1996-06-05June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000 82
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 5, 1996, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner,' V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M., by the
Chairman, Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. George Larie said there was an article in the morning newspaper in
which it is stated that the Board will be considering an application for a
shopping center on the Sperry property on Route 29. Since it is not listed on
the agenda, is it appropriate to talk about it now? Mrs. Humphris said,
"yes" .
Mr. Larie noted that both the County and CATCO supported construction
of interchanges on Route 29 at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road.
The City had a public hearing on that issue, and at that public hearing on
January 10, 1995, Mr. Joe Straud of Sperry testified that construction of an
interchange at that intersection would significantly harm their clean room
operation. Mr. Larie said he wrote to the President of Sperry because he
understood the information was not correct. Mr. Larie received a response on
January 25 saying "Sperry does, at significant attention and expense, maintain
clean rooms and this causes heightened sensitivity to the construction of an
interchange at Hydraulic Road."
Mr. Larie said he also serves on the County's Equalization Board and
last Spring they heard an appeal by Sperry to lower the assessment on this
same piece of property which they now want to construct a shopping center on.
This property is located just south of the Sperry property and has a very deep
ravine as part of it. When he learned of the potential sale, he also wrote
the President of Sperry because their application regarding a reduction in the
property assessment states "this property is undevelopable land due to the
topography, and undevelopable with a very costly site preparation and fill."
Mr. Larie said the Equalization Board did lower the assessment on the proper-
ty. This was six months after Sperry opposed construction of the interchange.
Mr. Larie said that in December, this sale was announced, so obviously
enormous fill must be put in place at this location if a shopping center is to
be constructed there. He wrote to the President of Sperry again and raised
the issue of their opposing the interchange based on their statement that it
would cause damage to their clean room operation. He has received no response
to that letter.
Mr. Larie said he believes the shopping center would be a terrible
mistake at this location. Particularly, since Sperry opposed an interchange
that would have improved the traffic flow at that intersection one and one-
half years ago, but now is supporting construction of the shopping center
which is to their economic benefit by selling the property to the developer.
He urged the Board to take this into consideration as this question is
deliberated later today. He strongly urged the Board to continue its opposi-
tion to construction of this shopping center.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman,
seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5 and to accept the
remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.la. Appropriation: Parks and Recreation Department, reim-
bursement for funds expended during the 1995 Flood, $8848 (Form #95074).
It was noted in the staff's report that the County applied to the
Virginia Department of Emergency Services for reimbursement of expenses
incurred as a result of the 1995 flood. Reimbursement in the amount of
$16,107 was received which represents 92 percent of the approved expenses.
The money was distributed to: General Government, $14,019; Schools, $142;
and, Emergency Communications Center, $1946o Parks and Recreation has
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000'~]~3
(Page 2)
requested that their portion of the reimbursement ($8848) be appropriated to
replace the funds they were required to expend which were budgeted for other
projects.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95074
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED FOR THE
1995 FLOOD
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100071012331200 PARKS & REC-REPAIR AND MAINT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$8,848.00
$8,848.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2100019000199900 MISC RECOVERIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$8,848.00
$8,848.00
Item 5.1b. Appropriation: Education Division, to disburse a donation,
grant funds and reappropriate the FY 1994-95 Summer School Tuition Fund
Balance, $20,247.60 (Form #95075).
It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board has approved
the following appropriations:
$400.00 from the Sycamore House Studio Art Shop which was a donation to
help defray the cost of the Fine Arts Festival held February 25 through
March 14 at Fashion Square Mall.
$2500 for a UVA-NASA Collaborative Grant. Murray Elementary School was
selected to participate in a collaborative grant with the University of
Virginia. The project is entitled "Community User and Assessment of the
Global Change Data and Information System." Students in the fifth grade
will access NASA Home Page on the internet and look for items of
interest for their grade level. Jeff Prudhomme, a teacher at Murray
Elementary will do an assessment of student interest and materials
available and submit a report based on this assessment.
Reappropriation of the 1994-95 Summer School Tuition Fund Balance in the
amount of $17,347.60. The 1994-95 Summer School Program collected
tuition in the last fiscal year. This tuition fund balance needs to be
reappropriated and reflected in the 1995-96 fiscal year. These funds
will help to cover the cost for instructional materials for the Summer
School Program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95075
FUND: GRANTS/SUMMER SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SYCAMORE HOUSE ART GIFT/UVA-NASA
COLLABORATIVE GRANT/SUMMER SCHOOL
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1211161311601300
1310460216160200
1310460216210000
1310460216601300
1331061120601300
1331061125601300
DESCRIPTION
INST/REC SUPPLIES
STIPEND
FICA
INST/REC SUPPLIES
INST/REC SUPPLIES
INST/REC SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$400.00
1,000.00
76.50
1,423.50
11,700.60
5,647.00
$20,247.60
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2200018000189900 SYCAMORE HOUSE-MISC REVENUE
2310424000240292 UVA-NASA GRANT
2331051000510100 SUMMER SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$40O.OO
2,500.00
17,347.60
$20,247.60
Item 5.2. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for the County's FY 1996-97
Operating Budget. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolu-
tion was adopted as presented:
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1997
000Z34
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1997; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of
appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation
ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the
extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENEI~ OOVERNI~NT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph One:
TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS:
$53,100
1. Refunds and Abatements
$53,100
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Paragraph Two:
GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
Board of Supervisors
County Executive
Elections
Finance
Information Services
County Attorney
Human Resources
Paragraph Three:
JUDICIAL
Circuit Court
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Commonwealth's Attorney
General District Court
Juvenile Court
Magistrate
Sheriff
Paragraph Four:
PUBLIC SAFETY
Volunteer Rescue Squads (JCFRA)
Community Attention Home
Community Attention Home - VJCCCA
Community'Criminal Justice Board
Regional Jail Authority
Fire Department (City)
Fire/Rescue Administration
Fire/Rescue Credit
Forest Fire Extinction Service
Inspections
Emergency Communications Center (E-911)
Juvenile Detention Home
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)
Police Department
SPCA Contract
Volunteer Fire Departments (JCFRA)
Paragraph Five:
PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering
Solid Waste
Staff Services
Paragraph Six:
HUMAN SERVICES
Charlottesville Free Clinic
Children and Youth Commission (CACY)
Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)
District Home
FOCUS - Teensight
Health Department
Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)
JABA - Adult Health Care Facility
$5,182,846
$301,916
$495,477
$187,809
$2,248,616
$1,364,625
$331,079
$253,323
$1,727,629
$69,203
$471,866
$375,335
$10,915
$37,621
$16,165
$746,524
$9,089,203
$188,397
$62~050
$98~259
$3~750
$186.098
$620,800
$398,153
$45.000
$13.800
$643,460
$542,964
$105,316
$38,525
$5,558,389
$12,960
$571,282
$2,187,568
$957,710
$291,465
$938,393
$5,843,716
$5,150
$25,792
$27,865
$41,100
$20,405
$636,540
$115,125
$14,400
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
JAUNT - Jefferson Area United Transportation
Ch'ville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS)
Madison House
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)
Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)
Social Services
Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled
Region Ten Community Services
Region Ten Facility Expansion
Paragraph Seven:
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
ooo a5
$276,307
$16,125
$4,330
$8,284
$20,190
$60,037
$4,055,255
$190,000
$251,811
$75,000
$2,942,414
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Library
Literacy Volunteers
Parks and Recreation
Piedmont Council of the Arts
Darden Towe Memorial Park
Virginia Discovery Museum
Visitor's Bureau
WVPT Public Television
$1,621,589
$13,000
$1,064,455
$8,555
$107,075
$11,055
$109,685
$7,000
Paragraph Eight:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
$2,328,108
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
Community Action Agency (MACAA)
Gypsy Moth Program
Housing Office
Planning and Community Development
Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
Route 29 Bus Service
Soil and Water Conservation
VPI Extension Service
Zoning
Paragraph Nine:
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
$357,110
$47,165
$25,953
$346,793
$842,065
$61,561
$45,200
$29,534
$135,942
$436,785
$507,937
me
Contingency Reserve
General Government Committed Reserve
Jail Expansion Reserve
Paragraph Ten:
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
$213,252
$94,685
$200,000
$3,136,500
2.
