and more silt fence. Everything has been inspected and cleaned since the last storm. Other than saying, VDOT is in full compliance with the design and what is called for on that project, they have measures in place and they are being kept clean and functioning. Ms. Thomas said she drove the length of the road after a rain storm a couple of weeks ago. The creek was already showing significant amounts of silt with islands forming. It was clear to her that there are things that are not working. The watershed runoff needs to be protected, so she wants it to be effective, not just meet standards. If it withstood the rains last night, that will demonstrate that it is working now. Ms. Tucker said VDOT will continue to keep a close eye on that. They did install an additional silt basin where there is a natural watercourse, and it should have helped the problem. There was a silt basin which had been left off of the project specifications. Mr. Perkins asked if there will be additional painting done on Route 240 in Crozet, in particular, turn lanes in front of NationsBank and the Crozet Foods. Ms. Tucker said their pavement markings for turn arrows and turn lanes were to have been placed yesterday. She is not sure the work was done because of the weather. Additional pavement markings should be happening at any time. Mr. Perkins said he got some complaints from a Mr. Davis about parking at Millington Bridge. Someone is parking in his entrance to that field along the bridge and river. He asked Ms. Tucker to check on that. Mr. Perkins said he received some requests about the posting of "Chil- dren Playing" signs on a road in Yancey's Mill (he does not know the route number) where the road turns off of Route 250 and goes into the community. The road is posted at 25 mph, but people are coming off of Route 250 and still continuing at 55 mph. He asked if Ms. Tucker would check to see if posting "Children Playing" signs would be helpful at that point. It may also be an enforcement issue. He asked about placing the sign near the church. Ms. Tucker said VDOT does not have an official "Children Playing" sign. The closest thing would be a ~Playgroundx sign posted near an official facility or school ground. The ~Slow - Children Playing" signs are usually installed on private property and are not installed by VDOT. The theory is that it promotes the use of roads for playing purposes, so they do not place signs for children playing in the roadway area. They can look at the playground sign with regard to the church along that route. Mr. Martin said at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 when VDOT put up the "No Right Turn on Red" sign, it seemed like a good idea. It did stop some problems, but traffic now backs up on Rio Road for a good distance. What caught his attention is that a couple of weeks ago he was called to the Police Station twice in the middle of the night. He had to wait for five minutes for the light to turn when there was not a car coming in any direc- tion. He asked if it is possible to have a "No Right Turn on Red" just at certain times of the day. Ms. Tucker said until there is full use of lanes on Route 29 between Rio Road and the next intersection at Albemarle Square, right turns on red need to be restricted because of the volume of traffic using that short distance between intersections. Until the road has been widened sufficiently north of that intersection to put traffic back into its appropriate lane, there is September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 0000'74 going to be a temporary restriction. VDOT had intended to keep the UNo Right on Red" in place, but it possibly can be fine tuned. Ultimately, it is hoped that the distance between those signals, while it is not ideal, will be sufficient considering the number of lanes to allow right turns on red. The busiest section of the Route 29 corridor in Albemarle County is between Hydraulic and Rio Roads; the 1994 count showed 52,000 vehicles. The next highest section of corridor is near Gainesville with 48,000 vehicles. A lot of traffic is moved on that road, and to do so with a signal is a challenge. Mr. Martin asked for an update of Route 29 southbound into town at the entrance to WalMart. He is suggesting that there be some kind of right turn lane into WalMart. He realizes it cannot be done immediately, but it needs to be done just as soon as possible. Ms. Tucker said a complication at that light is the grade and the number of trucks that need to stop and get started again. The signal works against them. VDOT understands the need for that right-turn lane. Mr. Martin said there are still no lines on the pavement at Proffit Road and Route 29. A lot of people realize it is against the law to turn in the most convenient direction, which is in front of the opposing car. Unless there are lines on the road to direct the turning movements, they refuse to do it. It is his understanding that unless those lines are there, you are not supposed to cross each other in this manner. He understands it is illegal to turn in that manner unless lines are there to direct you. Ms. Tucker said VDOT calls those markings "puppy tracks." She said this request had been made before, and she will follow up on the request. Ms. Thomas said on September 17, 1996, from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m., there will be a meeting at Murray Elementary School about the intersections on Route 250 in Ivy. This includes the commercial area in Ivy also. Mr. Marshall said he has his usual question about the four-laning of Route 20 going south at the entrance to the new Monticello High School. In addition, there is a need for an acceleration lane at the off-ramp coming from 1-64 onto Route 20 South. There was another accident there last week. Ms. Tucker said she is not aware of the current status of the off-ramp project, but work on that acceleration lane should begin soon. VDOT is due to adver- tise in October work to extend the turn lane. They are not likely to change any traffic patterns at this time. Mr. Marshall again asked about the four-laning for the new school. Ms. Tucker said VDOT currently has nothing planned for four-laning Route 20 down to the new connector road. Mr. Marshall said he has been making this request for six months. He asked what needs to be done. Ms. Tucker said it should be presented at a Primary Preallocation Hearing in accordance with whatever priority the Board wants to give it along with their other primary road improvement requests. Mr. Robert Tucker said the Board will have to make the request at the next Primary Road Preallocation hearing next Spring. Mr. Marshall said he does not think the County can put a lot of buses on that road given the current situation. Ms. Tucker said in the interim there will be sufficient turn lanes built into the connector road as part of the connector road project. Mr. Marshall said where the new road is being built there is a bad curve. Ms. Tucker said there would be grading and trimming in either direction to ensure that the entrance has proper sight distance at that intersection, and that would be part of the connector road project. Mr. Marshall said it seems there is a possibility the road will not be widened by the time the school opens. Mr. Tucker responded that it is a good possibil- ity. The only way to do that is to make the request directly at the Primary Road Hearing and try to get the project fast-tracked by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) . That project will have to compete against a lot of other projects. Mr. Marshall asked if he could get a consensus from the Board members to ask for the project. It is a serious problem. Mr. Tucker said the request was made at the last Preallocation Hearing in April and the project is on the list, but in terms of priority it did not make a high priority when compared to other primary road requests in the State. It is on the list of primary road needs for improvement. The CTB would have to fast-track the project. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 000 Mr. Marshall suggested putting this project on the list of things to talk about with Mr. Carter Myers and Mr. Bill Roudabush in October. Mr. Bowerman asked if Police Chief John Miller had talked to Ms. Tucker about markings at Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive. Ms. Tucker replied uno". Mr. Bowerman said he violated a law there. It says ~right turn only" in the right- hand lane and that means to turn into Greenbrier Drive. He crossed the intersection and turned into the Texaco Station instead which is illegal. That is the only place on Route 29 where the uright turn only" lane does not terminate on the other side of the intersection. He thinks a number of people do what he did. He got a warning from the police officer. If there were some white markings on the other side of the intersection to make it clear at the intersection that you are not to proceed across it, that would be helpful. It would let you know where the right turn is. Ms. Humphris asked if the official report from the Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee about their recommendation for a name has been received yet. Mr. Tucker said Uno." Ms. Humphris asked that the Committee send it to the Board officially so it can be acted on. With no further comments from Board members, Ms. Humphris invited Mr. Scott Peyton to address his concern to the Board. Mr. Peyton asked for two points of clarification. He said that at a Board meeting in June, Ms. Tucker referred to a Route 250 West Transportation Study. He has not been able to find out anything about the particulars of that study. He asked the purpose of the study. His other concern has to do with Route 250 West, just west of Blue Ridge Building Supply, and the promi- nent and distinct road construction taking place north of Route 250. He asked what is taking place. Mr. Tucker said that is Cory Farms Subdivision which is being built in that area. Mr. Peyton asked if their road will connect through to Route 240. Mr. Cilimberg responded, uno", not initially. Mr. Tucker said the initial access will be from Route 250 just west of Blue Ridge Building Supply. Ms. Tucker said the Route 250 Corridor Study project is split into an east and west project. The Route 250 East corridor study will be done in- house out of VDOT's Richmond office. The Route 250 West Corridor Study project will be bid out to a consultant. Both studies involve long- and short-term improvements to Route 250 including turn lanes and possible widening in various locations. The corridor approach was taken because very specific issues have arisen along the corridor that lend themselves to a study of the entire corridor. In the corridor there is the Bellair location, the Ivy location, Route 250 in Crozet, Route 250 in Shadwell, Route 250 near Route 616 in the eastern side of the County, and each of these locations warrant a closer look at improvements which would facilitate a better flow of traffic for the primary corridor. Mr. Peyton asked if the County could request regular updates and keep informed as to VDOT's intentions. Since this is a major arterial highway through the County, a lot of times the word uimprovements" translates into a widening which could have major impacts on residents and property owners. Often times, these residents and property owners do not hear about these things until they are a Udone deal." Perhaps he could look to this Board to request, monitor and keep a dialogue going with V DOT through the process. Mr. Tucker said VDOT normally tries to have a citizens group involved in the oversight of the plans that are being developed. He suggested to Ms. Tucker that Mr. Peyton may be interested in serving on that group and that those reports come back to this Board. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on proposed issuance by the Harrison- burg Redevelopment and Housing Authority pursuant to the Virginia Housing Authorities Law of its Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds 1997 Series A in the principal amount of approximately $8,500,000. The purpose of the Bonds is to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 160-unit apartment development to be located in Albemarle County, Virginia, on Rio Hill Drive. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 26, 1996.) O000 ?G September 4, 1996 (Regular Day.Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for this public hearing which are set out in the minutes of August 7, 1996. The developer of the project is Fore Property Company. It is for 160 multi-family rental units. The financing is through the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority to obtain Federal housing credits. In return for those credits, the developer must provide low- and moderate-income units for County residents. Approximately 20 percent of the units will be rented to person's whose income is 50 percent or less of the area's median gross income. There is another provision where they could have 40 percent of the units, but that must provide rental to person's whose income is 60 percent or less of the area's median gross income. Mr. Tucker said this matter is scheduled for a public hearing today, but the County Attorney has advised him that there is a problem with the resolu- tion, so action on that resolution cannot be taken today. He said Mr. Bowerman expressed a concern to him about the effect of this development on Agnor-Hurt and Woodbrook Elementary Schools. In reply, he has furnished to Board members a copy of school improvement projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) over the next five years. It also shows the capacity of individual schools plus enrollment projections. There does not appear to be a significant impact on those two schools. The only unknown factor at this time is the school redistricting in progress. There are to be eight new classrooms added to Woodbrook, almost doubling their capacity by September, 1997. Mr. Marshall asked why this information was being presented at this time. The zoning is already on the property and the Board really does not have the ability to deny this project. The apartments will be built, and it is only a question of whether they will be built with these funds or other funds. Mr. Tucker said they can be built, although he does not know if this particular project would go forward without this financing. Some project can be built on the property if the zoning remains at R-15. Mr. Marshall asked why the schools are an issue when the Board is not voting on a rezoning of the property. Mr. Tucker said this question has been raised, so he wanted the Board to see these numbers and see that there should not be an impact on these schools. Mr. Bowerman said he asked for the information because he had concerns about the impact the development could have on the existing capacity of the schools. In a broader sense, he thought it was important to have this information because the Board has been talking about the issue of in-fill. He understands there is a citizens group coming to the Board meeting this afternoon to talk about protection of the rural areas and in-fill in the urban areas to accommodate growth. This property is zoned R-15 and has been for years. The owner has paid taxes on R-15. The only reason this request is before the Board is because of the low- and moderate-cost housing funding. But, he thinks that now and in the future, as the Board begins to look at in- fill projects (and this is definitely one), there will be significant impacts to current residents, school-aged populations, and parents in the urban area. He thinks it is time to look at the impacts these projects will have and make sure the CIP is such that the needs of the schools in and near in-fill developments can be met. Mr. Bowerman said that to a broader extent, in order to do this as a community, the Board needs the support of the people who live in the urban area who will be affected. These issues need to be discussed and information given to the people who will be most directly affected. He should have seen the potential of this request to cause concern in the community because of the existing capacity problems at those two schools. The immediate reaction to the request is that it could have an impact on existing schools. This hearing was scheduled during the day, not at night when more people could attend, so it does not really allow for adequate public input. He said it is important that the Board listen to the public and try to make some intelligent decisions now and in the future. Mr. Marshall said as long as the public understands that this Board cannot change the zoning on the property. From some of the people he has talked to, that seems to be what they expect to happen. Mr. Tucker said he handed out this information about the schools because he understood it was an issue of concern, but looking at the chart, there seems to be adequate capacity at Agnor-Hurt and at Woodbrook. This development should not have an affect on those schools. Also, staff did some projections on this development using the multipliers in the Planning Department and what has been found in 000,077 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) similar developments, the total number of students from this development will be between 30 and 70. With no further questions at this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Hunter Bourne, Vice President for Finance, Fore Property Company, spoke first. He said they are a national apartment development company and have build more than 9000 units from coast to coast. Approximately 80 percent of the units were built with middle-class residents in mind. There are 765 units in Maryland, 308 units in Pennsylvania, and this is an initial effort in Virginia. They are a totally integrated company doing development, construc- tion and property management. They have been serving families for over 20 years. Mr. Bourne said the property is off of Rio Road and Putt Putt Lane. They want to build 160 units, and the mix will include 20 percent one-bedroom units, and at this time, none of the County's existing tax credit facilities have one-bedroom units. They are projecting up to 40 percent three-bedroom units. The property will be a two- to three-story walk-up wood frame apart- ment. There will be a swimming pool, a club house with an office, a meeting room, changing facilities for the pool, a tot lot, with seven buildings on the property. There will be ample woods bordering on both the east and north borders with contiguous properties. Initial development costs are estimated to be between $10.0 million and $10.5 million. Mr. Bourne said they came to discuss the financing, so he wants to be precise about who they will serve. This property, thrOugh the combination of the tax exempt bond finance and tax credits, will serve 100 percent affordable housing needs. Every unit will be occupied by a resident whose family income is not higher than 60 percent of the median. These will be working people. People who bring their own resources to pay the rent. There are subsidies to the tenants. His requirement is that for 15 years to set the rent so that at 60 percent of the locality's median income adjusted for family size, people will pay no more than 30 percent of that income level for rent minus the utility allowance. The choice the Board is supporting is multi-family housing on this property, but due to the restrictions that the financing puts on, the combination of the bond financing and the tax credit financing, it will be affordable at 60 percent of median income. Mr. Bourne said there are two parts to this request. They are asking the Board to approve the issuance of tax exempt bonds. The bonds themselves require that the facility be rented to either 20 percent at 50 percent of median, or to 40 percent at 60 percent of median. The only requirement is that the people be resident with that income level. They could be paying up to 45 percent of their income as rent if the bonds were the only factor. The tax credit will provide and enforce that the rent be no more than 30 percent minus utilities. Mr. Bowerman asked if when the rents are set for the units if that rent varies among the applicants. Mr. Bourne said it varies among the applicants and the unit type. There is a presumed occupancy for each unit type, and there is an actual income for each potential resident. Mr. Bowerman asked for an approximation of the one, two and three-bedroom costs. Mr. Bourne said the actual units will be coming on line in late 1997 and during 1998, so if the Board gives approval today, the number of projected school children will not be in the units in this school year. On today's rents, he projected $480.00 for a one-bedroom, $510.00 to $525.00 for a two-bedroom, and $610.00 for three-bedrooms. Mr. Marshall asked what the rents would be if this financing were not approved. Mr. Bourne said that is set at 90 percent of what an equivalent new unit for an unlimited tenancy would be, so it would be 10 percent higher. Mr. Bowerman asked if there would be people in the one-bedroom apartment who were not paying $480.00. He said he is trying to understand the whole program. Mr. Bourne said ~no", they would be paying $480.00. He explained how the tax credits and the tax exempt bonds work together. Basically they wish to issue bonds under what is known as ~the municipal pot of money" for multi-family. That pot of money is administered by the Virginia Small Business Finance Authority. That pot of money ($46.0 million) was depleted this year by a single property in Arlington County. The Arlington project came in at $34.0 million in January and took most of the money. Fore Property is getting its approval set to go to this window in January of 1997. That is September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 000078 largely what sets his time schedule. In January, 1997 he gets the allocation from the bond authority, with this Board's approvals and with Harrisonburg's approvals in hand, within 90 days he must start construction and six months after that he will deliver the first building. That first building would not be actively marketed until the Fall of 1997. The tax exempt bond financing is a way to make this project feasible. Bonds are debt; tax credits are equity. The bonds allow them to use a four-percent tax credit which they can receive from the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) as a matter of meeting minimum application standards. Mr. Bourne said tax credit projects which this County has submitted are highly competitive. Of the non-rural, for-profit projects, there were 76 on the competitive round and only 12 of those were funded. That provides a nine- percent tax credit of the qualified basis. He will be using a lower tax credit amount, four percent only. That provides less equity. He needs the interest rate benefit provided by the tax exempt bond financing to make this property feasible. Fore Property will do 160 units and it will serve a lot of working families. The range of income between $21,000 for a single person household and $33,000 for a six-person household is probably a range of income all went through at sometimes in their lives. All had a need at one time for an affordable place to live. This provides clean, well-managed housing for people who probably already live in the community and provides a better quality than they may be living in now. Mr. Bourne said Fore Properties chose this property because they thought that Albemarle/Charlottesville was a very nice place and it is going to grow. Fore chose it because it is a site that is already within the existing development pattern. It has good access to recreation, to shopping, to transportation for jobs. Fore chose the site because it was already zoned for this use. It has been in the County's plan for almost 20 years for multi- family housing. Mr. Bourne said Fore chose this community because they understand the County has a commitment to supplying affordable house to its citizens. For those reasons, at the appropriate time, they will request this Board's support of the request. Mr. Marshall asked if Fore is exempt from passive interest requirements. Mr. Bourne said if Mr. Marshall is speaking about passive losses, it is possible that depreciation can be used by the purchaser of the tax credits. Mr. Marshall asked about the interest that will be paid on the investment. Mr. Bourne said that will be deductible. They will be able to sell to corporate investors the passive losses on this property, but not to individu- als. Ms. Humphris said if there were no further questions for Mr. Bourne, she would invite the public to speak. Mr. Donald Lyons said he is the President of the Raintree Homeowners' Association. He is not voicing either support or opposition to the project. He thinks it would be to the public's advantage to postpone this public hearing in order to get more comments. The Homeowners' do have concerns. One has to do with the schools. The second has to do with the 320 additional cars on the road which translates to well over 1000 trips per day. He finds it hard to put out the welcome mat when the logistics of the project need to be figured out, and where the children will be placed in the schools in question. There are to be 160 units, but only 30 to 70 children are estimated to be in school. That is far-reaching when there may be 128 units with multi-bedrooms. He actually believes there is a need for a new elementary school. He does not think any undue hardship should be put on the infrastructure which is already strained. He suggested going back to planning and looking this project over with a great deal of respect. Mr. Charles Trachta asked if there will be a public hearing next Wednesday. Ms. Humphris said she understands the public hearing will be concluded today. Mr. Bowerman said that is of concern to him since this item was scheduled during the day. He had hoped the public hearing would be continued until next week. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board members wished to continue the public hearing until next week. Mr. Davis asked to clarify this process which is complicated. There are statutory requirements for the bonds to be issued. One, there has to be this public hearing which is technically held so the Board can determine whether there is an affordable housing need in the County and whether the Board wants to invite the Harrisonburg Authority into the September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 000079 County to address that need. That determination requires a public hearing and adoption of a resolution by this Board to that effect. The second statutory requirement is that the Harrisonburg Authority has to recommend a proposal, which would be the bond financing package which Mr. Bourne has discussed, to finance a project in the County. The County must approve that financing proposal which is recommended by the Harrisonburg Authority. In this instance it is proposing an $8.5 million bond issuance. A prerequisite of that approval is that the Board receive a fiscal impact statement (it has not yet been submitted to the County). He does not believe anything formal has been presented to the Harrisonburg Authority. Mr. Davis said the Board can hold the public hearing and adopt a resolution saying there is a need and invite the Harrisonburg Authority in to help solve that need, but the Board cannot adopt the second part of the resolution that says you approve the specific financing package or address the specific project. The Board does not have enough information at this time to do that. If the Board wants to continue the public hearing that is not a problem, but the public hearing technically is only to determine if there is a need and whether or not you want the Harrisonburg Authority to come in. The approval of the project itself does not require a public hearing. Ms. Humphris asked how the Board makes the specific finding that there is ua shortage of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations in the County available to persons of low-income at rentals they can afford", and, that "these conditions can best be remedied through the exercise of the Harrisonburg Authority's power in Albemarle County." On what is that finding based? Mr. Davis said he assumes the Board would base that on public hearing comments and then on recommendations of staff. Also, on any information the developer wishes to submit to prove that is in fact true. Ms. Humphris said the Board scheduled this public hearing for day time not knowing its significance. The Board would prefer to have the public hearing available to all of the public who can attend at a night meeting. She asked if the Board could continue the public hearing to another date. Mr. Davis said he does not believe there is a problem in doing that unless bond counsel has a problem. If it is a problem, the Board can simply advertise another public hearing to meet bond requirements. Ms. Humphris asked if it is the pleasure of the Board to continue the public hearing to next week. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board needs to set guidelines for the public hearing. He knows what Mr. Davis said the Board is to consider, but the people speaking so far have not spoken to those issues. They are speaking to issues other than financing, and financing is the only issue before the Board. This is not a zoning matter. Ms. Humphris said the issue before the Board is the need to have a finding about the status of safe and sanitary accommodations for low-income people in the County, and a finding that it can best be remedied by inviting the Harrisonburg Authority to fix it. So far, there has been no actual testimony about those issues. Mr. Marshall said this request would not be before the Board today if the applicant had not chosen this route for financ- ing. If they wanted to do the project with private financing, the Board would not be discussing it at all. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board needed to approve this project after seeing some sort of fiscal impact statement. Mr. Davis said the Code requires that the redevelopment and housing authority that will issue the bonds on behalf of the County for the developer's benefit, propose a recommended financing package. The County is required to either approve or not approve that within 60 days of the public hearing the redevelopment and housing authority holds. There is no additional public hearing requirement by the County after the initial finding of need. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is appropriate to discuss this project. Mr. Davis said it is not a land use issue, but a financing issue. Mr. Bowerman said the land use issue is not before the Board,. but he needs to know what this Board wants to do about in-fill. This is an opportu- nity which presented itself to look at the schools and to look at the in-fill policy. He asked staff to provide information about the capacity of the schools. He thinks the Board needs to look at this issue now as it approaches the new in-fill policy and to determine that there are 200 new spaces being added in Woodbrook School in September, 1997. That answers a lot of the issues. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000080 Ms. Humphris said although the Board has stated an in-fill policy, it has established no criteria with which to implement it. Mr. Bowerman said the public is rightfully concerned about whether or not the County is looking at the infrastructure in light of trying to get more development in the urban area as in-fill. He thinks this is a legitimate time to look at the issue. Mr. Marshall said he does not disagree. However, he is concerned about a taking. When an individual owns a piece of property, has owned it for a number of years and paid high taxes based on the zoning of that property, the Board has to be careful about changing the zoning on that property. Mr. Bowerman said that is not before the Board. Mr. Marshall said the people present today believe the Board can actually stop this project from happening. Ms. Humphris said she did not believe that is true. Ms. Thomas suggested listening to those present. Mr. Marshall said those are the types of comments he received by telephone. If this request were not before the Board, the owner could develop the property according to the zoning. If the Board tries to prevent that from happening, the Board will get into a taking of property. Mr. Davis said the action of this Board is not going to stop any by-right action the developer can take. The issue today is only about financing of a bond issuance. If the Board decides not to approve the bond issuance, the applicant can still build the project. Mr. Marshall said staff needs to advise the Board as to whether there is a need for affordable housing in the County. That is what the Board needs to make its decision on. Ms. Humphris said this is a public hearing on the project, and the public has the right to express its opinion on the project no matter what it is they have to say. She thinks everybody understands this is not the subject of a rezoning. It is a subject of timing and method. She thinks the Board should continue the public hearing to the next meeting. It is getting a little clearer as to what this is all about, but the Board does need some advise about the need, etc. Mr. Martin said that is the part that he can't buy into. The Board ~can tap dance" all it wants to, but it has been said over and over again about the need. Mr. Bowerman said the County has a need. Mr. Marshall said it has been presented to the Board many times. Ms. Humphris said she was speaking about for the record, for the minutes. Mr. Martin said "don't bee and haw about the need." That has already been established. Ms. Humphris said she is talking about the legal requirement that the need be established. The need has to be shown and it has not been down. She suggested that the Board do that now. Mr. Bowerman said he is asking the Board's indulgence to look at the broader issue while this is done. Mr. Martin said that is fine. He has no problem with what he is asking the Board to do. Ms. Humphris invited Ms. Ginny McDonald, Housing Coordinator, to speak. Ms. McDonald said she was not prepared to do the needs statement today, but she can summarize. She suggested that the Board look at three documents. In the Fall, there was a housing inventory prepared showing the efforts of the County over the last 15 to 20 years. Shallow subsidy programs all the way to deep subsidy programs were listed. The shallow subsidies were the mortgage revenue tax exempt bond program and the low income housing tax credits. The deep subsidies are the moderate rehabilitation property (Whitewood Village) and the Section 8 existing certificate and voucher program. That document was used to help focus on the housing strategy developed in the April, 1992 Housing Strategy Plan. It stated that by year five of the Plan, there would be a need for 250 additional affordable units. This proposal will help meet that need. Ms. McDonald said the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program began last year at a 79 percent lease rate of 400+ units. It is now at 101 to 106 percent. The Housing office keeps many different statistics and last month the report showed that there were 75 families asking for help. Ms. McDonald said the Fore Property would be a shallow subsidy. It would be identical to Rio Hills (130 units) and Wilton Farms (144 units). Over the past year, these projects have begun accepting the County's Section 8 certificates and vouchers. There are five percent at Rio and 10 percent at Wilton Farms. It would be about the same ratio at the Fore Property. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 000031 Ms. Humphris asked if someone would explain how to satisfy the statement that the County's need can best be remedied through the exercise of the Harrisonburg Authority's power. Ms. McDonald said that was the financing source that Mr. Bourne chose. He could have chosen VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOP- MENT AUTHORITY or another housing authority. Ms. Thomas asked if Wilton Farms provides enough playground space and if it meets the needs of the its residents in the same way this project will. She does not want the County to repeat mistakes if there is a chance to do something better. Ms. McDonald said she and Ms. Bonnie Davies visited Rio Hills and Wilton Farms during this past Summer to talk to them about their programs and needs. Wilton Farms said they wish they had a swimming pool and a larger community center such that the residents could hold larger functions. The same comment was stated at Rio Hills. They also discussed the need for an additional play area. Mr. Martin mentioned that there is also a question about the size of parking facilities. Ms. Thomas asked if the Fore proposal will have a play area, a swimming pool and a meeting room of similar or larger size. Mr. Bourne said that basically they are planning a leasing office and meeting center of approxi- mately 3500 square feet. He believes there will be more public space in their facility. He looked at the two existing tax credit projects. Those projects are clean and well landscaped. There are some totally private apartments that could take some lessons from those two as to being well-designed, well- maintained, and well-kept. In answer to Ms. Thomas's question about the Harrisonburg Authority, he said there are two pots of potential multi-family money. One is through the VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and the other is through the Small Business Finance Department he mentioned earlier. VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY gets most of the money. They don't use private credit enhancers. They do a good job, but they take a very long time to process the application. Fore felt it would be most useful to use the municipal pot of money. They chose the Harrisonburg Authority as the issuer because it has broad experience in being an issuer for other municipalities. They have in-house expertise and in-house legal experience that saves staff time and money for the communities they issue for. Mr. Tucker said that Harrisonburg issued the bonds for Arbor Crest Apartments several years ago. Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Chair for the Albemarle Housing Committee, said the Committee has several reasons for supporting the proposal. The 1992 Housing Report makes it plain that Albemarle County needs to provide 240 affordable units in year five of the plan. The 160 units being discussed do present an opportunity to meet at least a part of that goal at little or no cost to the County. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for in-fill development. When expansion of the growth area was postponed for further study, it was under- stood that in-fill at close to maximum density was one acceptable strategy for meeting the need for affordable housing. According to the proposal, these units will serve families at 60 percent of median income. She said there are rumors around that awe don't want to add more of those kind of children" to the affected schools. This is classic ~nimby" and it was expected. The folks who will move into these apartments are not socio-paths. They are hard- working people who, in a market like the one in Albemarle where there are low wages and high costs, simply do not make enough to compete unassisted in the housing market. That is what has been talked about in all the needs studies. Ms. Lilleleht said that when the Charlottesville Housing Foundation was planning the Monticello Vista Apartments, a lot of people told City Council that Clarke School would go ~straight down the tubes" from the strain of adding those kinds of children to its mix. To the best of her knowledge, Clarke School has not been affected, and no one is fussing any more. She thinks it is nice to be able to do the right thing while doing the smart thing. She urged the Board to do that. With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris said she would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing. Motion was immedi- ately offered by Mr. Bowerman to defer this request until Septeraber 11, 1996. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board was going to set some guidelines on what will be discussed. He appreciates what Ms. Lilleleht said. Ms. Humphris said it is good that the Board has this discussion today. Everybody who hears and reads whatever is reported in the media will under- stand what the issue is now. It is an issue of this Board being asked to September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 0000 2 establish a need for affordable housing in the County which there is no doubt about, and using this method of financing is one which is satisfactory for the Board to do. That is the issue before the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he would have no problem with making a motion that there is a need for the housing. He said the Board can do that today. Mr. Davis said bond counsel would want to have a resolution prepared first. Ms. Humphris said between now and September 11 there will be some paperwork prepared to deal with the very specific questions and approvals before the Board. She said by then everybody should understand what the questions before the Board are. Roi1 was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: At 11:10 a.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:21 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: SUB-95-004, Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat. To create five lots averaging 4.34 acres plus four lots averaging 21.65 acres for a total of nine lots on 110.26 acres to be served by a public road. Located on the south side of Route 637 west of Route 682. Tax Map 73, Parcel 2. Samuel Miller District. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said a plat was provided to Board members showing the relationship of the private road profile to what would be required for a public road, as well as the basic topography of the site. The real issue for the Planning Commission was the driveways to serve two building sites identi- fied as Lots #5 and #6. Those driveways pass through areas of critical slopes, areas where the driveways would require a fair amount of grading and significant disturbance. There was a motion to approve the subdivision plat, but, at the same time, there was a request that approval include a condition limiting the driveway grades to 16 percent. That does not fall under the Purview of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Planning Commission was advised that unless the applicant agreed to that as a voluntary measure, it could not be required as part of subdivision plat approval. The applicant was not willing to limit himself to the 16 percent grade of driveway to the building sites. For that reason, the motion for approval by the Commission, which was seconded, failed by a vote of 2:4. Without that condition, the Commission felt that reasonable access ~as not being provided. Mr. Cilimberg said the public road cul-de-sacing the private access easement continuing to serve these two lots was not an issue for the Commis- sion in its discussion. The Commission realized that aspect of the proposal was being done to provide minimal disturbance on the property. They knew staff suggested to the applicants that they pursue a rural preservation development and try to cluster the lots toward Route 637. The applicants chose not to do that. Mr. Cilimberg said since the action of the Commission, staff has consulted with the County Attorney regarding conditions the applicant ex- pressed concern about. He noted two conditions proposed by the staff for Commission action. Condition #la stated that before final plan approval, "certification on the final plat that the private road and driveways to Lots 5 and 6 will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by Section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code." Condition #ld stated that ~Albemarle County engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, including the grading necessary for construction of the access road and private drives serving the building sites for Lots 5 and 6." Mr. Cilimberg said he understands that for Condition $1a there is a concern about certifying that reasonable access be provided by motor vehicle. There is a question as to whether the County's ordinance really requires that access to the building site be by motor vehicle; it might be allowed that the driveway be cut off at a distance short of the building site and then from that point, access be by foot. As to Condition #1d, at the time of platting September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 0000 3 for the subdivision, there probably will be no construction activity commenc- ing, therefore, to have an Erosion Control Plan at that time for the driveways would be premature. Mr. Cilimberg said staff consulted with the County Attorney and was advised that Condition #la and Condition #ld were not appropriate as part of the subdivision plat conditions without agreement by the applicant. In essence, for this plat to move forward as proposed, staff Conditions #la and ~ld would need to be removed unless the applicants agree to their inclusion. Mr. Davis said the important finding the Commission and this Board needs to make is that there are reasonable building sites on Lots 5 and 6. The Zoning Ordinance refers to an area of at least 30,000 square feet. Sites of 30,000 square feet which are not on slopes of greater than 25 percent have been identified on those lots. The Subdivision Ordinance also requires that these be satisfactory and desirable sites. He thinks that for those building sites to be satisfactory and desirable, there has to be reasonable access to the lots. The Ordinance does not require any particular standards for that access, it does not require that the access be by a driveway or that the lot be accessible by vehicle. The Ordinance does not set standards as to the amount of slope that is acceptable. Mr. Davis said there needs to be enough information provided by the developer on the plans so there can be a finding by this Board that these are acceptable building sites. He does not believe the Board has the authority to require plans for a driveway under the Subdivision Ordinance. The Board needs to rely upon its Engineering staff and other information as to whether or not the building sites are accessible. He does not believe the Board has the authority to require the developer to produce an Erosion Plan for something that is not necessary to be built as part of the subdivision. In this instance, there is no requirement that the driveways be built at the time the subdivision goes forward. Therefore, unless there is an agreement with the developer to show those driveways or that he intends to build them as part of the road construction, Mr. Davis said the Board cannot require an Erosion Control Plan at this time. When those driveways are built, there is authority to require an Erosion Plan. The Engineering and Planning Departments will monitor that situation and at the time the houses are proposed to be built, complete erosion plans will be required. Ms. Thomas asked what this Board needs to do to make sure there is an Erosion Control Plan required when those houses are built. Mr. Davis said the Board can clarify in the record that it wants a full Erosion Control Plan filed for these lots, and that would be exercised by the County at that time. Ms. Thomas said she assumes the definition of reasonable, satisfactory and desirable sites does not include such things as access by fire and safety vehicles. Mr. Davis said those issues are to be considered. Ms. Thomas asked if someone had to walk to the house and there was not reasonable access for fire and safety vehicles, if that is all right. Mr. Davis said he thinks it depends on how far the person has to walk. He thinks that is a factual determination that needs to be made. Ms. Humphris said this is an appeal. She asked Mr. Tucker if this is considered a public hearing. Mr. Tucker said normally the applicant makes comments because they actually appealed the Planning Commission's decision to this Board. Ms. Humphris then asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Greg Baldwin, representing the applicants, said they request approval of the subdivision. They believe that under the existing ordinance it is a by-right subdivision and they met all ordinance criteria for the subdivision. They spent a lot of time and money on plans, submitting two plans to County staff. The final plan is the one that all agreed was the best use for this particular property. As to the question of a rural preservation development, that is something the applicants addressed in the beginning from an economic standpoint. While meeting with County staff, they were advised by Mr. Cilimberg that because they had sold two parcels of land below this property, that it would not be considered for a rural preservation subdivi- sion. That is one of the reasons they came up with this particular plan. Mr. Baldwin said he had nothing further to present, but would be happy to answer questions. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 0000 4 Ms. Thomas said it seems the 16 percent slope of the driveways was of the most concern to the Planning Commissioners. She shares that concern. In reading the minutes that seems to have been regarded as probable, but not something the applicants wanted to be tied to. Mr. Baldwin said the appli- cants showed that a 16 percent driveway could be put into the site, which is the mountainous terrain grade for the Virginia Department of Highways. The applicants will develop the lots and sell them. The existing ordinance does not require them to do that. Since there were no further questions for Mr. Baldwin, Ms. Humphris asked if there was anyone else present who wished to speak. Ms. Sarah Hall said she and her husband own property adjoining the proposed site. She said the Planning Commission did get bogged down on the issue of the driveways. There were also questions about whether the two back lots had adequate building sites. Many of the residents who live in this area are concerned because Route 637 at this point is a narrow, windy, dirt road. It is already used by a lot of traffic going to the Ivy Landfill. These nine houses will add vehicle trips to that road. They see that as a problem. They question the advisability of allowing more houses to be built near the Ivy Landfill when that is already a controversial situation. She thinks that is just asking for more trouble. She understands that Mr. Baldwin has the legal right to do that, but she just wants her remarks included in the record. Mr. Jim Hall said he owns property adjacent to the proposed subdivision. He thinks Section 18-36 of the Ordinance could be used to hold the applicants to a 15 or 16 percent slope because it requires that there be reasonable access to the lots. He encouraged the Board to make that requirement of the applicants. Ms. Humphris said since there were no further comments from the public, the matter is before the Board. Ms. Thomas said it seems the question is one of a definition of "reason- able, satisfactory and desirable." She thinks that could take the Board to the Supreme Court and back again. She asked if the courts have ever deter- mined what reasonable access is, and if the Board has to be satisfied that there is reasonable access to these building sites. Mr. Davis said the Ordinance speaks to two different requirements. One is reasonable access to the lots, and there is no controversy about that. The private accessway goes to the lot. The second question is whether there are satisfactory and desirable building sites. The building sites themselves have been identified. The issue is whether or not there is any standard that the County has articu- lated to get someone from the lot line where the access road ends, to the building site. There are no defined standards for that. He is not aware of any litigation that has ever defined how someone gets from the lot line to the building site. It makes sense that it is not a desirable and satisfactory building site if someone cannot get to it. Mr. Davis said he thinks the issue Ms. Thomas raised about public safety access by the fire department or rescue squad or police department is a reasonable consideration, but there is not a great deal of guidance as to any specific requirement to get to the building site. Historically, the County has not focused on that issue at the subdivision stage. It has been looked at specifically during the building permit stage. If someone can get a cement truck and a building crew to the building site and establish a driveway to their satisfaction, that generally meets the need of the County to be satis- fied that there is a building site. To go beyond that and ensure in the beginning that this is possible, the County is at a loss of having a bright line definition as to what is accessible. Stopping a driveway 40 feet away and then walking up a flight of stairs on a hillside may be accessible to some people and not to others. The County has no bright line standard for what it requires as a minimum. Ms. Thomas asked the definition of "bright line." Mr. Davis said that is something that is very clear. Ms. Humphris said if the County does not have a standard so it can disclaim its obligation to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by saying it does not think there is reasonable access because of safety concerns to this property, what is the Board to do? Mr. Davis said in one respect the Board would be taking a step to protect people from them- selves. There is access to the lots. It is his understanding from the September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 0000 $ Engineering Department that there is a feasible means of getting an acceptable driveway to the building site. It is physically possible to do that. The only question is whether or not the people who choose to develop the lots will choose to make the driveway accessible in that fashion to the lot. Someone could design a 16 percent driveway physically, but they may choose to have a 25 percent driveway, or they may choose to leave it short of the building site because that is the way they want to develop the lot. The County does not have anything in place now to require someone to actually build it the way the subdivider would propose. Ms. Thomas said basically the Board cannot do what the Planning Commis- sion proposed. Mr. Davis said the County does not have the authority under current zoning or subdivision law to require that a driveway be built with no more than the 16 percent slope. The County does not even have the authority, under existing ordinances, to require that a driveway be built. Ms. Thomas said she has been the liaison person representing this Board on the Mountain Protection Committee. She has become more aware of what some of the driveways in the County look like and what dangers there are for the safety vehicles using them. Also, how ugly they are. She would love to stamp the plat with "don't you dare duplicate what others have done", but it looks like there is no legal way to require approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. She said Mr. Davis had indicated to her earlier that there is a way the Board can make it clear to staff that it wants the applicant to have a plan and not just a sketch at the time the lots are utilized. She asked how the Board would do that. Mr. Davis said he believes that has already been accomplished. There is clear attention now on this subdivision by the Engineering Department, unless it slips through the cracks. Ms. Thomas asked how the Board can make sure it does not slip through the cracks since the lots may not be developed for 15 years. Mr. Davis said Mr. Cilimberg can answer that question. Mr. Cilimberg said a building permit is applied for through the Zoning Inspections Department. Staff goes to the files that exist for subdivision approval. They reference Action Letters for requirements that are part of that subdivision's approval. In this case, when a permit is submitted for either Lot 5 or Lot 6, staff would review the subdivision approval to see if there were any particular aspects required for issuance of the building permit. This is a case of people checking files, and he cannot guarantee what might happen in 10 years, but that is the procedure that is in place at this time. Ms. Humphris asked what would happen if the person who bought the lot did not know this was in the file, and not know there were these requirements on the lot. Mr. Cilimberg asked if a note to this effect could be included on the plat as a requirement of final plat approval. Mr. Davis said if the applicant does not object, a note could be included on the plat. Ms. Humphris asked the pleasure of the Board. Ms. Thomas said she is sorry to take so much time because it must seem like a small subdivision to a lot of people It is because she has been a member of the Mountain Protection Committee that she is so aware of the problems with developing on steep slopes. She agrees with the comments made about the Landfill's impact, but that is a psychological factor. Route 637 is in the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Plan and will be improved in the foreseeable future. Her concern is that there are reasonable building sites, but the County's engineers and other engineers have said there are reasonable, satisfactory and desirable building sites. That places experts against experts and she does not see how the Board can do anything different. She does not want to make the motion to approve this plat. Her heart is not in it, but to make sure all the conditions come out the way she wants them to read, she moved approval of the Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat (SUB-95-004) with the conditions recommended by staff exempting the words "by motor vehicle" in Condition #la. Mr. Davis recommended that instead, the words ~and driveways to Lots 5 and 6" be deleted from Condition #la. He said there is a need to require certification on the plat that the private road provides access by motor vehicle as required by Section 18-36. Ms. Thomas asked if it is correct that there is no enabling legislation and the County's ordinance does not allow the Board to put in the words '~driveways." Mr. Davis said that is correct. 0000 6 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) Ms. Humphris said Condition #la will then read: "Certification on the final plat that the private road to Lots 5 and 6 will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by Section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code." Ms. Thomas said that Condition #ld concerning the Erosion and Sediment Control requirement should be applied at the time of development of those two lots, 5 and 6, as opposed to something being required at this time. Mr. Davis said that is correct. That condition would still require the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the construction of the access road, but not the private driveways. Also, Ms. Thomas said she would add a note that an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Lots 5 and 6 be requested at the time the driveways are built. Mr. Cilimberg suggested adding that language to Condition #2 which notes already that use of the private access easement is restricted to Lots 5 and 6. Language can be added that an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted at the time of development of Lots 5 and 6. Ms. Thomas said that protects the County somewhat from irrational development in the sense of erosion and sediment control. That seems to be all that the Board can do. At this point, Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The conditions of approval, as recommended by Planning Staff in their report to the Commission, and amended in the above motion, are set out in full below.) Final plat approval will be subject to Albemarle County Engineering approval of all final plat requirements and the following conditions [Each item is preceded by the applicable reference to the Zoning Ordinance, unless oth- erwise specified.]; so [18.36., Table A] Certification on the final plat that the private road to Lots 5 and 6 will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by Section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code. b° [18-55(m), Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. Details, computa- tions and all applicable state and federal permits will be required for the proposed stream crossing to Lots 5 and 6. [Runoff Control Ordinance 19.1-6.f.] Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a runoff control per- mit. [18-55(m), 18-52(k), Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance] Albemarle County engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, including the grading necessary for construction of the access road serving the building sites for Lots 5 and 6. eo [Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval of final public road plans and drainage computations, including improvements within the existing right-of- way. fo [18-55(m), Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Albemarle County Engineering approval of final pub- lic road plans. [18-19, Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Roads built and/or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 000087 [WRPA Ordinance] Water Resource Manager's approval of the WRPA buffer limits. The manager has re- quested the notation ~100' WRPA Setback" be changed to "100' WRPA Buffer and Building and Septic Set- back;" Note that the use of the private access easement is re- stricted to Lots 5 and 6 and that an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan be required at the time of building permit approval for construction of the driveways for Lots 5 and 6; 3. Health Department approval; and County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private access easement. Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: SDP-96-052, Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan. To construct 60 one-bedroom units and six two-bedroom units on 4.96 acres zoned R-15. Located at the end of Colonnade Drive on the south side of Route 250 West. Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C(8). Jack Jouett District. (Site recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 du/ac in the Comprehensive Plan). Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is an example of in-fill development. The site is just below the Albemarle County Service Authority's (ACSA) water tank on Lewis Mountain. There is underground parking proposed for this development of two buildings and one office all in one interconnected structure. There is also some at- grade parking in front of the apartment buildings. The application meets on- site parking requirements. This proposal does require disturbance of critical slopes on the property. There is also a retaining wall proposed on the rear side of the apartment buildings. Mr. Cilimberg said a preliminary site plan for this site was approved in May, 1990. A waiver for critical slopes was granted at that time. Currently, the plan under review is a slightly more compact development than the previ- ously approved plan. The plan did go to the Planning Commission for the same waiver, but for a slightly different development proposal somewhat lower on the mountain where the applicant felt they could best meet the needs, provide proper access, and yet, avoid, as much as possible, critical slopes on the higher elevations of the parcel. The Commission, in reviewing this proposal, was advised that the Engineering Department felt the critical slopes waiver could be granted. Mr. Cilimberg said there was some discussion of the aesthetic impact. The property is near to and somewhat visible from Route 250, but it is not in the Entrance Corridor. It does not fall into the EC Overlay District cate- gory. Due to the Commission's concern about the aesthetic effect, they denied the critical slopes waiver. It was appealed, and is now before the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said staff asked the Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Design Planner to look at the site from Route 250 West and to provide comments about aesthetics. The Planner commented that there would be elements of the development visible from Route 250 and suggested that to mitigate the tree removal, it would be helpful to plant trees in locations around the parking, travelways and in front of the building. There will be the normal landscape requirements imposed on the plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff knew the site exceeded the 700-foot elevation which is identified in the Open Space Plan as a guideline in Mountain Protec- tion provisions. The 700-foot elevation runs through the middle of the buildings. It is also in an area that the Lewis Mountain Study recognized as a wooded, higher ridge area on which protection should be provided during the development process. He said the Commission did not approve the critical slopes waiver, and so it was appealed to this Board with a request that the waiver be granted. Should the Board grant that waiver, the plan should be returned to the Commission for action. They did not actually take any action on the site plan itself. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000088 (Page 30) With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Ms. Humphris asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Ed Bain was present to represent the applicants. He gave to the Board a sketch showing the overall building and landscaping, and to show the existing driveway on the property. He said this is R-15 property and has been zoned that way for a long time. He said the contract purchaser of the property wants to develop it to the allowable density in a way that will work. The critical slopes provisions have been in the ordinance for a long time, but in reality, on a property such as this, the County is telling the owner of the property that if he cannot obtain a waiver for the critical slopes, he can't develop to R-15 as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bain said there are two waivers involved with this request. The second waiver has to do with the grade. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission did not take any action on the access aisle grade. Mr. Davis interjected that he had read the Commission's minutes, and they did deny the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said they did that because they could not approve the site plan without a waiver. Mr. Davis said the entire package is before the Board this morning. Mr. Bain asked if legally there are two waivers that need to be approved. Mr. Davis said "yes." Mr. Bain said the second waiver has to do with the driveway. The parking lots themselves are at the grade they need to be on under the site plan ordinance. Part of the driveway as it comes in is showing a 12 percent grade. A waiver is needed because the maximum allowed is less than the 12 percent. He said there is an existing drive that serves the tower. They recognize that will only be used by the Albemarle County Service Authority to get to the water tank. That driveway now, in certain sections, is already at a 15 to 18 percent grade. Part of that driveway going past the building is proposed to be at 20 percent for a shorter stretch. The residents will not use it. There is no need for them to go beyond the back edge of that building, so the applicants are willing to put up a gate. Mr. Bain said on the previous development plan, the staff noted that 50 percent of the critical slopes would be invaded. This current proposal pulls the development down on the property so only 21 or 22 percent of the critical slopes will be affected. Of that, a substantial percentage is because of the road serving the water tanks, which road is there now, but it is gravel. To meet pavement requirements, runoff control measures must be utilized. There is some parking on both ends of the building, but the rest of it is under the building. Approximately 50 percent of the parking is underneath and that leaves as much space as possible to serve the trees and tree line that are on the property and will continue to be there. Mr. Bain then passed around some photographs to show what is on the property at this time. The applicants cannot say the buildings will not be seen when constructed, but over a period of time with the trees that will be required, little of it will be seen. The tops of the buildings will be less than the top of the water tank above them. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 12:07 p.m.) The top of LeWis Mountain is at 850 to 875 feet. The top elevation of the building is at about 735 feet. They are in the 700-foot range the Mountain Protection Committee is looking at, but given what is being attempted on this property, all that can be done for R-15 development has been done. Mr. Bain asked that both waivers be granted. He said David Anhold will speak about some of the particulars of the development plan as related to these two waivers. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 12:10 p.m.) Mr. Anhold said he is with the Cox Company, the engineers and landscape architects for the project. They have approached this project as being on a very difficult site. They tried to be as innovative and creative as possible given the circumstances of the architecture and the physical site itself. He said that R-15 zoning would allow 75 units to be built, but they are building only 66. Although there will be 60 one-bedroom units, it does not mean that the unit needs only one parking space. That alone is a bold move given the apartment market in Charlottesville. Also, having the parking deck under the building as the base layer is something else that allows the development to stay off of the slopes. It will be one building from a visual standpoint as September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 0000 9 it will be under the same roof. The building itself has three different sections. It is designed in such a manner as to work with the contours. The wings will run with the contour in order to minimize the amount of cut and fill work required. The building was pulled down the slope to stay off of the critical slopes. There is a fairly major retaining wall behind the building which creates an open space, courtyard area. The wall will go from ten feet down to three feet in height. Currently, the whole site is wooded with trees from 40 to 50 feet tall. By placing the building behind those trees it allows a nice visual buffer even before getting into required landscaping, etc. He said it is currently a difficult site to access. They are realigning the bottom portion of that existing road, but by the time the road reaches their building site it gets back on the same alignment that presently exists. They will have to change the grades some. The road is to be asphalt paving. From a stormwater management standpoint, they will catch all of the stormwater in the parking lots and put it into underground pipes and then slowly release it. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Bain said the 15 to 18-foot grade there now runs for about 300 feet, so that is being shortened in the back of the building. That section is only to be used by the ACSA itself. Finally, after reading the Planning Commission minutes and seeing how they struggled with this decision, he thinks all aspects of the proposal have been looked at by the applicants. To do a development that will work, given that it is an R-15 property, significant attention has been given to the proposal. He said the applicants ask that the Board grant the waivers. Mr. David Benloin (name spelt phonetically) said he did not come to speak against this proposal. He realizes that on the previous request involving critical slopes the Board did not have a choice but to approve it, but they are called ~critical slopes." Maybe the Board should use this as an opportunity to deny it. He said the designer explained that 60 one-car parking spaces will not be enough. He has been a University student and had two or three cars at his apartment house at one time. He said the Board needs to imagine the problems there will be on the site. He thinks the Board has an opportunity because of the designation of critical slopes to deny this request, and he thinks the Board should. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Bain had mentioned that the drive up to the water tank had to be paved. What necessitates that? Mr. Cilimberg said whatever would be done would be required through the Engineering Department when reviewing the accessway. The grade is expected to be about 12 percent. Ten percent is the maximum grade under the ordinance. Ms. Thomas said she thought it was to be 20 percent. Mr. Bain said that is at the top and Mr. Cilimberg is talking about below the buildings. At the top, if it is not required, they will not pave it. If it is what the ACSA wants, that is fine. Ms. Claudia Paine, Senior Planner, said they are talking about a 12 percent grade on the access aisle below. There would be a condition as part of the waiver reading: ~Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the access road and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank." The ACSA will be overseeing any changes that are made on that road. Mr~ Cilimberg said the ACSA wants to be sure they have adequate access. In looking at that, there will be a review by the County Engineering Depart- ment of the number of trips, the actual grade, and the drainage requirements. Without having a representative from Engineering present today, he cannot say it will be a paved road. The ACSA may actually need that to get to their water tank. Ms. Thomas said the ACSA does not have a paved road now. She is asking questions because it seems a large part of the critical slope work is being required by the ACSA. She asked if the ACSA's request requires disturbing critical slopes that would not need to be disturbed except for construction of a new road. Mr. Cilimberg said there has to be a grade in that area which can be navigated. The width on that grade will dictate the kind of cut slopes to be made into the current natural lay of the land. In bringing the road up to its current location, part of the roadway and some of the cut that is already established will be used. Additional grading activity is associated with cutting that road through the hillside. He does not believe that is a significant factor in the overall disturbance of the critical slopes. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 000090 Mr. Perkins asked if the developer will be required to blacktop the road to the property line and not past where the ACSA property begins. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not sure. The Engineering Department will have a say in what is done. He expects that the asphalt will carry through the parking area and through the access to the parking under the buildings. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to point out the area of building construction that is on the critical slopes. Mr. Cilimberg showed the areas on the map posted on the wall. Mr. Marshall said the critical slopes were referred to as being in pockets. Mr. Cilimberg said there are many areas with 25 percent or greater grade. There may be a difference of 22 or 23 percent versus 25 percent in certain areas. There are no significant flat areas on the property. Mr. Perkins asked if the developer can be required to extend the blacktop onto the ACSA's property if the ACSA wants that. Mr. Cilimberg said there is one condition which states: "Albemarle County Service Authority approval of relocation of access road to water tanks and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank." He said the ACSA is going to make sure they have an easement across that parking area. Ms. Thomas said she thinks this proposal supplies a needed type of housing, and it is within walking distance to the University. This is a better plan than the previous plan. The under building parking is good, but the development is a big intrusion into critical slopes. That is her dilemma. Ms. Humphris said that is also her dilemma. It is the needed kind of housing in a good place, except that it does disturb a large amount of critical slopes, 22 percent of the proposal would be built on critical slopes. She said that is too much critical slope to be disturbed even though engineers have said that can be dealt with. There are bound to be erosion problems when disturbing that much of the site. She said the Lewis Mountain Study says this mountain is the most prominent feature in the area and the slopes are visible from a great distance. That has to be a prime concern. The Board has been mindful that disturbance of significant wooded areas and critical slopes should be minimized. She went to look at the site but was not able to tell what the view would be from a distance. She believes all are aware of things that have happened around the County that one might wish had not been allowed because they are such a negative feature on the landscape. For the most part, the trees are deciduous so she could not tell what would be seen in the wintertime when the leaves are off of the trees and after the site has been cleared. Ms. Thomas asked if anyone could do a ~floating balloon" test or anything that would give the Board a better idea of what would actually be seen. Ms. Humphris said that was done when the ACSA requested to put their water tanks there. That was a good way to resolve that question. Now, if the Board allows this development, it might be a bad surprise when it is con- structed. She feels the project could be designed so it does not disturb so much of the critical slope. She thinks the Board needs to know what it will look like visually and aesthetically from a distance away. Mr. Marshall asked how long this property has been zoned R-15. Mr. Tucker said he believes the zoning has been on the property since the major revision to the Zoning Ordinance in 1980. He believes it may have been there prior to that date, maybe since the inception of zoning in the County in 1969. Mr. Marshall said the owners have been paying taxes on the R-15 rate all of this time. Ms. Humphris said in spite of what Mr. Bain said, she does not believe that should be the factor that determines what good sense allows to be built on the property. The Board should be concerned about the critical slopes, the aesthetics and the preservation of that neighborhood and all the surrounding area. It is visible from a great distance, and the County has had bad experiences with approving things when the Board did not know what they would look like. She thinks it would be backwards to make a decision based on what the zoning is. The decision should be based on the County's guidelines for critical slopes for protection of the environment. Mr. Marshall asked what Ms. Humphris thinks is the best use of this land under an R-15 zoning category. Ms. Humphris said that is not what she is to decide. She is to decide if this particular proposal should be allowed to September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (page 33) 000091 have a waiver. Mr. Marshall said the Board is looking at this project as opposed to another project. What other project might go there? It is a valuable piece of property. Ms. Humphris said that is true, but she believes the project could be designed better to take into consideration these con- cerns. Mr. Bowerman said he believes that any proposal has different alterna- tives in terms of its design. He does not believe it can be both ways. He does not thinks the Board can accomplish what it wants to accomplish in the urban area without looking at ~the big picture." The Board will be faced with the same criteria for any difficult site in the urban area that comes before it or the Commission. He thinks the Board can work to make an in-fill development concept work, or it can work to make the infill development concept not work. It seems to him that it is like trying to squeeze a balloon into a paper bag. It goes in one way and it pops out somewhere else. If growth is to be kept out of the rural areas, the Board will have to look seriously at doing some things that in the past were inconsistent with its policies. Look at San Francisco. It is a nice town. There can be attractive things on steeper slopes. The developers have to have a certain number of lots in order to make a development economically feasible. If the development is approved for a lesser number, it will not be done and that is counter to what is trying to be accomplished. The Board has to be willing to look at each site and figure out a way to make it work. The only thing he has heard from Ms. Humphris is a concern with visibility. It seems to him that some of the ~really bad things" being discussed are painted white, they stick out. This project does not have to be white, it can be earth-toned. There can be things done architecturally, even with paint, to make this project much less intrusive. That is the type of thing the Board should be discussing. Ms. Thomas asked is something which is looked at during another phase of development, or is this the time to do that. Mr. Davis said the Board has an opportunity in granting a modification to impose conditions that protect the public interest, conditions that are related to the modification. To the extent that aesthetics are a part of the criteria the Board considers, this would be an appropriate time to set up a condition requiring that review by someone the Board delegated to do so with standards and guidelines. Ms. Thomas asked if the project could be included under Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. Could that be one of the Board's conditions, that this be considered as if it were within the distance from the highway that would put it into an Entrance Corridor? Mr. Davis said the Board could say the plan has to meet ARB approval for landscaping and building color. He does not believe it could be delegated to a complete ARB review. For the features that affect visibility from Route 250, that could be delegated to the ARB. The condition would be: UA landscaping and design plan to lessen visibility from Route 250 approved by the ARB." Mr. Bowerman asked if that is something the staff of the ARB could deal with. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks they could. They already have comments about what type of landscaping would be appropriate. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it would be a good idea. Mr. Perkins said he agrees with what Mr. Bowerman has said. One thing the slope provides is the underground parking. If this were a level site, there would be twice as many parking lots. He thinks parking lots are a waste of land. That feature is a plus for this project. Ms. Humphris said her concern was mentioned by a member of the public about the amount of parking that will be provided. A one-bedroom apartment does not assure a one-car apartment. Ms. Thomas said she did not go along with the Planning Commission's thinking to reduce the amount of parking. She thought that was wrong. What should be reduced is the number of times these people get in their cars and use them. One of the problems in this area is that the landowners have never gotten together to deal with the question of how the residents walk or bicycle to the University. There are several landowners in the area that just don't work together to get a gated path that is good for walking and nothing else. Walking is a natural thing to do in this area, so walkers usually trespass on a lot of people's properties. Mr. Cilimberg said the parking requirement is not one space per unit, but one and one-half spaces per single unit or one- bedroom unit. Two spaces are required for a two-bedroom unit. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) OOO092 Ms. Thomas said she shares Mr. Bowerman's comments about what has to be done about in-fill. This is a test case in many ways. It is an awkward site and yet it is the right type of housing in the right place for the University. It would also provide traffic reduction, which is also a concern of hers. This is a good area for traffic reduction strategies. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board is at a point where a motion is needed. He believes wholeheartedly with what Ms. Thomas just said. This housing is needed in a location where it will provide the least impact to the community traffic wise. The Board does need to protect critical slopes. He asked how to word the motion to say that the buildings visible from Route 250 to be built of earth tones. Mr. Cilimberg said it is part of the critical slopes waiver approval. Mr. Davis said the motion would be to approve the site plan and grant the two waivers requested, with a condition on the critical slopes waiver that there be a landscaping and building color plan approved by the Architectural Review Board to address visibility from Route 250. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be one of the two waivers for the critical slopes. Staff suggested another regarding fencing. There is also a need to include in the waiver of the access aisle the one condition for ACSA approval, and then there are the staff's recommended conditions of the site plan approval. Ms. Thomas said she does not want the ACSA to be the reason why even more critical slope is disturbed and something grander than necessary is built. She asked if the Board needs to give the ACSA that direction formally. The condition says "as long as it meets their approval" which makes it seem like the Board does not care, when it does care. She thinks the Board should hold the ACSA to higher standards than it would hold a private developer. Ms. Humphris asked how the Board would achieve that. She does not think the Board can give the ACSA directions. Mr. Davis said he thinks that is something the Engineering staff and the Planning Staff would determine. The reason for the paving is that the developer has to negotiate an easement with the ACSA and that is a requirement the ACSA put on them. There is a need to find out why the ACSA feels that is necessary. That can be resolved at the final site plan stage between staff and the ACSA. Mr. Tucker said there may be a reason the ACSA is looking at paving. There are maintenance costs and also erosion occurring that has to be continually maintain. Ms. Thomas said she wants to share the Board's concern with the ACSA so it is not just being shared with the developer. Mr. Cilimberg said that in reality, the waiver of the access aisle grade with the condition for ACSA approval is simply saying the ACSA has the opportunity to say it approved the easement, the location and the way the access road is being proposed. If the ACSA required something of the developer which staff felt was totally out of line, the developer would not be able to meet the condition, and the plan would come back to this Board at that point. Ms. Humphris said if there were no further discussion, the Clerk would call the roll, on the following motion, which had been seconded by Mr. Bowerman. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The conditions of approval of SDP-96-052, Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan read as follows.) 1. Waiver for Critical Slopes: Planning Department approval of a fence to be installed on top of the retaining wall along the rear of the building. Fence shall be of a design to prevent access from the western, on top, side of the wall to the eastern side of the wall which will sit at a lower elevation. 2. Waiver for Access Aisle Grades: Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the access road and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul- de-sac to the water tank. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 000093 3. Conditions of the Approval of SDP-96-052: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions are obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: bo ho j o ko oo qo The plans shall be sealed, signed, and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor with a 3(b) license, or landscape architect licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) ap- proval of plans and drainage computations. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Albemarle County Engineering approval of detention plans and computations. Albemarle County Engineering approval of retaining wall plans and computations. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of recordation of a County Standard Stormwater Manage- ment/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater management facilities. Zoning Department approval of recreation facilities as specified in Section 4.16.2.1. Applicant shall submit to the Zoning Department documentation of building heights sufficient to ascertain that zoning district height limitations are met. Submit documentation to the Zoning Department that building separations meet zoning district require- ments as specified in Sections 18.6 and 4.11.3. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of letter of intent to negotiate from owners of any off-site easements necessary for the development of the prop- erty. Planning Department approval of landscape plan. Planning Department approval of fence to be in- stalled on top of retaining wall on western side of buildings. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of relo- cation of access road to water tanks and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final construction drawings for water and sewer. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of de- tailed demand information relating to the domestic water requirements and expected residual pressures under flow conditions. Approval of a landscaping and building color plan by the Architectural review Board to address visibility from Route 250. Ms. Humphris said the Board is running extremely late hearing agenda items. Everything else on the agenda will need to be postponed until after 2:00 p.m. Mr. Tucker noted that there are many citizens present for Agenda Item No. 13, citizen recommendations for growth management. Ms. Humphris said the Board would go ahead and hear this item before adjourning for lunch. She asked that someone inform those waiting to be interviewed for appointment to boards and commissions that the Board is running behind schedule. Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Citizen Recommendations for Growth Management. Mr. Tom Loach said he is present to represent the Albemarle Neighborhood Association. It is a new name to some, but the organization is actually moving into its second year, and many of the Board members have attended and 000094 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) participated in their meetings. The organization was started to address the increasing concerns of various communities and neighborhoods that exist in Albemarle County. There has been input from representatives of over 20 communities and neighborhoods covering the County from Carrsbrook to Crozet and from Ivy to Earlysville. He wants to present a proposal that represents the efforts of their committee on growth and development and which has been approved by the membership for presentation before this Board. Mr. Loach said this proposal comes as a response not only to the County growth rate of over two percent, which means a potential doubling of the population in just 34 years, but also to the new realities of the UREF decision. The Albemarle Neighborhood Association gave the UREF decision considerable time and attention. After hearing data from all sides, one constant appeared from everybody including UREF. That was the fact that UREF would be in addition to the already increasing growth rate by the addition of 3.0 million square feet of industrial development. Although the representa- tion of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association is comprised mainly from the growth areas, they recognize that future growth pressure will not be limited to the growth area alone and will surely spill over into the rural areas. For that reason, their proposal is broad-based and includes elements covering both the rural and growth areas. It is consistent with the goal of maintaining the rural character as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Loach said the specifics of the proposal are: 1) Limit speculative development. Ail rezonings, regardless of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and changes to the Compre- hensive Plan allowing more intensive uses shall be considered only if accompanied by a detailed staff report and analysis of a) undeveloped land already zoned for the proposed use. The proposed development should be analyzed in terms of maximum square footage allowed by right for nonresidential development and the number of dwelling units allowed by right for residential development, and b) the projected demand for the proposed use based on current population projections and relevant employment data. The main thrust of this item is to look at the supply versus demand poten- tial of the requested rezoning. If there is already land and/or commercial inventory available for the proposed use, the proposed use must be viewed with a very critical eye. The County cannot afford to move to a mentality "if you built it, they will come." The land must be treated as a limited resource rather than an unlimited commodity. 2) Develop a program to enable the County to purchase development rights of rural property. The purchase of development rights program shall target the permanent protection of selected areas of prime farmland, critical habitat to insure bio-diversity, environ- mentally sensitive land and green belts for greenways in the growth areas. Funding would not necessarily come from a general tax increase, but could come from additional revenues from tourist-based taxes. Clearly it costs far less to maintain rural land than to develop it. This program can be viewed as spending a little now to save a lot later. 