3.
4.
General Government Capital Improvement ProgramS1,956,600
General Government Stormwater Fund $60,000
Capital Improvement Program Reserve Fund $450,000
School Division Capital Improvement Program $669,900
Paragraph Eleven:
REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
$5,170,863
Revenue Sharing Agreement
Paragraph Twelve:
OTHER USES OF FUNDS
$5,170,853
$49,671,667
School Fund
School Division Debt Service Fund
General Government Debt Service Fund
$42,612,287
$6,845,880
$113,500
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
$87,741,640
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue tom the General Fund Balance
$80,938,850
$4,361,233
$1,939,962
$501,495
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
$87,741,640
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Paragraph One:
REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Instruction
Administration, Attendance & Health
Pupil Transportation Services
Facilities Operation/Maintenance
Facilities Construction/Modification
Other Uses of Funds
Debt Service Fund
SUMMARY
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transf)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund Balance)
Miscellaneous Local Revenue
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
000:1.36
$67,172,182
$51,758,776
$2,910,009
$4,673,672
$6,838,448
$111,000
$584,355
$295,922
$67,172,182
$42,612,287
$108,500
$541,876
$23,251,334
$658,185
$67,172,182
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph One:
FOOD SERVICES
1. Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeterias
SUMMARY
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph Two:
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
Food Service
SUMMARY
Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS
Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sales)
$1,978,780
$1,978,780
$1,978,780
$1,342,842
$40,700
$595,238
$1,978,780
$357,360
$357,360
~357,360
$357,360
Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS
Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:~357,360
Paragraph Three:
PRE-SCHOOL GRANT
1. Special Ed Pre-School Program
SUMMARX
Total PRE-SCHOOL GRANT FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total PRE-SCHOOL GRANT FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph Four:
McINTIRE TRUST FUND
1. Payment to County Schools
$79,236
$79,236
~79,236
$79,236
$79,236
$10,000
$10,000
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph Five:
PREP PROGRAM
1. E.D. Program
2. C.B.I.P Severe
SU~m~%RY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph Six:
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
1. Chapter I
2. Chapter II
3. Migrant Education
4. Drug Free Schools
5. Adult Education
6. Title II
7. Carl Perkins
SUNNARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph Seven:
COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND
1. Community Education
SUM~%RY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from Driver Education Fees
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph Eight:
SUMMER SCHOOL
1. Summer School
SUNNARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition (Local)
Miscellaneous Revenues
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Transfer - School Fund
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
000±37
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$1,421,416
$867,587
$553,829
$1,421,416
$1,421,416
$1,421,416
$477,945
$33,006
$134,516
$31,306
$72,233
$29,311
$78,260
$856,577
$856,677
$856,577
$856,577
$1,349,151
$1,349,151
$1,349,151
$1,212,151
$121,000
$6,000
$10,000
$1,349,151
$287,660
$287,650
$287,650
$227,000
$9,500
$26,150
$25,000
$287,660
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Paragraph Nine:
MISCELLANEOUS SCHOOL GRANTS
000 . $
$17,500
1. Miscellaneous School Grants
$17,500
SUMMARY
Total MISCELLANEOUS SCHOOL GRANTS appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
$17,500
To be provided as follows:
Miscellaneous Revenues
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Fund Balance
$6,000
$10,000
$1,500
Total MISCELLANEOUS SCHOOL GRANTS resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph Ten:
SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT
$17,500
$407,355
1. School BUS Replacement
$407,355
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
$407,355
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles)
Transfer - School Fund
$5,000
$402,355
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
$407,355
SECTION IV - DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
Paragraph One:
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
$113,500
1. Lease/Purchase Payments - Voting Machines
$113,500
Paragraph Two:
SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND
$7,141,802
1. Debt Service Payments $6,845,880
2. VRS Early Retirement $295,922
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
$7~255,302
To be provided as follows:
Revenue tom Local Sources (Transf from Gen Fund) $6,959,380
Revenue from Local Sources (Transf from Sch Fund) $295,922
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1997:
$7,255,302
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - IV OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1997
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
$168,934,049
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
Debt Service Funds
$87,741,540
$67,172,182
$6,765,025
$7,255,302
Less Inter-Fund Transfers
($50,294,944)
General Fund to School Fund
General Fund to Debt Service Fund
School Fund to Debt Service Fund
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds
($42,612,287)
($6,959,380)
($295,922)
($427,355)
GRAND TOTAL
$118,639,105
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000 .39
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but n°t in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds for the period covered by this resolution of appropriation.
SECTION IV
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I
through IV are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provi-
sions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set
forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appro-
priations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropria-
tions--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the
amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appro-
priations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is
to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal -
year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency
under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the
Social Services Board without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being
first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations at the close of business on the thirtieth
(30th) day of June, 1997, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County
treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be
made in the resolution of appropriation for the next fiscal year, beginning
July 1, 1997. Any balance available shall be used in financing the proposed
expenditures of the respective funds for the next fiscal year.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required;
and provided further~.~hat no requisition for contractual services involving
the issuance of a co~ract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but
such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department,
bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or
Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing
such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contract-
ing department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County purchasinq Manual shall not be considered
obliqations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obliqations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automo-
biles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be
subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to
regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Paragraph Seven
000140
Ail previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the
same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This resolution shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and ninety-six.
Item 5.3. Adopt Resolution to accept Cascade Drive in the Cascades
Subdivision into the State Secondary System. At the request of the County's
Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted as requested by
the recorded vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in The Cascades Subdivision (SUB-89-226)
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 5,
1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the road in The Cascades Subdivision as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 5, 1996, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transport at ion.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)
Cascade Drive from Station 9+55, cul-de-sac edge of
pavement 1340 lineal feet to Station 22+95, cul-de-sac
edge of pavement, with a 50 foot right-of-way as shown
on plat recorded 9/24/90 in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Book 1121, pages 107-112, with additional plats
re6~'rded 4/22/96 in Deed Book 1532, page 124, Deed
Book 1532, page 127, and Deed Book 1532, page 130, for
a total length of 0.25 mile.
Item 5.4. Claudius Crozet Park Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Appropriation - Request to enter into an agreement with the Crozet Park Board
regarding recreational needs in the Crozet area.
It was noted in the staff's report that when the Board approved the
1996-97 CIP, the Board approved an additional $50,000 for construction of a
new swimming facility at the Claudius Crozet Park. This brought the total
appropriation over two years for the project to $200,000. However~ the Board
requested that staff meet with the Park Board to determine how best this money
could be used and under what conditions it should be given in terms of setting
a precedent for other similar requests. Staff has subsequently met with the
Crozet Park Board on two occasions.
Albemarle County currently has a restrictive covenant on the Crozet Park
property with the exception of the area around the existing swimming pool to
assure that in exchange for maintenance and improvements to the property, the
property will always be used for public recreational purposes. Staff has
pursued this line of discussion with the Executive Board and has reached a
tentative agreement on a number of points (a memorandum attached to the
staff's report summarized five specific points to be incorporated into an
agreement with the Crozet Park Board to benefit public recreational opportuni-
ties in the western part of the County).
The Park's Executive Board has expressed support for an agreement as
outlined and will be seeking approval of the entire Board at its next regular
meeting on June 5, 1996. It is staff's understanding that the Park Board's
attorney desires to work with the County to clarify the separation of the
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 00014'~
(Page 10) ; ............... ....... ~,~,~,~<
property involved in light of construction of the new pool. Once those
details have been worked through, staff will bring back any recommendations or
changes at that time.
Current proposed project cost is approximately $400,000. Of this, the
Park intends to provide $100,000 through fund-raising efforts and use of
existing funds, $100,000 from borrowed funds, and, $200,000 from the County
contribution. Once funding is in place, the Board intends to begin construc-
tion on the facility within 30 days.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to enter
into an agreement with the Crozet Park Board to include the five areas listed
below in exchange for an additional $50,000 appropriation toward the cost of
the Crozet Park pool facility and associated site work:
(1)
The County summer playground program will be able to continue at
the park free of charge.
(2)
The summer playground program will be able to continue using the
park at a reduced rate.
(3)
Crozet Park will give free or reduced entry scholarships to
families and individuals certified by the Albemarle County Depart-
ment of Social Services using the same criteria used for free and
reduced County park passes. Initially, available scholarships
will be limited to five percent of the total value of park member-
ships. As revenues allow, the Crozet Park Board will consider
increasing available scholarships.
(4)
The County Parks and Recreation Department will be able to make
use of the pool for activities which are not in conflict with
regular pool hours, programs or maintenance. There will be no
charge for this use except to cover any increased operating costs
that are a result of these activities. It is understood that the
Parks and Recreation Department does not have specific plans to
make immediate use of the pool. A typical future use, for in-
stance, may be a water aerobic class for senior citizens or a
therapeutic recreation class.
(5)
Crozet Park will make land available to be developed by the Parks
and Recreation Department to help meet the area need for addition-
al athletic fields.
Item 5.5. Approval of Prefunding Option for Virginia Retirement System
(VRS) Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) and Approval of VRS Purchase of
Service Credit Option.
It was noted in the staff's report that during budget work sessions,
there was no known date as to when localities would be obligated to begin
funding the COLAs on employer contributions to the VRS system. At the end of
the 1996 Legislative Session, the Governor included a proposal to allow
localities to phase in the COLA payments over a five-year period. VRS is now
offering to localities the option of this five-year phase-in or an immediate
prefunding of the COLA.
Also, House Bill 901, which was passed by the General Assembly, allows
any VRS active member with at least five years of service to purchase up to 36
months of credit for military service or service rendered in the retirement
plan of another state.
VRS is offering two options to localities to fund the employee's contri-
bution of the COLAs. The first option is to prefund the COLAs immediately in
FY 1997-98 by paying a level employer's contribution rate. The second option
is to begin prefunding the COLAs in FY 1997-1998 phasing in that funding over
a five-year period. Under Option II, the rate in year five, i.e. FY 2001-02,
and thereafter, will be higher than the rate would have been had prefunding
begun immediately. Under the immediate prefunding option, Option I, the
County's rate of 6.61 percent will be level over a thirty-year amortization
period, although it would require a one-time FY 1997-98 increase in the
County's payment by approximately $395,000. Thereafter, the County payment
would only increase due to projected increases in total compensation costs.
Under the phase-in option, Option II, the rate would increase from 4.54
percent in FY 1997-98 to 7.11 percent in FY 2001-02 and thereafter over the
thirty-year amortization period. This phase-in option would increase the
County payment in FY 1997-98 by $130,000 with an increase of between $70,000
and $90,000 over the next four years.
An analysis of the rate structure for the two options shows that the
fixed higher rate on the phase-in option over a thirty-year period will cost
the County an additional $3.0 million over the immediate prefunding option.
The School Division estimates that the immediate prefunding option will
save them approximately $82,000 over the thirty-year period and their staff is
recommending the prefunding option, not the phase-in option. These options
are only available for non-professional employees in the School Division since
professional employees are in a state pool required to phase in the COLAs.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000142
(Page 11)
HB 901 allows any VRS active member with at least 25 years of service to
purchase up to 36 months of compensation at a cost of five percent of the
person's current compensation or highest 36 months of compensation, whichever
is greater. Prior to HB 901, this type of service could be purchased at 15
percent per year. The five percent cost is paid by the employee, not the
employer. However, if an individual purchases service credit, his monthly
retirement benefit would increase. Thus, there is an ultimate cost to the
employer. This cost would be reflected in the 1998-2000 contribution rate.
Since there is a cost to the employer, HB 901 allows the locality to elect not
to provide this benefit by notifying VRS on or before July 1. The estimated
cost to General Government for this option is approximately $5000 (.04% of
payroll). The estimated cost to the School Division is estimated to be only
$1200. For the School Division, this is only optional for classified employ-
ees since the contribution rate for teachers is a state-wide pooled rate and,
therefore, will be increased even if the School Board declines to participate.
For the VRS COLA funding, staff recommends that the County choose Option
I and immediately prefund the COLAs in FY 1997-98. Although this will require
a $400,000 increase in FY 1997-98, the long-term savings justify this initial
contribution and funds should be available from the FY 1995-96 carry-over.
Staff also recommends approval of the Purchase of Service credit for potential
County retirees. For those individuals who qualify and would want to purchase
additional credit, the costs to the County are minimal.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the staff's
recommendation to choose Option I and immediately prefund the COLAs in FY
1997-98, also approved the Purchase of Service credit for potential County
retirees.
Item 5.6. Copy of Tentative Construction Fund Allocations for Fiscal
Year 1996-97 for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway System, as well as
Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including an update of the Six Year
Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2001-2002, was received
for information. It was noted that with the passage of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, several program categories are
necessary. In the document there are separate programs for the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program intended to relieve
congestion and improve air quality in the Northern Virginia, Fredericksburg,
Richmond and Hampton Roads areas; an Enhancement Program for projects that are
over and above normal highway improvements; and a Safety Program for reducing
transportation hazards. The Route 58 Corridor Development Program is also
included as a separate section, as is the Rail and Public Transportation
Program.
Item 5.7. Letter dated May 23, 1996, from K. E. Lantz, Jr., Transporta-
tion Planning Engineer, to Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, re: Route 29
Corridor Study, received for information as follows. Mrs. Humphris indicated
that she would like to discuss this item under Other'Transportation Matters.
"May 23, 1996
Route 29 Corridor Study
Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman
Albemarle Board~of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Ms. Humphris:
I am in receipt of your May 17, 1996 letter regarding the above
subject. As you are aware, public involvement is considered a key
element 'in all studies with which we are involved.
An attempt was made to schedule a public workshop activity in
Albemarle County earlier this year without success. The Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors did request that we hold a public
information meeting and that meeting was held last night from 6:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in the County Office Building. As part of this
meeting, there was a panel discussion which started at 7:00 p.m.
and lasted approximately 2 hours. During this portion of the
meeting, citizens and elected officials asked the panel a number
of questions.
The question and answer session was added to this series of
meetings to specifically address concerns such as those presented
in your letter. Citizens were given an opportunity to review the
material and ask questions prior to the panel discussion. During
the panel discussion, they could hear the questions asked by
others and have their questions and concerns heard as well.
I do not feel that a workshop after this series of public meetings
is needed or warranted. If there are still questions or concerns
which were not asked at last night's meeting, there is a 10 day
period which citizens and elected officials can forward written
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) OOOl~3
(Page 12)
comments to the study team. The written comments will be given
the same consideration as the oral testimony.
I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns.
Sincerely,
(Signed) K. E. Lantz, Jr., P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer"
Item 5.8. Letter dated May 15, 1996, from J. H. Shifflett, Jr., Mainte-
nance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey,
Clerk, re: Route 640 bridge closing, received for information. The bridge
will be closed for up to six weeks beginning on Monday, June 10, 1996, to
repair the bridge.
Item 5.9. Letter dated May 21, 1996, addressed to Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
from J. H. Shifflett, Jr., Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of
Transportation, giving notice that Route 743 will be closed between Earlys-
ville and Route 664 from Tuesday, May 28, through Friday, May 31, 1996, for
repairs just south of Earlysville Meadows.
Item 5.10. Report on traffic enforcement related to failure to obey red
lights, specifically on Route 29, received for information.
"Per the Board's request, the attached report is provided as a
follow-up to enforcement options available for problems with
motorists failing to obey highway signals. The report indicates
that:
1)
The courts require an officer to testify that he/she ob-
served the light turn red and the vehicle proceed through
the intersection;
2)
Current Virginia law requires that the officer be able to
testify as to who is operating the motor vehicle at the time
of the infraction;
3)
This type of traffic enforcement can present a substantial
safety hazard in that officers are often put into a position
of having to pursue a violator through a busy intersection
against on-coming traffic if the violator falls to observe
the red light;
(4)
Current enforcement is being done utilizing two offices per
intersection in order to overcome the safety problem men-
tioned in Item #3, although this is a very labor intensive
enforcement activity.