3) Reduce commercial speculation in the rural areas by phasing annually the existing development rights per owner. Currently, the landowner can develop all of the lot rights at once. Farms consisting of more than one parcel of record can generate enough small lot rights to create large subdivisions. This practice tends to push farmland into the residential housing market. In Augusta, Orange and Madison counties, owners of land zoned for agricultural use can divide a limited number of lots over a few years. Look at the results of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission which shows that there are over 57,000 lots that could be created under current regulations to realize the potential protection against the rapid loss of rural land this measure could provide. 4) Increase the size of rural lots from 21 to at least 42 acres. According to the Board-appointed Agricultural and Forestal Indus- tries Support Committee, forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The Comprehensive Plan identifies agri- culture and forestry as the two primary uses of rural acreage, yet September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 000095 the 21-acre parcel size leads to tracts too small to manage efficiently and economically as forests. 5) Support the principles embodied in the recommendation of the County's Mountain and Historic Preservation Committees in order to protect important natural and man-made resources. While still awaiting the final report of these two committees, the Albemarle Neighborhood Association committee's decision was to support the work of the two committees and is consistent with the majority of County residents who overwhelmingly supported imposing regulations to preserve the appearance and character of highly visible moun- tains and ridges, and the 91 percent support for protecting the historic sites and buildings as shown in the 1994 County survey. 6) Hire a nationally-recognized consultant experienced in neighbor- hood desiqn to work directly with neiqhborhoods and a steering committee to develop detailed graphic plans for in-fill in new communities. With the assistance of the steering committee, the consultant will develop strategies for implementing the community plans which are consistent with State law. Based upon the consul- tant's recommendation, the County will establish guidelines to be used in determining the impact of residential and nonresidential development on each of the communities and neighborhoods within those communities. The plan will: a) develop and retain neigh- borhood character and identity for each of the communities; b) indicate appropriate areas for in-fill development including the type and density; c) indicate overall patterns of use; d) reflect the cultural and landscape heritage of Central Virginia and the Piedmont; e) incorporate natural features; f) delineate outside boundaries for communities which shall be protected by established greenbelts; g) indicate the relationship of development to exist- ing and projected infrastructure as needed to serve the community over the next 20 years, including utilities, roads, parks, green- ways, schools, and identify the infrastructural limits to growth; and h) illustrate the preliminary community design concepts for key areas within each growth area. Mr. Loach said there is general agreement within the communities and neighborhoods that support the goals of preserving the rural character of the County. He believes the battle to maintain the rural character will be fought and won in the growth areas. To fight the battle, there will need to be in place an in-fill process that will not just be acceptable, but be championed by the communities and neighborhoods. The type of in-fill development needed will not be easy to be implemented. He will not tell the Board that for most residents the words ~high density" should be spelled with four letters. Developers are reluctant to change the pattern of large-lot, cul-de-sac developments which have been highly successful in the local market. Both groups will ask the County to not only prove that better in-fill techniques can work, but will also say ~show me", and that is where their committee feels there is need for a consultant with considerable design experience. There is evidence that the in-fill process can work, and one need only look at the Kellytown development in Charlottesville which was a cooperative effort between the community, the developer, and Professor Maurice Cox of the University of Virginia. Mr. Loach said that lastly, a consultant is needed to help develop design standards for new growth areas that may be needed in the future. The consultant would not choose the location for the new development but use information obtained by working with residents and reviewing work already done through the County survey, visioning forms and Sustainability Council to provide a look at that future. Once the extent of new growth is identified, as well as what vision the residents of the County want for the future, it will be easier to identify the locations for these new growth areas. It is the hope of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association that the Board of Supervi- sors will forward their proposal to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Mr. Loach said he would like to thank all the members of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association committee and those who gave invaluable input into this proposal. For all of those who agree with the proposal, he will say ~join with us." He then asked all of those persons present who support the position of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association to stand. (Note: The majority of those present in the room stood.) For those who disagree with the September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Pa~e 38) 000096 Albemarle Neighborhood Association, Mr. Loach invited them to enter a dialogue that will lead to makin~ Albemarle a better place to live. The Albemarle Neighborhood Association believes that 9ood people with ~ood intentions will produce ~ood results, and that is the spirit with which they submit their proposal. Ms. Humphris said all here today were present at a 9ood time to see the Board's need for criteria for in-fill and a lot of professional 9uidance in doin9 all the things the Board has to do. It is obvious from what Mr. Loach has reported, how many minds participated in 9ivin9 that kind of input. That was obviously not the work of just one person or even a few people, but a whole lot of people. Next to speak was Ms. Katherine Hobbs from the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters. She said the League has lon9 been concerned that development is ever movin9 outward creatin9 sprawl that produces pressure on the basis cultural, historical and natural resources and threatens the vision for Albemarle County that citizens have repeatedly said they want. Therefore, the League supports the proposal of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association as a step toward reevaluatin9 the 9rowth management plan so it better serves the County's long-range 9oals. The League urges the Board to send it to the Plannin9 Commission for consideration and action. Ms. Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council, said that over the past two years, the County has asked citizens what they expect from plannin9 in Albemarle. The answer has been loud and clear. In the public opinion poll conducted by the University's Center for Survey Research, citizens said they want plannin9 that protects water quality, the natural beauty, farmland and the County's history. Most of them also want a slower rate of ~rowth. Ms. Thorpe said concerns about the rural areas and natural resources emerged again durin9 the public meetings held throughout the County as part of the Comprehensive Plan review. Sixty-eight percent of the participants said the County should protect its rural resources a99ressively through voluntary techniques, existin9 or new regulations and acquisition; 80 percent favored a mountain protection program; and, 53 percent said that residential development in the rural areas was not restricted enough. Ms. Thorpe said often these values 9et lost in the day-to-day review and approval of rezonin9 applications and subdivision plats. PEC has heard senior plannin9 officials discount the value of these findings because the findings are abstract. PEC believes that is precisely their strength. These results tell what the average citizen, without an axe to 9rind or a specific project to laud or oppose, believes. That is why most think it is time, in post-UREF Albemarle, to be proactive and present plannin9 measures which reflect these values which are surfacin9 time and time a~ain. These recommendations treat the rural and 9rowth areas as two equally important parts of one healthy community. They will help insure that the residential neighborhoods are attractive and stable and surrounded by a significant amount of open space, farmland, forests and undeveloped mountains. PEC asks that the Board endorse in principle the recommendations of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association and forward the recommendations to the Plannin9 Commission for further analysis and consideration. Mr. Reuben Hitchcock said he was present to speak for the Southwest Mountains Coalition. The Board is truly the 9uardians of the County. The Board has a chance (maybe the last chance) now, to keep Albemarle County lookin9 as it does. There are a lot of people in the room today with a lot of know how who are eager to work with the Board. He thinks the County is at a point of commitment, as the 9rowth rate is beginnin9 to escalate dramatically. It is a 9eometric progression and he thinks the proposal by the Albemarle Neighborhood Association is a 9ood startin9 point. There are a 9ood number of thinkin9 people who would be 91ad to help and staff committees for the Board. Ms. Karen Dame was present to speak for the Board of Directors of Citizens for Albemarle. She said that for the last quarter century, Citizens for Albemarle has sought natural resource preservation and conservation through addressin9 the rural/urban land use dynamic. Recently, they have been involved in the current Comprehensive Plan process and have made proposals related to it. A few months ago, Citizens brought to the Board a proposal for creation of a citizen advisory committee to study 9rowth area design issues. Later this year, Citizens will propose methods for a much needed survey of the County's critical biological resources. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 00009? Ms. Dame said the proposal from members of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association seeks to ~reduce commercial residential development in the rural area, permanently protect selected areas of prime farmland and wildlife habitat, encourage better designed, attractive and more compact villages and communities and encourage phased development of commercial, industrial and residential growth." Citizens for Albemarle enthusiastically supports these goals. Ms. Dame said Citizens for Albemarle asks the Board to commit itself philosophically to permanent protection of the elements of the rural areas that deserve to be lasting features of the way of life in Albemarle County. Some examples of these elements are specifically stated in the Albemarle Neighborhood Association's proposal. Citizens for Albemarle asks that the Board charge the Planning Commission and Planning staff to fully examine these possibilities during the remaining phases of the Comprehensive Plan update. Citizens also asks the Board to acknowledge that new initiatives for rural areas protection and progressive planning for high-density urban areas will require dedication of new financial resources, and to take the necessary steps toward that funding. Citizens is pleased that members of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association have become active in the planning process, and believes their participation signals that delaying decisions on the ultimate land use mix of Albemarle County cannot be delayed. The County is at a crossroads that demands courageous far-reaching decision-making. The Board can either meander a passive path to maximum build-out, or boldly realize the often affirmed vision in which walkable, liveable neighborhoods exist within surroundings that permanently remain green and open. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to encourage Citizens for Albemarle, when it undertakes an analysis of critical resources, to do that with the Sustainability Council. It seems like a natural fit. That is one thing the Council has already looked at. Mr. Scott Peyton said it is urgent that the Board take positive and well-defined measures to protect the natural resources of Albemarle County. He speaks about agricultural lands, open spaces, forests, water and quality of air. These resources in combination are a part of what attracts new people to this area. They are a large part of what nourishes those who are already here. These resources are all, in some measure, in jeopardy. He mentioned visiting Colorado this summer with his family. Farming having been his livelihood for the last 20 years, he is inquisitive about how farmers in different parts of the country ply their trade. In beautiful Colorado, as he traveled about, he noticed a lack of field crops and livestock. While talking to several ranchers in particular, he questioned why there was not an active level of agriculture. He found that as a result of several back-to-back years of drought, a number of farmers and landowners had actually sold their water rights to the City of Los Angeles. He was aghast. The irony was that due to a drought, they had sold water resources in perpetuity as an only means available to retain ownership of their property which for agricultural purposes would be useless to them in the future. Mr. Peyton said he related this story to show that the unthinkable and inconceivable can happen. If his family sells their farm it will be out of economic necessity, not out of a desire to do so. Mr. Peyton said Albemarle County cannot be all things to all people. It is a unique place, one in which he has lived his entire life, and where he intends to live the balance of his life. He does not have a vested interest in the protection of the County's natural resources, nor do many of the people who are present today. Their interest is in maintaining and preserving the quality of the environment in which they live. In contrast to that, many of the people who may be opposed to some of the initiatives, do in fact have an ulterior motive. He asks the Board to consider the opposing perspectives when initiatives are reviewed. The Board will always be under pressure by develop- ers and those who would develop the County's resources. The ultimate respon- sibility is to the elected Board members to see that this is done in a measured and reasonable fashion. With Albemarle County having a sustained unemployment rate of less than three percent, the question comes to mind "how much better can things be?" He said that as long as prosperity is measured by the rate of growth there will be serious trouble. The rate of growth may better be a measure by which to impoverish the County. There has to be a balance between rate of growth, quality of growth and quality of life. Mr. Peyton said he is not a planner, but as long as run away growth is accepted as a given, that belief will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) There must be a reasonable balance struck and he challenged the Board and the citizens of the County to get out ahead of the curve on these issues which are before the Board today. He asked the Board to work with the citizens to pursue enabling legislation such as the format of what is before the Board today from the Albemarle Neighborhood Association that would allow the Board to afford the protection to the resources that the citizens desire and require. He endorses the initiatives before the Board today, not only those presented by Tom Loach, but the Mountain Protection Plan, which will be presented later today. Ms. Humphris said when she saw this item on the agenda for today's meeting, she asked Mr. Tucker about it. He said Mr. Loach was coming to make a presentation. She had no idea how much of the grassroots the Board would hear from, or into what depth they have obviously been taking the future of Albemarle County into consideration. She is quite impressed. She has learned over the years that the most important things that happen in the County are not initiated by the six members of this Board, but are initiated and promoted by the grassroots. They are initiated by the people who just will not sit still until the Board members listen to and hear them. She expressed her appreciation for all the work that has been done. She needs an idea of how to deal with this issue. Mr. Marshall said he would like to ask a few questions. He asked how many people were present today who have family incomes of less than $20,000 a year. Ms. Humphris said she did not think the Board should get into people's personal lives. Mr. Marshall said he represents Southern Albemarle and a large number of the people in that district are working and cannot be present today to express an opinion. Ms. Humphris said it is good that there are people who can be available and will take their time on these issues. Mr. Marshall said he agrees. Mr. Loach said that there are times when he has not been able to be present at a meeting and he sent a letter. He asked if Mr. Marshall had received letters from his constituents. Mr. Marshall said he has on occasion. He would like to know the makeup of those present supporting this proposal. He agrees with a lot of what is proposed, such as increasing rural lot size from 21 to 42 acres. That leads him into asking how many people present own 42 acres or more. (Note: Six people raised their hands.) Mr. Marshall said he is a farmer and is looking for a way to keep his farm so he does not have to sell it out of economic necessity. He wants to know how the County will come up with the money to do a lot of what has been recommended. Basically, he appreciates everything he sees before him, but he knows a large number of those present have lived in the County for a very short period of time, and land is being gobbled up rapidly by people coming from other areas that want to put the 21 acre lots in. Something needs to be done about it. A large majority of the people live in compact areas, not in the rural areas like some do. There will have to be more discussion with all of the citizens of the County in order to come up with some way for people to preserve their property so they don't have to sell to a developer. Ten years from now he will be in his seventies, so he does not know if he will be able to keep his land. Who will compensate him when he reaches that age, to sell that piece of property so he will have enough money to retire. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Marshall has raised a good question. One of the things being talked about is that the County has the ability to raise the lodging tax. He believes that some feel that has to be used toward tourism. One of the things it might be used for is to purchase development rights in the rural areas because that preserves that which people want to come to Albemarle for. For example: If Mr. Marshall needed the money, he could subdivide his property and sell it, or if the development rights on that property could be purchased forever, Mr. Marshall could realize the economic gain, and those development rights transferred to the urban area, and there would be a win-win situation. Mr. Marshall said he would be willing to do that. Mr. Bowerman said that is the type of thing these groups are suggest- ing. The question before the Board now is what to do with the proposal. Ms. Humphris said that is correct. Mr. Tucker said staff had not seen the proposal before today. He suggested that staff try to develop as part of the Planning staff's work program some of the items in the report (some items September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) 000099 are already a part of that work program), then bring that back to this Board before taking it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Perkins said some of the things recommended are a part of the Mountain Protection Ordinance which the Board will be discussing later today. The one problem he has with purchasing development rights is that it makes a millionaire out of this generation, but it will leave the next generation holding something that may make paupers out them. What he proposed last May was that the County pay a yearly fee for the lands that will be set aside in perpetuity and not developed. Let the landowners keep those development rights. If it ever comes about that the State approves the transfer of development rights, they could then sell them. The problem is that someone gets a large amount of money now, but the next generation still has to hold the property, and if it is timberland, there is not an annual crop, but maybe a crop every 25 or 50 years. If there were the annual payment, that is an enticement for someone to hold on to the property. Ms. Humphris thanked all who had participated in the report. She said the Board will obviously be talking further about this subject. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 1:25 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider personnel matters regarding appointments to boards and commissions. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. At 2:47 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman 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. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 15. "Home Page" Demonstration by Lee Catlin during lunch break was moved to the October 2, 1996, meeting. Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. Ms. Thomas moved to appoint Mr. Derek James Jones to the Child and Youth Commission for a term which will expire on June 30, 2000; and, to appoint Mr. James Murray, Jr., to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation for a term which will expire on July 1, 1999. Mr. Bowerman moved to appoint Miss Gene E. Smith to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Board of Directors to a term which will expire on March 31, 1997; and, it appoint Mr. Peter G. Hallock to the Albemarle County Housing Committee for a term which expire on December 31, 1996. Mr. Martin gave second to the motions. Roll was called, and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. 