The report also indicates that video cameras as an enforcement
option would require legislative approval to authorize Albemarle
County to enforce traffic signal violations using this method.
There is currently a pilot on-going in Northern Virginia using
such enforcement methods but that, to date, it is not an entirely
successful pilot. Albemarle County is authorized to install video
cameras to monitor intersections and send a letter to a motorist
who failed to obey a highway sign indicating that he was observed
in violation, however, the equipment and manpower required to
operate such a reminder program would be fairly expensive, given
that tickets could not be issued or other enforcement action taken
based on the video alone.
This information is provided per the Board's request and staff
recommends that enforcement and advertising activities by the
Police Department continue to be a high priority."
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Tucker, and said this was a very good report.
Item 5.1la. Application filed with State Corporation Commission by Cox
Fibernet Access Services, Inc., and Cox Fibernet Commercial Services, Inc.,
for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide intrastate
Telecommunications Service, received for information.
Item 5.1lb. Application filed with State Corporation Commission by
Central Telephone Company of Virginia to amend its certificate of public
convenience and necessity to provide inter-exchange telecommunications
services and to have its rates determined competitively, received for informa-
tion.
Item 5.12. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 7, 1996,
received for information.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000144
(Page 13)
Item 5.13. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors for the Albemarle
County Service Authority for April 18, 1996, received for information.
Item 5.14. Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission/
Community Policy and Management Team, report on preliminary discussion
concerning a possible merger or reconfiguration of these two appointed
planning and policy-making bodies for children and youth services, was
received for information.
Item 5.15. Neighborhood Team Update, including copy of new brochure
about linking residents and County government, received for information.
Item 5.16. Copy of letter dated May 17~ 1996, from Marc Christian
Wagner, National Register Coordinator, Department of Historic Resources, re:
Boyd Tavern, Albemarle County, received for information.
Item 5.17. Letter dated May 22, 1996, from the Honorable Jay Katzen,
House of Delegates, forwarding a copy of House Bill 1211 ("Fresh Start"
legislation), received as information.
Item 5.18. Acme Design Technology Company's operating results for 1995
year end and the first four months of 1996 received for information and filed
in the Clerk's office.
NOTE: Mr. Bowerman mentioned the number of items on the Consent Agenda
today, and said that it is hard to find the paperwork in his folder when the
items are not individually numbered. Mr. Tucker said he would check to see if
the items could be numbered in the future.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 22 and April 25, 1995.
Mrs. Thomas had read the minutes of March 22, 1995, and found only two
typographical errors.
Mo%ion by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes of
March 22, 1995. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7B. Other Transportation Matters:
Mrs. Humphris wished to discuss the letter from Mr. Lantz. She said she
has had a problem with the whole idea of a corridor study, and particularly
because Albemarle County was so late in getting notice. The statement in the
second paragraph of ~...Lantz' letter is a repetition of what the Board had
disagreed with earlier. He says "An attempt was made to SChedule .... " Mrs.
Humphris said no one she has talked to knows of any offering of a public
workshop on the Route 29 North Corridor Study in Albemarle County, except for
a small work session of staff people which was scheduled in January, but was
canceled because of the blizzard and never rescheduled. VDOT in Richmond
insists they made Albemarle County the offer, but without success. She asked
how the Board can get this straightened out.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, said she thinks this was
an informal offer made through her at a Board meeting. She was not aware that
the Board wanted a public workshop such as that which had already occurred in
Madison County. From that offer, the Department set up four public informa-
tion meetings for the Corridor Study, one in each of the four counties that
are adjacent to the 29 corridor.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels this needs to be straightened out. She
asked if Ms. Tucker knows of any attempt to schedule a public workshop in
Albemarle County without success. At a Metropolitan Planning Organization
meeting of the Policy Board, it was said that an attempt was made to schedule
one, and Albemarle County did not want one. Ms. Tucker said she does not know
of any formal invitation that was extended, or any outline offer of what a
workshop would be about. She is somewhat confused herself. She took the
workshop request to mean what VDOT just presented recently as a public
information meeting.
Mrs. Humphris said the MPO made a request for a workshop and outlined in
great detail what the purpose of a workshop would be. The request was denied
on the premise that the request should have come from this Board of Supervi-
sors. It was at that time that this Board made its request for a workshop~
which has now been turned down. Mrs. Humphris said she has done her best, and
she will leave it for the record that neither this Board or the MPO Policy
Board knows anything about any attempt that was made without success.
000 45
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mrs. Thomas asked at what point this Board can discuss whether it wants
to give any guidance to David Bowerman, who is the County's representative on
the Steering Committee, regarding the design or alternatives that are in front
of that group and this community.
Mr. Tucker said he has discussed this matter with Mr. Cilimberg and
staff supports the improvements to Route 29 which all feel are necessary for
the future, and with the modified land use efforts to protect that corridor.
To those who attended the presentation a couple of weeks ago, that seemed to
be the best option for the County. There would be greater ability to provide
input and oversight on the land use effects of the traffic rather than the
expressway and other options.
Mrs. Thomas asked if it would help Mr. Bowerman and the members of the
Steering Committee if this Board adopted a formal resolution. Mr. Bowerman
said he cannot attend tomorrow's meeting, but he has talked with Mr. Cilim-
berg, and both agree with what Mr. Tucker just expressed. If that is the
Board's thinking on the matter, that can be the thinking of himself and Mr.
Cilimberg. He thinks the consultants said the Steering Committee would make a
recommendation which then goes to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).
The CTB will ask each locality for input, so this Board has a chance to make
comments now through he and Mr. Cilimberg to the Steering Committee, and it
will have another chance to make comments at the end of the process. He
thinks both of the comments can be same, i.e., improve what needs to be
improved with interchanges where they are absolutely needed, but limit
development along Route 29 and the rest of the area to prevent the same
traffic situations from coming up in the future.
Mrs. Thomas said concerns have been expressed to her not only by people
who live right next to the road, but also from people just driving on Route 29
South. They recognize that if Route 29 north of Charlottesville becomes an
expressway, and is attractive to trucks, they will be the recipients of all
those big trucks. In a recent issue of "County News", it notes that VDOT has
been designating more roads for huge trucks without involving local government
in those decisions. There is a lot of concern that Route 29 not be turned
into an expressway.
Mr. Bowerman said he will reflect anything the Board asks him to
reflect, but the position they will represent to the Steering Committee is the
one Mrs. Thomas just said, if the rest of the Board members agree.
Mrs. Humphris said she sat in on the last two meetings of the Steering
Committee, and also attended the public hearing. To her, one of the most
telling facts is that the turning of the 29 Corridor into a limited access
facility would result in an additional 19,600 vehicle trips per day coming
from 1-95 and 1-81, mostly in the form of trucks. That traffic would not
service this community in any way, but is a detriment to the community. She
will support Mr. Bowerman as Albemarle's representative to the Steering
Committee, and Mr. Cilimberg to the Technical Committee, in asking that only
those improvements necessary to maintain the proper traffic flow that would
result in a better corridor be undertaken, and to try to do the land use
modifications. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to adopt a resolution if
someone would propose it.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas to adopt a resolution expressing
the Board's interest in having Albemarle's main corridor (Route 29) remain a
corridor that is locally user-friendly rather than a corridor that facilitates
interstate travel, particularly the movement of large vehicles down the center
of Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Marshall asked what this Board is trying to do; what is this Board
actually able to do? Mrs. Humphris said this Board is supposed to be a
deciding factor in the outcome of this study. This is the Board's chance to
give input upfront. Mr. Marshall asked what exactly is being talked about.
Mr. Bowerman said interchanges and spot improvements rather than building a
limited access highway is his thinking.
Mrs. Humphris said the No. 1 proposal in the study in the beginning was
for what amounted to an interstate highway through the state. It would have
been limited access to the extent of being a quasi-interstate, which would
have put out of business all of the "Mom and Pop" businesses that are now
located in the corridor all the way through the state. Mr. Marshall asked if
the Board is discussing two different things. Mrs. Humphris said the Board is
talking about proposing that this not be done because that is the improvement
which would attract to Albemarle 19,600 other vehicles from 1-95 and 1-81o
Mr. Marshall said he does not understand the reference to interchanges.
Mrs. Humphris said there is a list of improvements that would put an inter-
change in one locality, and a different type of crossover in another locality.
Mr. Bowerman said the issue on Route 29 in Albemarle County is settled. There
might be an interchange in Ruckersville, and where there are the 18 lights
between the River and where Route 29 runs into 1-66. This proposal does not
reopen the question of interchanges along Route 29 in Albemarle's urban area.
This study actually starts at the South Fork Rivanna River and goes to just
south of Warrenton. The next study will start south of Charlottesville.
Mr. Tucker said he understands what the Board members are saying and
will try to draft a resolution using that language. The staff will key in on
000146
June 5, 1996 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 15)
the modified land use alternative because that is one of the alternatives
which addresses what each Board member.said, as opposed to an expressway and
some of the other alternatives.
Mr. Cilimberg said now that there have been public comments taken, the
Committee will be asked to go through a series of evaluation criteria on each
of the options. He will tell the Committee tomorrow that the Committee can go
through that effort, but the Board of County Supervisors in Albemarle feels
that what is necessary and proper for this community is to do those improve-
ments to Route 29 that are necessary for Route 29 to serve its function as it
exists, and to further investigate the modified land use approach which is
really a combination of local efforts in planning and state enabling legisla-
tion in order to control access and how land use relates to the road. That is
what the modified land use proposal is all about. If that sounds proper, he
will say that to the Committee tomorrow even before the meeting starts.
Mrs. Thomas said her concern is not just for the people who live beside
the road, but rather for what kind of road the County ends up with. The more
attractive, wider and faster the road becomes, the more the road will impact
on everything south of Culpeper. Mr. Cilimberg said he will say that Albe-
marle does not support the freeway just for that reason. Mr. Martin suggested
that Mr. Cilimberg use the words "including that reason".
Mrs. Humphris said there was a discussion at the last committee meeting
about how advertising should take place. She called Ms. Tucker the day the
first advertisement appeared in the newspaper announcing a Route 29 Corridor
Development Study. She explained that she thought the advertisements were to
explain to the public what they should come to the meeting to discuss. The
advertisement did not enlighten anybody about what would be discussed. She
expected VDOT to change the advertisement to address the information that the
public needed to know, and that never happened. Mrs. Humphris said she has
had plenty of disappointments with VDOT but this was a major disappointment.
She was amazed that as many people attended the meeting as did, but probably
more than one-half of the people in attendance were from counties to the north
of Albemarle. It was a major disappointment that that was the best that VDOT
could do on the advertising.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had asked Hannah Twaddell at the Planning District
Commission to send out a direct mail notice of the actual workshop and
hopefully that helped some. Mrs. Humphris said based on the people who came
and spoke, that was probably the most effective thing that was done.
With no further discussion of this item, roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution reads as follows:
RESOLUTION
W~ER~AS, this Board has been concerned for some time about
the activity surrounding the Route 29 Corridor Study; and
W~E~AS,~'{his Board would like to express its concerns
regarding options for changing the corridor.
NOW, THEP.~FOPd~, BE IT Pd~SOL%~D, that the Board. of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recommend
that the Route 29 Corridor continue to function as it exists,
serving local as well as through traffic rather than facilitating
interstate travel; supports improvements to Route 29 that are
necessary for it to serve its current function; and, further
supports investigation of a modified land use approach which can
combine local efforts in planning with state enabling legislation
in order to control access and how land use relates to the road.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Discussion: Naming of the Route 29 Western Bypass.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board had received a letter dated May 14, 1996,
from Mr. William S. Roudabush, Jr., the County's representative on the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, offering Albemarle County the opportunity
to participate in the naming of the Route 29 Bypass. Mr. Roudabush states
that Title 33.1-12 of the Code of Virginia gives the CTB the power to give
suitable names to state highways. Highways can be named for prominent natural
or historical features in the area or for prominent individuals who are
deceased. Highways can be named for individuals who are still living, but
only with approval of the General Assembly.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to suggest that the Board turn the
responsibility of doing this over to the existing MPO's Route 29 Bypass Design
Advisory Committee, since they have been involved in it, and they are a
committee which is already working together. They could solicit suggestions
and make their recommendations to this Board. The final decision should lie
with this Board.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000147
(Page 16)
Mr. Marshall suggested that the road be named for Governor John S.
Battle. Mrs. Humphris asked if anybody else had a suggestion for how the road
should be named. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that public input should be
solicited. Mr. Marshall asked how much time the Board has to respond. Mr.
Tucker said a deadline could be given to the Committee.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to turn
responsibility over to the existing MPO Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory
Committee and request that they solicit public input and then make a report
back to this Board by September 1, 1996.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Return to Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Angela Tucker said the Route 29 Design Advisory Committee will
probably be working through and even after the design public hearing which
will be held in late November or early December, 1996.
Ms. Tucker said VDOT will be holding a pre-construction meeting for the
Hydraulic Road project soon. Construction on the section from Lambs Road
around to the Rock Store should start in approximately four weeks. This will
be a widening from two lanes to five lanes. The contractor is Faulconer
Construction.
Ms. Tucker said the Route 29 North project is on schedule. Completion
of the final overlay of paving from Hydraulic Road to just north of Rio Road
should be complete by June 30. There will be minor work left on that project
until late August, 1996, particularly the small portion of Rio Road that was
accelerated and added as a change order under that project.
Ms. Tucker said that soon the extension of the deceleration/acceleration
lane at 1-64 eastbound to Route 20 South into the Piedmont College (PVCC)
entrance will be advertised.
Mr. Marshall asked about the section of Route 20 out to where the new
high school is to be built. Ms. Tucker said that project has no allocation of
funds, but the department is aware of the need. She sent a memorandum to the
District Administrator, and the Board also made a request.
Mr. Marshall asked the time frame on the road into the School property.
He does not think the County can start building the school until the road is
built. Mr. Tucker said the road can be roughed in. Actual construction of
the road will occur during final construction on the school. Mr. Marshall
said he is afraid there will be a great traffic increase between Route 20 and
the Tandem School entrance when the temporary road is built. Mr. Tucker said
he thinks VDOT is sensitive to the request, but he doubts that the County will
be able to coincide their improvement prior to th~..~o~nty starting work on the
school.
Ms. Tucker said the connector project will include appropriate turn
lanes on Route 20 and on Route 742. Mr. Marshall said that the entrance into
this road will be dangerous since it is located on a curve. Mr. Tucker said
staff might look at temporary turn lanes to get into the site once the road
has been opened to get into the school. Ms. Tucker asked if the sequence for
construction is to have traffic enter from Route 20 as opposed to Route 742.
There is some commercial development on the Route 742 end which will coincide
with development of that road. Mr. Tucker said he believes the majority of
traffic will be coming from Route 20 because it is better access. Ms. Tucker
said the traffic count on Route 742 is similar to that on Route 20. VDOT will
assure that whatever is needed for construction will be in place. Mr.
Marshall suggested that all traffic might use Route 742 until some improvement
occurs on Route 20. Ms. Tucker said this entrance should be some distance
south of the current Tandem School entrance. Adequate sight distance is
required for any commercial access whether it be the temporary field access or
the ultimate street connection. Mr. Marshall said he does not want this
request to get lost.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the widening of Route 631 and the problem of
the sidewalk on the west side between Berkmar Drive and Lambs Road. Mr.
Cilimberg said Ms. Tucker is apparently still working with the District Office
on this item, and it can wait another month for a decision.
Ms. Tucker said the general impact of adding sidewalk to the west side
of Route 631, on the section from the Rock Store around to Berkmar Drive,
would be to add cost to the design, as well as expenses for additional right-
of-way. The sidewalk will not place the road in direct conflict with a
structure, but it will impact commercial parking spaces and some informal
retaining walls in some parking areas. It goes beyond the bounds currently
000 48
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meetihg)
(Page 17)
established for neceSsar~ r~!~i~i~ ~'~adjustments are being made to see
what impact it has to design costs and overall project costs.