000100 (Note: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins returned to the meeting at 2:48 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 17. Presentation: Mountain Protection Committee's Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1, 1996. Mr. David A. Tice, Chairman, Mountain Protection Committee, was present for the presentation. He said the Committee members (most are present today) have been working on this report for the past 15 months. They wish to highlight only the major points in the report. He introduced Ms. Page Gilliam to give some history on this subject. Ms. Gilliam said she is a native of Albemarle County. For over 10 years she and her family lived on Buck's Elbow Mountain in the Blue Ridge. She wanted to be a member of this citizen's committee because she loves and wants to protect the mountains, but also because her family owns land in the mountains. She said that for many years Albemarle County has recognized that the mountains are a unique asset. They provide the community with tens of millions of dollars in employment, tourism, and agriculture and forest products. They are the source of much of the clean water and contribute to healthy air. They provide the habitat for many plants and animal species. The County's first Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1971, spoke of the mountains as natural resources which are irreplaceable and deserve recognition, protec- tion and proper management. Since 1971, momentum toward mountain protection has increased. The County, in 1980, adopted a new zoning ordinance that placed nearly all Albemarle County mountains in a rural areas zoning district, and placed restrictions on development in the district. Also, in 1980, the County adopted critical slopes provisions recognizing that development of steep slopes can result in displacement of large amounts of soil and rock, excessive stormwater runoff, siltation of public drinking water supplies, and the potential for the spread of septic system effluent, all of which not only adversely affects aesthetic resources, but also can constitute potential dangers to the public health, safety and welfare. Ms. Gilliam said that in 1982, and again in 1989, the Comprehensive Plan established environmental standards to protect and preserve the County's natural, physical, as well as, scenic resources. The 1989 Plan recognized that in a County with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridgelines of the County will modify the visual character of an entire area. Finally, the Open Space Plan adopted in 1992 as an amendment to the Comprehen- sive Plan identifies mountains as one of four major open space systems that are the most vital open space lands to protect. It defines the mountains on a map by designating elevation contour lines. The Open Space Plan, as incorpo- rated in the Comprehensive Plan, recommended the adoption of a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated with mountains and to further protect their environmental characteristics. Thereafter, a 1994 survey of Albemarle County planning needs done by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia found that 66 percent of households in Albemarle County favored a regulation to preserve the appearance or character of highly visible mountains and ridges. Ms. Gilliam said that all of this led the Board in May of 1995 to appoint 12 citizens to a Citizens Advisory Committee designated the Mountain Protection Committee. It is important to note that in the notice for appli- cants for the committee, the County sought a diverse group asking for applica- tions from mountain and/or low land property owners, as well as landscape architects, forestry consultants, and other professionals with scenic resource or preservation expertise, or expertise in bio-diversity or wildlife habitat. The Committee's membership has fit that general profile. She said that Mark Lorenzoni will speak to the Board about the process the Committee went through during its 15 months of meetings. She said the Committee spent a session studying the legal issues raised. They met with the County Attorney and other attorneys to consider state legislative authority for local mountain protec- tion and they reviewed the constitutional issues connected with private property rights and governmental takings without just compensation. They took input from a number of citizens and civic groups and anticipate and welcome September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) O001.Ol, the public input that will come once the Board has the Committee's recommendatiol Ms. Gilliam said that at every stage of the process, the Committee has tried to be keenly aware of the potential impact of its actions and recommen- dations on private citizens. She said it has been important that they not develop recommendations that would fall unfairly on the shoulders of Albemarle citizens who own property in the mountains. Their Plan does recommend certain restrictions on mountain development that have not been in place before. Through the process of developing the report that is given to the Board today, the Committee has sought to strike a balance between values and private interests that is fair. She believes the final product reflects that effort. Mr. Tice said the Committee wished to show some slides to illustrate the key points in the report. The mountains of Albemarle are important to the identity of the community. They frame not only the rural areas, but also the major cultural uses of land in the County, as well as where people choose to live and work. Many of the older residents can probably attest to the fact that the mountains are in better shape today than they have been during this entire century. Some people may wonder what the problem is, and why mountain protection is an issue today. As the urban area begins to build up, it is getting to the edges of the mountains and this is an opportune time because it is likely there will be more pressure on mountain areas in the coming years. The build-out analysis recently completed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District illustrates this point. Mr. Tice showed with a slide what can happen under both existing environmental constraints, as well as existing zoning and subdivision ordi- nances. The Ivy area shows the kinds of densities that could be developed in the mountain areas using existing regulations. Already, there are examples of building occurring in mountain areas. There was the request today for the Lewis Mountain Apartments project. There have been requests to develop on Walnut Mountain. There is one house up on the Southwest Mountains that most people have seen. The Committee talked to Zoning and other County staff about the process applicants go through in subdividing property. He asked Mr. Mark Lorenzoni to discuss what the Committee found from those discussions. Mr. Lorenzoni said the Committee received calls from some residents regarding homes on mountaintops in the County. The Committee looked at these homes and found that one in particular was a good study of how the process of building unfolds. A few of the Committee members were charged with going through the process to see how this particular home was legally built. They met with several County employees erosion control officer, zoning adminis- trator, water resources manager, engineering and inspections. There were four areas the Committee found could have tighter controls: 1) Subdivision Plat currently the builder only has to take the final plat, which does not show a topo or final building site, to the County for a building permit. They feel the preliminary plat is more representative of the situation and should be the plat used when getting the building permit. 2) Erosion Control currently the builder of a single-family home only needs to sign an agreement. The Committee feels there should be a plan submitted, rather than having a loose agreement. 3) Driveways - currently there are no standards for private driveways. The Committee thinks there should be strict standards to address the public safety issue, and to also address runoff control. 4) Color of House - the Committee could not legally address this issue. This particular home is painted a light, bright color which can be seen from many local roads, but can also be seen very clearly from Humpback Rock which is about 30 miles away. The County Attorney said there is no authority for an ordinance to address aesthetic issues. Mr. Tice said the report also addresses ordinances or policies which are in place in communities around the country. Clarke County, Virginia, was the first county in Virginia to adopt a mountain protection ordinance. Counties in the Roanoke area and Montgomery County are currently looking into the issue. The entire state of North Carolina is under a statewide ridge develop- ment ordinance. The American Planning Association reported last year that there are 274 hillside plans, ordinances and guidelines that they collected from a survey of 190 local governments in 22 states. It is an issue that areas around the country are looking at. Mr. Tice said the Committee spent time focusing on the major resources and issues which are important with the mountains in Albemarle County. Of prime importance was soil erosion and protection of water quality, particu- larly public water supplies. An issue that became apparent to the Committee 000±02 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) after the floods of 1995 was debris flows. Many learned that the kind of storm event the County experienced in 1995 may not be as infrequent as thought. Water quality was a driving force behind much of what the Committee recommended. They noted that the mountains are a source of much of what goes into the public water supplies. They also looked at the importance of the mountains to the economic vitality of the region. The forest industry supplies millions of dollars to the regional economy. While there are not a large number of farms in mountain areas in the horticultural industry (or- chards and farmland), they are very important to the economy. The mountains play a major role in providing scenic resources that fuel the tourism indus- try. Shenandoah National Parks receives 2.0 million visitors a year, and many of them spend money in Albemarle County. Monticello gets about one-half million visitors a year. The mountains play a major role in creating the attractiveness that brings people here. Mr. Tice said the other economic value the Committee tried to reflect in the report is the economic contribution of the ecological services the mountains provide, such as: clean water from the forest mountainsides going into the reservoir; air quality and the values that forests make in sequester- ing carbon from the atmosphere; visibility and air quality. There are a number of people who believe the night sky is important and light pollution is a serious concern. There are two observatories in Charlottesville and Albemarle, so it is important to the research at the University and to many of the citizens of the County who want to experience the night sky. That activity often takes place in the mountains. Mr. Tice said the mountains are probably disproportionally important to the natural heritage and bio-diversity of the County than the other physio- graphic region. Looking at the list of plants and animals that are of concern to the Virginia Natural Heritage Program, virtually all of them occur either in the mountains or on the clean water that comes out of the mountains. The mountains are important, not only to the species that exist throughout the County and all physiographic regions, but also to species that tend to be more or less restricted to mountain areas such as grouse and non-game species. Mr. Tice said the Committee looked at the Related Lands Study conducted by the Shenandoah National Park in cooperation with the University of Virginia a couple of years ago. The Study went from the White Hall and Fox Mountain area westward which was the original proclamation boundary for the National Park. They were trying to identify the most important technological areas within this area. Taking all of that into account, the Committee developed its recommendations around three key points: 1) a Mountain Overlay District which requires changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, 2) a county wide lighting ordinance, and 3) a group of suggestions for further study the Committee is calling ~additional planning tools." Mr. Tice said the key points of the proposed Mountain Overlay District are: 1) an erosion control plan should be required for development within the district; 2) houses should not be located along ridges; 3) parcels that straddle the mountain overlay district line, and building sites and small lot parcels subdivided on that line should be located, wherever possible, outside of the mountain overlay district; 4) the final plat should show the building site. The final plats now submitted to the County do not show the building site so the building inspector has no way of telling whether the building is actually located where the original site was identified on the preliminary plat. The Committee felt it would facilitate the inspection process to require that the final plat show the build- ing site; and 5) a series of driveway standards are needed to protect the public's safety, and to help prevent erosion and sedimentation. Mr. Tice said their recommendations concerning a lighting ordinance are simple. Outdoor lights that exceed 5000 lumens should be shielded in order to direct the light down resulting in less glare and waste into the atmosphere. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) Also, the Board should do what it can to request the public utilities to promote efficient and shielded lighting. Mr. Tice said the third category concerns the additional planning tools. The Committee suggests (or notes) that: 1) a brochure be developed, similar to one done in Rappahannock County, suggesting ways for property owners, homeowners and builders to be able to build in the mountains in a way which is sensitive to the environment; 2) an inventory be made of the rare and unique plants, animals and biological communities of the County, so it is known ahead of time where these things are so they can be taken into account in planning; 3) the Land Use Tax assessment program is critical to the protection of mountain lands and that system needs to be supported; the transfer of development rights is a program worthy of further study, and the Board should continue asking for enabling legisla- tion as part of the legislative packet. The Committee noted that the State currently gives the County enabling legislation to do a purchase of development rights program. 5) there is a section in the report dealing with full-cost accounting and revenue-sharing. The point is to recognize the important contribution that the mountains make, not only to the rural areas, but also to the urban areas. It is suggested that in discussions with the City and others within the urban areas, more is done to promote the economic and social benefits of the mountains; and 6) the idea of increasing the large lot size from 21 acres to 42 acres be studied. Mr. Tice said the Committee feels all of these things need to be looked at systematically. If there is to be any success in protecting the mountains, there needs to be advancements in all three areas recommended by the Commit- tee. He said there were two people present who would like to speak briefly about the plan. Ms. Elsie Thompson said she is a private citizen and resident of Albemarle County, a property owner, and the current preservation chairman of the Albemarle Garden Club. She wishes to express appreciation to the members of the Mountain Protection Committee for drafting a plan for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The beauty of the mountains is part of the essen- tial character of Albemarle County and is a priceless economic asset. The mountain views are a resource valued and enjoyed by residents and property owners of all walks of life as well as the many tourists and sojourners to the area. If not intelligently preserved and protected, this precious but fragile resource could be degraded, squandered and lost irretrievably. Protecting the surface integrity of the mountains is also of vital economic interest to the County. Unchecked erosion of the mountain slopes will threaten the watershed, the infrastructure of the roads and bridges, and, potentially, the lives and property of many residents. She urged the Board to give close study and consideration to the recommendations of the Committee and to move toward adopting a long-range plan to preserve the beauty and integrity of Albemarle County's mountain resources for generations to come. Mr. Phil Ianna, from the Astronomy Department at the University of Virginia, said he would like to emphasize the benefits of using shielded lighting. A dark night-time sky is a scenic resource that seems to be worth preserving, and which has been neglected previously. He said the Fan Mountain Observatory brings in hundreds of visitors when it is open, and there are many complaints about unshielded lights that disturb the view. Many people have said they moved into the rural parts of the County just to be able to enjoy the dark skies. There are additional benefits which come from doing the proper quality lighting. One of the main things is to reduce glare. In general, better quality lighting leads to better visibility, a safer environ- ment, energy savings, and producing an environment which is aesthetically more pleasing. Quality lighting benefits everybody. He hopes the lighting ordinance will be approved. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) 000i04 Ms. Humphris said if any of the Board members have not had an opportu- nity to go to one of Mr. Ianna's evening tours, they should take advantage of it because the difference between good and bad lighting is quickly seen. She thanked Mr. Tice and all the members of the Committee for their report. She asked if the next step is for the report to go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman suggested adopting a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as a charge to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said there is nothing drafted at this time in the way of an ordinance change. One of the items recommended, a lighting ordinance, is on the agenda for discus- sion later today. He said it is premature to adopt a resolution of intent today. Ms. Humphris asked if the next logical step is for the Committee to present the report to the Planning Commission, and the Commission start the process to amend the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the Board can start that process, but if the staff is working directly with the Commission, the Commission would initiate the resolution of intent. Mr. Cilimberg said one part of the Planning Department's Work Program is to incorporate the Mountain Protection Plan and the Historic Resources Plan into the Natural Environment section of the Comprehensive Plan. It will be addressed in that manner and additional ordinance provisions could also result from that. Ms. Thomas said it has been in the Comprehensive Plan since 1971, so after the 15-month work of the Committee, it had hoped the Board would move beyond the point of adding a few words in the Plan that say the mountains are valued. That is not going to be satisfactory. Mr. Cilimberg said this report, in and of itself, can do that. By accepting the report, the Board is saying that ordinance provisions need to be put in place. The Planning Commission and the Board will need to do that through the public hearing process. Mr. Davis said one of the keys to the success of this from a legal standpoint is that it be done in a comprehensive manner. The orderly progres- sion for getting to that point is to make sure it is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in a defensible manner, and it already is in the Plan to a large extent. Adopting the report, or incorporating it into the Comprehensive Plan, will further provide a basis for the comprehensive type of zoning changes which would need to be made to implement the plan. He thinks the progression is to get it considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan and then progress on to the ordinances mentioned. In order to meet the objectives, it involves changes to the subdivision ordinance, the erosion control ordinance, the zoning ordinance, an overlay district being added, as well as getting into the lighting ordinance which may be a stand alone police powers ordinance, so it is a multi-faceted program. Mr. Tucker said the language in previous plans has not been as definitive as this proposal. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board has to wait for adoption of everything so the changes in the zoning ordinance are done all together. That will take a couple of years. Mr. Cilimberg said the chapter on the Natural Environment is to be delivered to the Board during this work year, maybe by this Fall, along with Historic Preservation, which the staff hopes will also be an element of that chapter. Mr. Davis said appropriate timing may be to go ahead and have the Planning Commission and staff develop the text of the ordinance to be delivered in conjunction with that element of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Humphris suggested the Board do that. Mr. Tucker said all of the items could be brought along parallel. Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to get the public involved in looking at the proposed ordinance changes so the Board could get down to really doing something. Ms. Humphris said consecutively is what the Board wants to do. Mr. Tucker said these are the directions the Board should send to the Planning Commission. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board is "getting the cart before the horse." Mr. Tucker said he did not believe so. The Board created this committee and gave them a direction to prepare something along these lines. The Board now has that report and needs to get it into the proper perspective and back through the process. It has to go through the Commission. The Board can tell the Commission to bring forward the Plan along with draft ordinances to implement the report. Mr. Marshall said the Board is only telling the Commission to review the report, take it to public hearing, and bring the Board their best effort. Is that what the Board is saying? Mr. Tucker said staff's expectation was that this report (this plan) as developed by the Committee, would be sent to the Planning Commission for their review and analysis. The Commission would then September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) 000 0 ; bring that forward by either adopting it as it is, or with any amendments or additions they wish to make, and also bring along the draft ordinances that would implement that plan. Ms. Humphris asked for a motion outlining what the Board would like the Planning Commission to do. Mr. Marshall said if it is stated properly in the motion he will support it, but if not, he will not support the report. He wants to be sure this report goes to the Planning Commission and they review it completely with public input and make all the changes that are necessary to satisfy all the citizens of the County. Mr. Tucker said it has to go through the public hearing process. Mr. Bowerman said this is no different than any other thing the Board does. Mr. Marshall said he wants to be sure the Board is not directing the Commission to adopt it as it is. Mr. Bowerman said that is not what the Board is doing. Mr. Martin said the Board is just sending the Commission the document presented today to start the process. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board needs to have a public hearing at this point in the process. Ms. Humphris said that is not the way the process works. The Commission will start the public hearing process. Ms. Thomas said the Committee sent drafts of this plan to many different organizations, individu- als, and to anyone who expressed an interest, to anyone who wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper, so there has already been an unusual amount of public participation in the words that went into the report. It was not developed in a vacuum. Mr. Bowerman then moved that the Board forward the final report of the Mountain Protection Committee to the Planning Commission for its review, for the Commission to hold a public hearing and forward their recommendations to this Board and to the community, and to make whatever changes they feel are necessary to the ordinance to implement the portions of the report (plan) they find appropriate. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Mr. Cilimberg asked if it was intended that the document be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman said ~yes." Also, the Commission should address all the different elements that need to be addressed. Mr. Perkins asked the County Attorney why the County cannot tell people they cannot have a white house on the mountain. The house mentioned earlier is extremely offensive. He said the Architectural Review Board can tell someone how to build, etc. Mr. Davis said the only control directly over aesthetics enabled in Virginia is under the architectural review board authority and currently that is limited to entrance corridors and buildings surrounding an area in a historical protection area. There is no authority to regulate aesthetics such as the color of housing outside of those types of defined areas. Unless all the mountains in the entire County were designated historic areas, there is no ability to control architecture or color of buildings. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Presentation: Additional Regulation of Outdoor Lighting. It was noted in the staff's report that the Board has expressed interest in additional regulation of outdoor lighting. In response, the County Attorney examined enabling authority and provided his opinion together with relevant Code sections. After receipt of the County Attorney's analysis, staff determined it would be appropriate to report to the Board following the Board's receipt of the Mountain Protection Plan. Based on the County Attorney's analysis, staff has developed three options which the Board may wish to consider: Option 1. Observatories: The Board could adopt lighting regu- lations either in the Zoning Ordinance or the County Code to regulate all lighting within a one-half mile radius of observa- September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48) 000' 06 tories. Due to the limited area of regulation, effectiveness would be questionable. Option 2. Site Plans: The Board could amend Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, Site Plans, and, Section 4.12, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, to improve lighting regula- tions where a site plan is required for development (i.e., commercial, industrial, multi-family residential, etc.). Cur- rently, these provisions control lighting spillover from parking areas onto residential areas and public streets. Lighting is to be directed away from residential areas and streets and shielded where necessary. Measures which the Architectural Review Board have employed within the Entrance Corridor District should be analyzed for applicability to any development requiring site plan approval. Option 3. County-wide Regulation: Provisions of Section 4.0, General Regulations, can be written to apply to all uses in all zoning districts. The Mountain Protection Committee has devel- oped detailed lighting regulation which the Committee recommends be applied on a county-wide basis. From initial review, it does not appear that these regulations would constrain normally anticipated lighting practices of the homeowner or farmer, but would protect against intensive lighting situations. Due to its practical limitations as to effectiveness, staff does not recommend that lighting regulation specific to observatories be pursued. However, pursuit of Options 2 and 3 would provide a degree of protection to the observatories as well as address the ~dark sky" issue in a reasonable manner. Ms. Thomas said this was a hard-working dedicated committee. She only met with them during about one-third of their meetings. She said it is an impressive effort that all appreciate. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that these lighting issues be addressed coterminously with the Mountain Protection Plan and that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to regulate outdoor lighting for all uses in all zoning districts. Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a resolution of intent. Mr. Bowerman asked if this change can include the kinds of fixtures that utilities offer to their customers. Can placement of new fixtures be covered under this ordinance? If that issue is not dealt with, then the entire problem is not being addressed. Mr. Davis said for any new lighting added, the ordinance can address the standards for that lighting. The difficulty in controlling lighting in existing residential housing is how, from a practical standpoint, to do that. It can be made a zoning ordinance requirement, but from a practical standpoint, how it can be enforced needs to be thought through. Mr. Martin said he believes Mr. Bowerman is talking about utility poles that the utility company puts up. Mr. Bowerman said he knows that all kinds of stores sell fixtures, but the utility companies offer certain fixture amenities. He would like to be sure those amenities comply with what is considered for outdoor lighting. Ms. Thomas said there is a shield that is very inexpensive that the power company can recommend be used. Apparently, they used to suggest that the customer add the shield. With personnel cutbacks, they don't do that anymore. They just sell the light. She would like for them to move closer to requiring the shield under present enabling legislation. Mr. Davis asked what type of lighting is being referred to. Ms. Thomas said the security lights that the power companies put on a pole in a customer's yard, and it lights up the neighbor's house also. Mr. Davis said the intent of this ordinance is that that type of lighting would be covered. Mr. Cilimberg said the recommen- dation in the Mountain Protection report says that all lighting above 5000 lumens shall be fully shielded, and that shielding is defined. Mr. Davis said the only problem is in policing that and determining which are conforming and September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 49) which are nonconforming. Staff just needs to figure out how to do that, but it can be regulated. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County can insure that Virginia Power does not offer a type of fixture that is not up to the requirements of the adopted ordinance. Mr. Davis said Virginia Power could be informed that the type of fixture is not permitted in any new development in Albemarle County and hope they would honor that. He does not believe the County can prohibit them from selling it. Mr. Bowerman said if that issue is not dealt with, then the whole procedure is pointless. Mr. Tucker said staff has heard the Board's concerns and they will have to be addressed. Ms. Humphris said the Board has not yet voted on the motion. She requested the Clerk to call the roll. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.) RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has determined in order to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning prac- tices, it does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to regulate outdoor lighting for all uses in all zoning districts; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordi- nance, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 11. Report: Albemarle County Housing Committee Work Plan/Relationship to Other Housing Organizations. It was noted in the staff's report that at the August 9, 1996, meeting, the Board requested a report on the relationship of the Albemarle County Housing Committee to other local and regional housing non-profits and agen- cies. The Housing Committee was created by the Board of Supervisors and began to meet in April, 1994. A set of organizational documents and a mission statement were developed and adopted shortly after the first meeting. The Committee originally consisted of 11 members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, with persons representing real estate, construction/development, financial, legal, consumer, Charlottesville Housing Foundation (CHF), Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), property management, and the University of Virginia (UVA). Regular attendance at the meetings by non- members included the Executive Director of Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, representatives of the County's Planning Department, the City's Planning Department, the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA), the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) and occasional attendance by representatives of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and other interested organizations. The Committee met monthly in FY 1995-96 and created three working subcommittees: (1) Rental Housing and Counseling, (2) Affordable Housing Production and Financing, and, (3) Land Use and Regulatory Issues. The Committee presented its first Housing Action Plan to the Board of Supervisors in March, 1995. The primary accomplishment of the Committee the first year was the development of a proposed Housing Element for the Comprehensive Plan which the Board forwarded to the Planning Department for consideration in the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. During review of the proposed Land Use Element in the Fall of 1995, various Housing Committee members spoke before the Planning Commission at all of its public hearings. During this past year the Committee prepared to speak about the proposed Housing Element before the Planning Commission. Once it was determined that the strategy for including the Housing Element in the Comprehensive Plan had been amended, the September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 50) Committee reviewed outstanding issues with its 1995 Action Plan. It identi- fied additional areas to be studied and again created working subcommittees. Work groups for FY 1996-97 are: (1) Land Banks and Housing Trust Funds, (2) Property Maintenance Code, (3) Public Incentives for Private Production, and, (4) Economic Education and Life Skills. This last subcommittee has become an ongoing, standing subcommittee. The other three subcommittees propose to complete their work and report to the Board in the Spring 1997. As the Office of Housing and the Housing Committee began to work together, it was clear that previously there had been little coordination and communication between these two groups and the various other housing provid- ers, both public and nonprofit. Several specific situations highlighted the need to begin examining in a more formal fashion the relationships and appropriate interactions among all the providers. For example, at the request of the County, the former Housing Coordinator (Lynne Carruth) worked with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board and staff in developing their first Five-year Strategic Plan. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program receives substantial operating funds from the County for the purpose of leveraging State, Federal and other housing program funds to help solve the varying affordable housing needs of the County. This Strategic Plan was a major, new step for the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. The five-year plan was reflective of the needs identified in the County's Housing Plan. One objective was the need for more lower cost rental housing. One identifiable resource in the Strategic Plan included the Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) funds specified for the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program in the Regional HOME (a Federal Housing Program) Consortium managed by the Planning District Commission. Over the past year, there have been two situations where there was a proposed change in the use and allocation of these funds which altered the ability of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board to implement their Strategic Plan without modifications. Although the situations were resolved, it highlighted the need for improved communication and participation among the housing players and funding sources available to Albemarle. As a result, the Committee requested more information. A "Relationship Chart" was developed and is used by Committee members on a regular basis as a guide. As funding sources and organizations change, this chart allows for an easier understand- ing of the effects. The Committee also uses this chart to help continue to define their evolving role and to identify opportunities for action or implementation of their recommendations. At the May, 1995 meeting, the Committee passed an action resolution concerning the numerous local housing non-profits serving the County and the City. At that time, the organizations operated independently of each other creating an environment of competition for limited resources and recognition, duplication of programs provided, difficult service coordination and customer service on shared-projects, duplication of administrative costs especially in the way of staff, and inefficient use of the time of citizen members who served on several boards. As the County and the City provide regular program funds to these various organizations, the Committee called upon the County Executive and the City Manager to convene representatives of these various organizations to explore the feasibility of developing a single, new organiza- tion into which these local non-profits might be organized. Several meetings were held and a vision of the new organization developed. Due to several other reorganization schemes surfacing simultaneously (the Governor's Regional Consortia Initiative, merger talks between the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation), the meetings were temporarily suspended, but should resume this Fall. Ms. Ginnie McDonald, Housing Coordinator, was present to read some prepared remarks by Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Chair of the Housing Committee, which remarks were meant to supplement the written report above. She said the 1996- 97 Work Plan presented today grows directly out of the Housing Report of 1992. In the years since, the Committee has learned more about the provision of affordable housing and much of that is illustrated by the ~Relationship Chart." The Committee's major job is to recommend policies, programs and tools, many of which will be as successful as the amount, distribution and management of the funds provided to implement them. This requires excellent communication between the committee and, on the one hand, a plethora of housing providers to find out what they need, and on the other hand, the County, so the Housing Committee can help mobilize resources effectively. The 000 09 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 51) Committee can help take some of the burden off of the shoulders of the Board, but the Committee needs to have some input into how housing dollars are allocated at budget time. She pointed out that affordable housing needs in Albemarle County are very diverse. As important and satisfying as they are, first time homebuyer programs alone are by no means adequate to meet those needs. Every one of the four elements of the plan must include a substantial commitment to rental housing for those who cannot yet, or maybe ever, afford to buy a home in Albemarle County. Finally, she urged the Board to adopt the Housing Element into the County's Strategic Plan as soon as possible. The Committee needs this commitment to give the work of the Housing Committee direction and purpose. Ms. McDonald said she understood the Board is interested in the various relationships of the Housing Committee. When she was being interviewed for the position of Housing Coordinator she was asked the question "Given that there are 14 non-profit housing providers in the community, what would you do, etc.?" She said her response was "why do we have 147" In May, 1995, the Housing Committee adopted a resolution urging the County Executive and the City Manager to call the various housing providers together to see if there was a better way to meet housing needs in the community. There was competition for limited and dwindling funds and dupli- cate administrative tasks. This group began to work in the Summer of 1995 and did come up with a mission statement. The work was suspended because of several activities, one having to do with the Governor's Regional Consortia Initiative. He had proposed to divide the State into about 16 consortia, but they were arbitrarily imposed and, over the past year, those consortia are no longer in existence. The Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation became one of those consortia, signed a contract, did some of the work, and now does not know if they will get the remainder of their money. Another activity was the conver- sations about reversion. The last activity had to do with talks about merger between the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation. Ms. McDonald referred to the chart. She said the Board of Supervisors appoints the members of the Housing Committee which has a relationship with the Housing Coordinator and the Office of Housing (rental assistance, compre- hensive housing counseling, Family Self-Sufficiency Program). There is also a Family Self-Sufficiency Program Coordinating Committee on which a member of the Housing Committee is serving. Ms. McDonald said the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program is an implementer for many of the policies the Housing Committee developed. She works closely with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program on their budget. Ms. Teresa Tapscott told her today that the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board is modifying their bylaws in order to have the Albemarle County Housing Official as a full member of that Board. The chart then shows the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as the County's Community Housing Development Organization. In order for an organi- zation to receive that status, it has to be have experience and a proven track record of delivering housing. Not just any housing non-profit can get Community Housing Development Organization status. At the bottom of chart is listed the HOME Consortium, and the Community Housing Development Organization becomes more important. HOME is Federal money and the Federal money comes to localities. If the locality has a Community Housing Development Organization, the locality cannot keep all of the money. They must give it to a Community Housing Development Organization. It was HUD's attempt to force localities and non-profits to work together. Moving on, the chart shows a relationship with the County Executive's Office, the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. With development of the Mountain Protection and Historic Resource plans, the Planning Office made a presentation to the Housing Committee. With the Housing Element proposed for the Comprehensive Plan, and now the Strategic Plan, there is that interaction. Next, there is the TJ Planning District Commission with two members of the Board of Supervisors serving. The TJ Planning District Commission is the administrator for the HOME Consortium. That was the creation of the Planning District Commission to bring together non-entitlement jurisdictions in order September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 52) O00& O to receive whole funds. Any of the rural counties, including Albemarle, by themselves, would not have qualified for these Federal dollars for housing until the Planning District Commission created the Consortium. The City has Community Development Block Grant dollars which are stand- along funds, but they are a player in the background. Then there is the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Moving on to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation, the chart notes that the Board of Supervisors appoints two members. That has now changed. The Board appoints only one member and that member, effective July 1, 1996, is Mr. Bruce Kirtley. In order for them to qualify as a Community Housing Development Organization they had to restructure their board. No more than one-third of their members can be appointed by local government, and at least one-third of the members must be beneficiaries of the actual funds themselves, low- and moderate-income individuals. The County's Housing Official was removed as a member. The new by-laws do not state whether the local government appointee is a housing official or a citizen. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program is not a member of the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation. Ms. McDonald said there are five remaining positions on the new Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation Community Housing Development Organization Board. Until early last week, the intent was that the housing officials in Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, etc. would be appointed. There is a new recommendation that came out last Tuesday concerning the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, and that represents the merger talks she mentioned earlier. If that merger goes ahead, then Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation may spin off from the Planning District Commission because the Charlottesville Housing Foundation will make an offer for a new executive director within the next two weeks. If the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation has money, they may fund that position. To move that merger forward, there was an original plan that there would be two interim boards for one year (Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation, Charlottesville Housing Foundation, and an interim board) and after a year they would either merge or go their separate ways. Ms. McDonald said Ms. Nancy O'Brien made a recommendation at the Charlottesville Housing Foundation Board a week ago to remove the interim board and go ahead and have one board now so five Charlottesville Housing Foundation members would fill the housing official locations. There was a proposal that the Albemarle Housing Official serve in an advisory capacity. The original plan was to be a full member of the board, and now the plan is that there will be a meeting September 12 where that plan may change and not happen. Ms. McDonald said there is a Reorganization Working Group for Housing Delivery which stems from the May, 1995 resolution of the Housing Committee to look at how the plethora of non-profits work. She then offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas said she would like to return to the question Ms. McDonald was asked when she applied for the job. The Board now has a better idea of the complexity of this issue. She asked if Ms. McDonald feels there is a lot of wasted effort in the question of housing. Are a lot of people talking about administrative types of things, or does that take a minimum amount of time and people then quickly get to the question of how to provide better housing for the people who need it. Where do they slip from the "useful stuff" to the organizational stuff? There has to be some of that, but does that take up too much of everyone's time? Ms. McDonald said given the variety of boards and the amount of subcom- mittees of each board, there is only so much time that volunteer boards can devote. Maybe, if there were fewer boards than 14 (Charlottesville Housing Improvement Program has now folded), there could be some economy of scale of time, of volunteer boards, administrative costs, office rental space, etc., by combining forces. The question is how to do it. The Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation had a focus on the homeownership program for first- time homebuyers. They are now into their second regional loan program, but they have not done much, if anything, in the production of lower cost rental housing or rehabilitations. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, at the urging of Lynne Carruth, began to develop a Five-Year Strategic Plan. In that plan, the production of rental housing became a new focus for them and they September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 53) are now in the production of lower-cost rental housing. They are still doing rehabilitations, but are also into new construction. They are a designated nationwide builder, and have built seven houses this year. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program is a different organization than a lot of people know them as. They have changed substantially trying to meet both the needs and the funding sources available. There has been some specialization (first- time homebuying programs, rehabilitations, lower-cost rental housing). Ms. McDonald said another issue to look at is that of regionalism. Nationally and statewide, regionalism is with us. How might one look at regionalism? The Housing Committee has been talking about the subregion of the City and the County. The people who come in to sign up for the waiting list do not look at the boundary between the City and the County. When the Housing Office delivers rental assistance, the regulations do not allow them to look at the jurisdictional lines because it is Federal money. They are looking at the subregion of the City and the County. There may be a way to bring together the City and the County. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program is executing their second contract with the City to go in and finish up some of the work of the Charlottesville Housing Improvement Program and also to do some new projects that the Planning Office has for them using Community Development Block Grant dollars. They are moving to the City, which is a natural thing to do. Then, there is the larger region. Ms. McDonald said it is a very complex issue with many players. There were 14 original players, and now it is devolving down. Discussion and deliberation are needed to get to a good product. The important thing is that everyone has an opportunity to discuss the issue. That is one of the reasons why, with the reorganization of the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation Board, the Housing Committee felt it was important to have the one Albemarle County appointee come to the Housing Committee, meet the Committee members, and understand what the Committee is about. It was not their intention to have the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation as a member of the Committee. They just wanted the one remaining Albemarle County member to know the issues the Housing Committee is struggling with. As that one member represents Albemarle County in a regional housing provider, that member can be a strong link in the chain. She said she is beginning to look at housing as a chain, and if there are six or seven links in that chain, it is only as strong as each link is strong. The Housing Committee needs the representative on the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation to know and understand what the Housing Committee is doing in order to represent Albemarle in that regional approach. Before one can make a decision for the region, she suggested that person would need to understand what the issues and programs of the locality are. That was the purpose of the several invitations to the County's representative to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation. Ms. Humphris asked if the change in the funding mechanism has affected the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program negatively. Since the Community Housing Development Organization funds can no longer go to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, but have to go through the HOME fund and Albemarle Housing Improvement Program has to apply for specific funding, will that be a problem? Ms. McDonald said that initially it was a problem for the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program because they were not involved in how that came about. Through the Housing Office, they were challenged to draft that Five-Year Plan, and they were depending on the Community Housing Develop- ment Organization allocation they would get each year. There is about $100,000 which would come to Albemarle County, and ten or 15 percent of that automatically has to go to the County's Community Housing Development Organi- zation. That is the significance of saying the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program is the County's Community Housing Development Organization. Over their five-year plan, they were developing uses of that money. Community Housing Development Organization funds have certain restrictions. The Board of Supervisors allocated the balance of the HOME money to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program to do a variety of other things. The first incident that came about (without the involvement of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program) concerned the fact that the other Community Housing Development Organization's were not using all of their money. All of the Community Housing Development Organization money was given to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program and their non-Community Housing Development Organization money was taken away. It hurt their plan. They could not proceed. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program was not at the table when that decision was made. There was no consideration of them. It was just announced that this was their funding for this year. O00 tfl.2 September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 54) Ms. McDonald said the second issue with the Community Housing Develop- ment Organization funds was that it came to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as an announcement. There had not been any participation. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board insisted at that time upon having a meeting, and it was resolved successfully. The Housing Committee hoped that there could have been a better process. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program has come around to its being successful, but it was the manner in which it came down. Ms. Humphris said that was one issue. Another issue is that it is extremely important for Albemarle County's Thomas Jefferson Housing Improve- ment Corporation member to be in very close contact with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program because they are dependent on that representation to get their funding. Ms. McDonald said that currently there are two sources of Federal funds which come directly to Albemarle County. One is the Section 8 money, which is just a little under $3.0 million. The other ~is the HOME money which is about $600,000 for the region. That is divided equally one-sixth among all the players, Charlottesville, Albemarle, Louisa, Nelson, Greene and Fluvanna. It is not proportional according to need or population. Ms. Humphris asked why it is not proportional. Ms. Thomas said that is the way it was set up. With just the HOME Consortium, there would be zero dollars. Ms. McDonald said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said if Albemarle said they wanted more money because it is bigger, that could break apart the whole Consortium and there would be zero dollars. Ms. McDonald said that is a possibility. She said that neither she as the County's Housing official, or the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as the County's housing implementer, are proposing that. They think it is okay to have the dialogue and understand the implications if that is the only funding received. Ms. Thomas asked if the $600,000 figure is definite for subsequent years. She can't remember which programs are dying out and which are growing. Ms. McDonald said that of the two sources, it is the least secure. It came into existence about 1988 and with the HUD budget having been slashed substan- tially, it could be the first to go. Any change in Section 8 funds would cause too many people to be displaced. There has to be another way, such as making Section 8 funds time limited, which the Albemarle Housing Office is doing through its policies. They cannot do it regulatorily, but they are working with their clients saying Section 8 is not permanent housing for them. Ms. Thomas said there is a Housing Committee and a Housing Plan that says such things as ~permit the use of alternative systems for water and sewerage systems." That is good if one is looking at affordable housing. It is not particularly good when looking at growth management policies. Where and when does the County take these possibly conflicting policies and made a definite decision. She does not think it is fair to anyone to have sections of the Strategic Plan which conflict with one another. Mr. Tucker said at the time the Strategic Plan is reviewed, staff will have to look at those kinds of issues. He believes there will be something in the Comprehensive Plan. It will not be silent about housing issues and strategies. What staff is attempting to do with the Strategic Plan is have it become the more overall, broad, general plan for the County. The Comprehensive Plan will be more definite in certain areas. It will focus on land use and transportation, and housing is a part also. He thinks the more definitive plan, the Action Plan and those types of things, and the Housing Element will be a part of the Strategic Plan. The goals and objectives of the Housing Committee will be a part of the Comprehensive Plan. At that time, any conflicts between the two plans will be eliminated. At this point, Ms. Humphris thanked the members of the Housing Committee and Ms. McDonald for their report. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: 1997 Proposed Legislative Program. It was noted in the staff's report that the County's 1997 Legislative Program (which is a collaborative process with the County's legislative liaison under the supervision of the Planning District Commission), is brought to the Board for discussion and input early in the process. Subsequent additions or revisions to the draft program will be brought for final approval in October. September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 55) 000 5i.3 Key issue papers on the following topics, plus any suggested issues from the Board, will be included in the final version: Computation of Composite Index for Standards of Quality (SOQ) Funding Financing/Funding for Education Infrastructure House Bill 1513 Carry-Over Legislation on Water and Sewer Connection Fees Senate Bill 592 Regulation of Timber harvesting in Non-Agricul- tural Areas Comprehensive Services Act Future Funding and Proration of Supplemental Requests House Bill 1517 - Elimination of dedications or conveyances in rezoning cases Elimination of Personal Property Tax - subject of Senate Finance subcommittee study Other issues the Board may want to consider for special legislation for Albemarle County are: Dark Skies" legislation similar to that of Arlington County Juvenile Court legislation similar to that adopted by York County. It allows a jointly-operated Juvenile Court facility to relocate from the City to the County without a referendum. Although it has not been determined that the Juvenile Court would be moved to the County, City and County staff are currently reviewing the need for an expanded facility and this legislation would simply provide more flexibility should the need to relocate the Juvenile Court arise. Ms. Bonnie Fronfelter was present to address the issues in the program and to get the Board's recommendations and/or additions for the final program. Staff made changes this year to make the program more specific and, thus, more useful to the Legislators when they are at the General Assembly Sessions. In order to get to a workable document, she came up with position papers on several items which will be the subject of discussion in the next Session. She has listed seven on which she thinks there will be bills introduced. She mentioned the following: Last year there was a bill on Computation of Composite Index for Standards of Quality (SOQ) Funding. Nelson County and Albemarle County have both expressed an interest in having an appeals process for how the index is computed. In addition, there was been growing concern expressed, particularly from Northern Virginia counties, that capital costs and debt service are not computed into the composite index. For fast-growing counties such as Loudoun, debt service is not a factor in their composite index, and they are afraid that they lose State money as a result of that. There is a study committee working on Financing/Funding for Education Infrastructure. Concerns have been raised that the two funding mechanisms at the State level for capital spending are not sufficient. There has been talk in relation to the SOQ funding that it is not taken into the composite index computation. House Bill 1513 is a carry-over bill on Water and Sewer Connection Fees. The idea is to bear a stronger relationship between the actual cost of developing water and sewer connections. Ms. Thomas said Albemarle County feels strongly about that issue also. Senate Bill 592 would prevent the Regulation of Timber Harvesting in Non-Agricultural Areas. Albemarle was unique last year because it was one of the only localities that had developed some components of the Chesapeake Bay ordinance voluntarily. There was a question as to whether they might come under attack with this bill since Albemarle is not required by State law to be under the Act. The Comprehensive Services Act is mentioned in the Health and Human Services section. Last year there was language put into the State budget that initially would have applied to FY '96, '97 and '98 that would have Prorated Supplemental Funds for Comprehensive Services. Albemarle had a request last year. Louisa also had a request. There was not enough State money budgeted. They found the money, but said if this should happen again, they would simply prorate the amount given back to localities for the supplements. They took September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 56) 000±14 that language out for 1996 and 1997, but it remains in for FY '98. The idea is to get rid of that language. House Bill 1517 and House Bill 1518 relating to Elimination of Dedica- tions or Conveyances in Rezoning Cases were both carried over. Last, there is a Senate Finance subcommittee chaired by Senator Colgan studying the Elimination of the Personal Property Tax. Mr. Martin asked what would replace it. Ms. Fronfelter said that has not been part of the discus- sion thus far. Mr. Martin said the Board has argued to have some other type of taxing power. He would not necessarily oppose this idea as long as there is some plan to replace those funds to the locality. Ms. Thomas said they are not looking at the whole revenue problem. They are only looking at that one tax. Mr. Bowerman asked why the Board opposes House Bill 685 relating to public hearing notices for bonds. Ms. Thomas said that any locality with any sense will do this for their voters. It is an unneeded piece of legislation. Ms. Fronfelter said she can add a sentence to explain what is done. Mr. Marshall said House Bill 1208 relating to limiting the use of open space easements accepted by the state, and House Bill 1210 which establishes the Virginia Private Property Rights Act, would undo this whole thing. Mr. Bowerman asked about House Bill 70. He read "the bill expands the area subject to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act to include those locali- ties in the Bay Watershed that lie west of the fall line." Does this mean that localities which are not even in the Chesapeake Bay watershed would be included? By definition, if they are west of the fall line, they are not in the Chesapeake Bay area. Ms. Thomas said the fall line is merely where the rivers start to go over, it is not the Continental Divide. Mr. Bowerman said if it is west of that fall line, it is not in the Chesapeake Bay. Ms. Thomas said it is. Mr. Tucker said the Shenandoah River drains to the Potomac River. Mr. Perkins said the fall line is where the tide comes up to. Mr. Bowerman said he thought they were talking about where the fall line either went east or west like the Continental Divide. Ms. Thomas said she hopes the County is not opposing that strongly. Mr. Tucker said this is an issue the Board did oppose last year because of the impact the Board felt it would create on site plan and land use regulations. Staff felt it was an unfunded mandate. Mr. Bowerman said it is very extensive for those that are in it. Mr. Davis said the Board can adopt whatever part of the Act it wants to the way it is written now. Ms. Thomas asked about House Bill 476 which provides "that if a volun- tary agreement involves a modification or waiver of annexation, transition or immunity rights only, with no change in boundaries, the governing bodies shall not be required to present the agreement to a special court". She asked if the Board could agree to support that. It is listed without a recommendation. Mr. Davis said he has looked at that legislation, and he does not understand what they are trying to do. He thinks it replaces a three-judge court with circuit court approval. He is not sure what the major significance of that would be. There are a lot of things in that Code section that if they were tinkered with could cause a great deal of concern. Right now that bill just says that one thing. Ms. Thomas said she would follow Mr. Davis' recommenda- tion. Ms. Thomas said she likes the new reporting form for the legislative package. Other Board members agreed. Mr. Martin mentioned the elimination of the personal property tax. If at some point that bill includes replacing that tax with something like an income tax, he might support it. Ms. Fronfelter said in developing that position paper, she thinks there might be some alternatives proposed, espe- cially some that require less administration on the County's part. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board should agree to the ~two bullets" listed in the staff's report at this time. Mr. Tucker said he believes that now is the time to do that. Ms. Thomas said it would be helpful to have the dark skies enabling legislation whether or not the Board chose to adopt it. Mr. Marshall asked if he is the only person on the Board who opposes the BPOL tax. Ms. Humphris said she believes that is correct. Mr. Martin said it is just like the bill for the elimination of the personal property tax. He is not opposed to it, but he needs to know what would replace it. Ms. Humphris September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 57) 000 5 said the County has to have the income. Mr. Bowerman said he pays it, and he is not opposed. Ms. Thomas said it is a ~tiny sales tax." Mr. Marshall said he would like to have a discussion on this when the hour is earlier. Years ago when he was director of the Retail Merchants' Association they opposed the tax. He thinks it is one of the most unfair taxes in place. Ms. Humphris said she thought VACO considered it remedied with the model ordinance they worked on. Mr. Marshall said he thinks a proper tax would be tax on profit. Ms. Thomas said the Northern Virginia Technology group that opposed it has decided that the legislation they have now is something they can live with. Ms. Fronfelter said House Bill 383 is a bill that was carried over that would have changed the calculation from gross receipts to net receipts. There is a position in there to make up the revenue by rate adjustments. Mr. Davis said that is basically an income tax. Mr. Marshall said that is not a bad tax. Mr. Davis said that is a significant change because it would be setting a local income tax on businesses only. Mr. Marshall said he would not object to that. He would rather pay it on profit, than pay it on losses. Ms. Thomas asked why she should pay more for aspirin in a store that is making a profit, then she would pay for aspirin in a store that is managing to lose money. That is something she would have a hard time with. Ms. Humphris asked if any other Board member would like to do anything about the BPOL tax. There was no reply. Ms. Humphris then asked about the legislation for the ~Dark Skies" and the Juvenile Court. Ms. Thomas suggested that those be added to the Board's list of legislative requests. Mr. Davis asked if they would be added as special legislation or for the County Executive form of government. The history of those things has been that there is no chance of getting them enacted as general legislation. Mr. Tucker suggested that the staff prepare some language and bring it back for approval at a later meeting. Mr. Martin asked if the County is just going to support some other locality on the Juvenile Court legislation. Mr. Tucker said if there is a need to move the Court, the legislation is needed. Mr. Davis said there is an Attorney General's opinion saying that if the court is moved to any property that does not touch the property it now sits on, there must be a referendum. Mr. Martin said he thought the proposal dealt only with York County. Mr. Davis said there are now three localities that have gotten special legislation by population brackets to allow them to avoid the referendum requirements so they can move their courts. Ms. Fronfelter said that in the Code, population brackets are used so it requires only a simple majority instead of two-thirds. She said that she will be at the October 2nd meeting of the Board with the issue papers and the final version of the legislative proposals for the Board's approval. Not Docketed: At 4:40 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider personnel matters regarding salaries of specific employees and a related personnel agreement, and, under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters regarding pending litigation relating to an insurance issueand specific legal matters regarding the District Home Board, and, specific legal matters relating to reversion. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 6:10 p.m. Motion was immedi- ately offered by Mr. Bowerman 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. Approved by the Board Date lOl~t9 Initials&~ September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 58) The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. There were none. Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.