Mr. Perkins asked about several places in Crozet where there are large
pot holes in the road bed. One place on Park Road has been broken up since
the flood last summer.
Ms. Tucker said those have been forwarded for the guardrail schedule.
She will let Mr. Perkins know which request made it into the schedule.
Mr. Martin said there is a person who lives on Route 20 who has property
which adjoins what used to be Old Route 20. He has a difficult time maintain-
ing it because it is not his property. He has a fence on one side, and VDOT
does not maintain the property. The thistle blows into his property, and he
would be willing to put his fence over near the current Route 20 and maintain
that section if that is possible. Ms. Tucker said that might be possible
under a permitting procedure.
Mr. Martin said where Route 29 North and Proffit Road meet it makes
sense for the cars to pass each other on the right side of the cars. They
started doing that after VDOT installed some lines, but now the lines are
gone. He understands that is an illegal turn without those lines, and some
people will not make that turn and it backs up traffic. Ms. Tucker said the
lines can be reestablished.
Mrs. Thomas said she had a call from someone on Owensville Road who is
concerned about the maintenance of the road at the end closest to Ivy. The
surface of the road seems to be deteriorating beyond reason.
Mrs. Thomas thanked Ms. Tucker for her responsiveness to the requests
she has made via fax.
Ms. Tucker said VDOT is currently in the midst of a plant mix overlay,
surface-treatment schedule, and slurry seal schedule. She will send, in
writing, a listing of those neighborhoods and routes that are on the schedule
for work this summer.
Mr. Martin said that also on Route 20, in particular Burnley Station
Road, there were some trees blown down a good while ago. VDOT cut down the
trees but left them just off the edge of the road, and it is creating a hazard
for some farmers using this road for farm equipment.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned Item 5.10 from the consent agenda. (Mr.
Bowerman returns at 10:00 A.M.) She said it was an excellent report, and she
thanked staff for it. She said it was helpful that the local television
station did a segment on this topic last night. Realizing the extreme
difficulties and safety hazards that exist for officers trying to enforce the
law, it becomes a real problem. She has been thinking about how citizens can
help to solve this problem. She said that when the Board was dealing with the
problem of speeding on Georgetown Road, there was one simple idea brought up
other than ideas which would cost money to slow down traffic. That idea was:
if the people who lived on Georgetown Road and who had signed a petition (some
500 of them), all drove the speed limit on Georgetown Road, not many other
people would be able to speed. They have done that with some success. She
also suggested blowing the horn at people Who disobey traffic laws.
Mr. Bowerman said he is perplexed because with the improvements to Route
29 North there are not two traffic lights to wait through anywhere, but there
seems to be an increase in people's unwillingness to stop for a light because
it will cost them the 60 seconds it takes them to get to the next light. He
recently stopped at light, the person beside him stopped, and people went
around them, they beeped their horns, and received an angry response. These
people entered the interchange after the red light came on. It was a flagrant
violation. He does not know how common sense and courtesy have disappeared
from traffic on Route 29 even now that it has become better. He thinks there
needs to be a strict enforcement of traffic laws. He does not know what other
course the Board can take.
Mrs. Thomas said that people in Batesville have a sticker on their cars
which says "I drive 25 in Batesville". Maybe a bumper sticker that says."I
stop for red lights" would be appropriate. Mr. Bowerman said maybe it has
gotten to things like bumper stickers, plus enforcement. Mr. Tucker said
there needs to be some education, and there have been letters sent to the
editor, however, there is only so much the law will allow the County to do.
The improvements to Route 29 have actually made the situation worse in some
instances because it takes longer to get through an intersection and people
don't want to wait.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not interested in generating revenue or creating
a speed trap on Route 29, but is interested in strongly enforcing the law
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000149
(Page 18)
since it could mean the safety of people who may not be familiar with the
community. He thinks part of the sOlution should be to look at additional
motorcycle enforcement. Mr. Tucker said a policeman must see the person
commit an infraction of the law and pull that person over. The policeman gets
into the same predicament because they have to follow that person into the
intersection. Mr. Bowerman said the public knows that there is no certainty
of enforcement. Mr. Tucker said the presence would probably have some effect
by having the officer there. Staff is looking at having a greater presence.
Mr. Bowerman said one motorcycle is invisible. Mr. Martin said presence is
bad unless it can be backed up.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Tucker for the excellent report.
Mrs. Mumphris said in the last issue of the VACO newsletter, there is
notice that on May 9, 1996, the Commonwealth Transportation Board added 40
truck routes to Virginia's Surface Transportation Assistance Access System
(STAAS). This was based on VDOT's recommendations. VACO notes that some
jurisdictions where these routes are located were not notified before CTB took
this action although VACO was a member of the task force. The task force met
on September 5, 1995, and some of the members were not informed that the CTB
was going to consider expanding the STAAS, so VACO was not able to inform the
effected localities. The revised process for adding roads to the system does
not include procedures which allow local officials to comment. She said this
is bad and she feels the localities have a right to know what is being
considered when things effect their communities so drastically. In this case,
these very large tractor trailer trucks and double trailers, etc. will legally
be able to use Routes 22/231. This is a battle that this locality has been
fighting, and the Board did not know the CTB had already taken this action.
The decision was made on evaluating the road in terms of physical factors; it
had nothing to do with land use or other factors.
(Note: At 10:10 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:18 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a proposal to lease space to
United States Cellular at the County's Bucks Elbow tower site (Tax Map 39,
Parcel lB1). (Notice of the public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 27, 1996.)
Mr. Tucker said U.S. Cellular approached the County with a request to
lease tower space from the County at the Buck's Elbow radio communications
tower site. The County's policy has been to encourage that additional
antennas and cellular devices be added to existing antennas wherever possible.
This lease agreement seems to meet that intent while benefitting the County
with improved tower facilities and communications coverage.
The public hearing was opened. With no member of the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas,
to authorize the County Executive to enter into a lease agreement with U.S.
Cellular Corporation under terms acceptable to the County (to pay the County
for the leased tower space for a five-year lease term; to share in an existing
road maintenance agreement for access to the property; to repair or replace
existing fence and gates, apply stone to existing compound and drive as
required, to upgrade the existing grounding system, replace an existing 40-
foot pipe mount on the antenna with a 40-foot section of steel tower, relocate
existing County antennas and microwave dishes on this section of antenna), at
a rental rate of $500/month (all as set out in the staff's report).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing to consider the conveyance of certain
property designated as Lot 38A1, Block E, Section One, Woodbrook Subdivision,
Tax Map 45C-lE38, to the County School Board of Albemarle County in order to
accommodate the proposed addition to Woodbrook Elementary School. (Notice of
this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27,
1996.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff's report as set out in the Board's
minutes of May 1 1996.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt
the following resolution authorizing the conveyance of the property to the
School Board according to terms and conditions set forth in the Deed.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
000 .50
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bow~man; MrS'~'~?~Ph~S, ~r. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is the owner of record of
certain property identified as Lot 38A1, Block E, Section One, in
the Woodbrook Subdivision in the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the property was designated for use as a "well lot"
prior to the availability of public water and sewer at the proper-
ty; and
WHEREAS, the property is adjacent to Woodbrook Elementary
School, which is undertaking an expansion of its current facili-
ties; and
WHEREAS, the property is currently being utilized as a
playground by children at Woodbrook Elementary School; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle no longer has any need for
the property, and the property is needed by Woodbrook Elementary
School in order to accommodate the expansion of its current
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the
conveyance of the above-described property to the County School
Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, according to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Deed attached hereto and to be record-
ed herewith, and authorizes the County Executive to execute said
Deed on its behalf.
* * *
THIS DEED IS EXEMPT FROM RECORDATION AND GRANTOR TAXES PURSUANT TO
§~ 58.1-811(A)(3) AND 58.1-811(C)(3) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
(1950), AS AMENDED.
THIS DEED made this 5th day of May, 1996, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and THE COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), cash
in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby
GRANT, CONVEY, and DEDICATE to public use with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF
TITLE unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, certain
property described, shown and designated as "Lot 38A1, Block E,
Section One, Woodbrook" on plat of William S. Roudabush, Jr. and
Associates dated March, 1966, a copy of which is attached hereto
to be recorded with this deed (the "Plat"). Reference is made to
the Plat for a more particular description of the land conveyed
herein.
The Grantor, acting by and through its County Executive,
duly authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, does hereby convey the interest in real estate
made by this deed.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on the portional discontinuance of
2476.59 lineal feet on State Route 782 (Stribling Avenue). (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6, 1996.)
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Tom Michie representing Maury
Flowers Shields, and Mr. Fran Lawrence, representing Mr. Granger, motion was
offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer this public hearing
until September 4, 1996.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan (continued from
May 1, 1996).
Mr. David Eenish, Chief'of Community Development, was present. He said
this is a continuation of the work session from May 1. Revised Land Use maps
have been posted on the wall for review, and the Board has been provided with
just the pages where corrections were made from that meeting.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mrs. Humphris aske~h0W~{h~'B6~d ~mbers w~nted to proceed with
finalizing this item. Mr. Marshall said the Board agreed to defer putting any
additional land into the growth areas until the study of the Rural Areas was
completed. He understands the study has been completed, and he asked when the
Board will hear those recommendations. Mr; Benish said the Board's direc-
tions, until this date, have been to not show any expansions to the growth
areas. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board needs to hear from the rural
areas study before completely eliminating any growth areas. Mr. Benish said
the Board had said it would approve the Land Use maps now showing any expan-
sions, pick up the rural areas discussion, and simultaneously the staff will
be studying the holding area concept they had recommended in the Land Use
Plan. Later, staff will come back with a proposal as to how to address future
expansions of the growth areas (now being referred to as development areas in
the plan).
Mrs. Thomas said she wanted to put on a fast track development of
standards or someway to judge requests to enlarge a growth area rather than
totally putting a clamp on the growth areas. She does not want to expand the
growth areas automatically at this point. Although, the words "in-fill" and
"denser development" are used, the County does not have the ability to get
that done at this time. She suggested that the following language be included
as an additional bullet at the bottom of Page 15: "Through an Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee, define strategy and standards for in-fill of existing areas and
increased density in new development areas. Use strategy and standards to
work as needed for changes in state legislation and state agencies, and to
evaluate proposals for changes in development area boundaries."
Mrs. Thomas said she included the part about changing state standards
because the County has problems with VDOT regulations. For example, downtown
Crozet is finding it almost impossible to have new development. It would be a
way of responding to requests for enlargement of growth areas as well as
approval of projects within the existing growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg said
what Mrs. Thomas said is staff's understanding of what staff is supposed to be
doing. That work just has not been completed.
Mr. Marshall said from what he is reading in the revised pages, the
growth area has been almost totally eliminated. He does not want this plan to
be "etched in stone" until the Board gets the results of the Rural Areas study
or otherwise there will be pressure put on the rural areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said the reference to growth areas had been changed to
development areas, but it is not intended to say there will be no expansion.
Mr. Marshall said he understands that. He does not want to wait another five
years and then find out that nothing can be done. Mr. Tucker said there is no
proposal to eliminate any of the development areas.
Mr. Martin said the Board needs to discuss the development areas in
context with the rural areas, and that conversation starts this afternoon with
the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said if the land use changes within
the current boundaries are not adopted, staff will be in limbo for months
trying to deal with new development proposals. That is why staff wanted that
taken care of. Knowing that staff and the Commission would be moving forward
with how to deal with the rural areas, and how to deal with the development
area expansions over the next several months, he thought the Board would be
willing to go ahead and make the changes in land use with the existing
boundaries so that map could be used as the new land use plan in the interim.
Mr. Marshall said he wants it made perfectly clear to the public, the
press, and everybody concerned, that the Board has not eliminated the growth
areas. He has heard this mentioned by many people. The Board will study them
and what is decided later will be based on whatever information is provided
by this study. He said the Board may put all or part of the growth areas
originally recommended by the Planning Commission back in because the study
may point out the need for that action.
Mr. Benish said the proposal presented to this Board by the Planning
Commission showed some land in the southern part of the County which was
referred to as a growth area. Mr. Marshall said that in addition to that, he
wanted to look at other areas in the northern end of the County where there is
infrastructure already in place. Mr. Benish said he would like to make one
clarification. Two existing growth areas are being eliminated from the
revised plan, and those are Earlysville and North Garden.
Mrs. Humphris said in the materials that were distributed to the Board,
she has a few questions, and asked that the Board go through these materials
page by page to discuss things she does not understand.
Mrs. Humphris said she did not understand the language on Page 15, the
second bullet, where it states "Develop plans for proposed public projects in
a timely fashion to permit new developments to adequately plan for and
accommodate, as necessary, the proposed project." She asked the meaning of
the words, "proposed project." Mr. Cilimberg said this is an effort to get
public plans done so that when a private developer brings in a plan, he can
incorporate County plans into that project. Mrs.Humphris suggested changing
the words to "the proposed public project."
Mrs. Thomas said her comment on Page 15 is what she just read. If staff
feels it is not necessary because that is what they are doing anyway, she is
000 l.52
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
perfectly happy to leave i~'~t~!}~ii~berg S~id the language can be used
as an action item, and it does not hurt to have it also as a reco~endation.
Mr. Benish said if the Board is comfortable with the wording, it is probably
better to include it. Reference to what needs to be done is in the ActiOn
Agenda on Page 121 of the document itself.
Mr. Benish said that on Page 27 there is a word missing in the revision
to the Sperry property site, in the second bullet, fourth sentence "...
include commercial services serving additional community scale needs rather
than regional .... " Add the word needs.
Mrs. Humphris saidfthat on Page 28, in discussing the greenway/pedes-
trian connection, at one time there was a suggestion made that the greenway be
funded from time to time by using roll back taxes when lands are converted to
other uses. Although that is an action that would take place elsewhere, she
thinks this may be a good way to provide funding.
Mrs. Thomas said she had heard comments from a member of City Council
who said that City Council would like to join in planning for what happens
along the South Fork of the Rivanna. Mr. Benish said that in the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) work program in the future, there will be an
update of the bike plan, and work on a regional pedestrian path included. It
is conceivable that the planners may pick up on some greenway concepts within
that plan, although at this time, the focus is on typical bicycle paths and
walkways.
Mrs. Thomas inquired about Page 31, the next to the last bullet, and
asked why it is being deleted. Buffers between subdivisions seems like a good
thing. Mr. Benish said buffers are included in the overall standards for
development and do not need to be mentioned in this section as well.
Mrs. Thomas said on Page 34, she is concerned that Route 250 East not
become another Route 29 North. The top bullet says: "Limit strip development
by preventing commercial development along the northern portion of the
roadway". She said that seems to be fine, but she thinks that service roads,
limited access points, parallel roads, grids of roads and alternative trans-
portation systems need to be emphasized. She asked if this statement is as
strong as it can be. Mr. Benish said a lot of these items are covered in the
standards, and consolidated, controlled entrances are suggested in both the
road standards and the development standards. This is an area where the Board
may want to be redundant in order to emphasize its importance. Staff was
trying to make the document less wordy, so if it was stated in one place, they
tried to avoid putting the words in again. Both Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris
suggested that the words be included in this section. Mr. Benish said he is
going to change the words "northern portion" to "north side".
Mr. Marshall referred to a paragraph on Page 37 which had been stricken.
"In the long term construct a second Route 20/Route 631 connector road in the
southern portion of the neighborhood." He asked why the words were deleted°
Mr. Cilimberg said no new roads are being shown in the rural areas. Also,
this proposed road would require that a study be made before its inclusion in
the plan.
Mrs. Humphris referred to Page 40, the final bullet reading: "The
eastern portion of the designated Transitional area located southwest of, and
immediately adjacent to the 1-64/Fifth Street interchange should be developed
in accordance with the Land Use Plan guidelines for Interstate Interchange
Development (p. 67). The Highway Service category of uses and acreage (3-5
acres) are recommended for this interchange area. Access to the Transitional
area, including the Interstate Interchange area, should be limited to the
existing cross-overs. Pedestrian access should be incorporated into the site
design for the area." She asked the meaning of this language.
Mr. Benish said the area had been recommended for Regional Service by
the Planning Commission, however, at an earlier meeting, this Board decided
that Transitional as a designation would be more appropriate since it permits
very limited neighborhood commercial uses. This large area is also adjacent
to the interchange, so is subject to the Interstate Interchange Development
Policy which indicates the types of development deemed to be appropriate.
That policy sets out two categories of uses. One category lists the regional
service uses (large-scale uses), and the second category lists smaller uses
(highway service businesses). This statement is saying that a small portion
of the area adjacent to the interchange falls under that Interstate Inter-
change Development Policy, and in that area, staff recommends the lower level
of uses. Later in the section entitled "Development Standards", Item #4 on
page 68 indicates general acreage for that policy. It says that the random
location of individual highway service businesses and lower category uses
should be discouraged. Such uses should be located exclusively in clusters
with common access points to a site ranging from three to five acres. Mr.
Benish went to the map located on the wall and pointed out the area which is
currently zoned C-1.
Mrs. Humphris said based on the availability of existing business
service on the City side of the interstate, and the neighborhood that already
exists on the south side of the interstate, the Board said it did not want to
include anything not appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Benish said Board
members did make those comments regarding the Regional Service area. Subse-
quently, letters were received from the applicant requesting that some
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) OOOl~
(Page 22) .. ~ ~
commercial use be put in that'area, staff's proposal left the Interstate
Interchange Policy concept in tact. If the Board is not comfortable with
using that quadrant of the Interstate Interchange for those types of uses,
then staff will modify the language, but will also have to modify the Inter-
state Interchange Development Policy.
Mr. Marshall said he promised the people in that neighborhood that he
would not allow commercial use in that area. Mr. Benish said there is
existing zoning of C-1 on approximately five acres that roughly corresponds to
the acreage to question. Unless the Board chooses to effect the existing
zoning in some way, it could be developed in some kind of commercial activity.
Mr. Marshall said he does not want a law suit either. Mr. Benish said
any change in the plan will not affect zoning. He is just reminding the Board
that there is some underlying zoning at that interchange that could be
developed regardless of what is shown on the land use map. Mr. Cilimberg said
the Transitional zoning category also includes commercial as one use.
Mr. Marshall asked if the property owner would not have to aPply for a
special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said they would need a rezoning if the
property were not zoned commercially. The C-1 properties could develop by-
right, in any number of commercial uses. Mr. Marshall said if the land lies
on the right as one leaves the City, that is the site where the Board just
turned down an application for a convenience store, car wash, service station,
etc. Mr. Cilimberg said the application was for HC, Highway Commercial, and
the Board denied that rezoning application.
Mrs. Humphris asked the difference between the C-1 zoning that is on the
property now, and the kind of zoning allowed if the idea of the Interstate
Interchange Development and highway service category uses are left on the
property. Mr. Cilimberg said highway service category uses include hotel,
motel, restaurant, service station, truck stops, convenience store, gift,
craft or antique shops, and some of those are by-right uses in C-1 and some
are not.
Mrs. Humphris asked if a truck stop is a by-right use in C-1. Mr.
Cilimberg said a truck stop is not a by-right use. Mrs. Humphris said that is
the kind of thing this Board did not want at that location, so it sounds like
the Board might have to do what Mr. Benish suggests, and make some change to
the Interstate Interchange Development definition. Mr. Cilimberg said Routes
631/I-64 can be referred to so that the Interstate Interchange Development
Policy only applies to the north side of the interstate. That would meet the
Board's concerns.
Mr. Marshall asked how this affects the property owners. Mr. Cilimberg
said that on the south side, the existing C-1 would remain in tact, and the
Transitional designation would stand, which is what the Board requested last
month. That would not introduce any opportunity for a zoning change for the
heavier commercial activity on the south side.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Marshall is more concerned about expanding, and
there is no proposal to expand the zoning that exists on those southern
quadrants. Mr. Cilimberg said that would depend on whether the Interstate
Interchange Policy continued to apply to the south side of the interchange.
It is did, there would be the potential for someone to submit a rezoning
request for a category higher than the C-1 designation. If that is of
concern, the Board would not want the Interstate Interchange Development
Policy to apply on the south side of the interchange.
Mrs. Humphris said that clears it up. She thinks it is the sense of the
Board that the Route 631/Fifth Street Intersection be controlled by the
Interstate Interchange Development Policy on the north side, but not on the
south side. Mr. Benish said he wants to make sure the Commission is aware
that the Transitional designation which was subsequently recommended by this
Board includes an opportunity for commercial, so even by designating it
Transitional there is still the potential for neighborhood service level type
of uses which are convenience, service-oriented and non-durable goods.
Mrs. Humphris said Page 41 and Page 43 deem to be identical. Mr. Benish
said it was a duplication, an error was made in numbering the pages.
Mrs. Thomas said she wanted to comment about Route 250 West as mentioned
on page 45. The area going west is largely institutional and not commercial
in nature. It occurred to her that the words "institutional" embody something
important for that entrance corridor which is rather unique because of that
use. Somehow that should be embodied in the existing land use description.
It might be useful because there is a large piece of property for sale now in
the area. Continuing an institutional type of land use would fit the charac-
ter of the area, and other land uses would not.
Under "Transportation Improvements" the second sentence says t__o
consider implementing the recommendations of the Ivy Road Design Study. She
thinks that sentence should be made stronger because it was a very detailed
study. She suggested the words "As possible, implement the Ivy Road Design
Study" or something similar.
The section on Utility Improvements goes into detail about Bellair and
Buckingham Circle, but Farmington and Flordon are also having their existing
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
waterlines replaced in next couple of years.
listed by name, those two should be added.
000;1.54
If the subdivisions are to be
Mrs. Thomas said the last bullet on that page says "Locate a new fire
and rescue station in this area to service Neighborhood Six and Seven, the
University and Ivy." She thinks the words "as response time studies require"
should be added, since she does not think the Board has enough information at
this time to say a new station is necessary. Emphasis needs to be placed on
the use of volunteers to staff a station. This is a continuation of the
County's present policy, but she feels it would be helpful to anyone reading
the plan to restate that policy. This statement makes it sound as if the
County is heading off in a brand new direction, but that decision has not been
made yet. Mr. Tucker said the final decision will not be made until the
computer model for locating fire and rescue stations has been purchased with
the City and the University, and that modeling is completed.
Mrs. Humphris said "Transportation Improvements" on page 53 includes
wording concerning the development of the Meadow Creek Parkway and reserving
right-of-way in all areas, etc. She hopes that all Board members know the
County has run into a road block on the portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway
north of Rio Road. It will be very difficult for the County to do this
project because it is a long time before final alignment determination. The
County has been told that an environmental impact study needs to be done which
might cost $1.0+ million in order to make a case to the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Board for the need for the Meadow Creek Parkway to be in the primary
system.
Mr. Martin said he took this language to mean that the County would
continue to study the idea of hooking up, not the "T" connectors, but another
concept that the Board would continue to study. Mrs. Humphris said it is
difficult to reserve adequate and usable right-of-way when there is not a
definite location.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that under the second bullet on page 53, reference
to frontage roads and parallel roads to Route 29 is deleted. She thought that
still was the Board's guiding principle in dealing with the City on Hillsdale
Drive. She thinks it would be useful to continue to have that as one of the
stated policies. Mr. Benish said it is a redundancy since it is covered in
the from the road standards, but if the Board wants to keep the language on
this page, the language can be put back in.
Mrs. Humphris said the second sentence spells out how the area north of
Proffit Road will be developed. Mr. Benish said that language specifically
regards the Towers property. Mrs. Humphris said she thought the reason the
first sentence was deleted was because the second sentence is more specific.
Mr. Benish said it was bringing two thoughts together, and the second sentence
is a specific change for the Towers Land Trust request. Mr. Cilimberg said
that under the next bullet, it ~states "Future land use development along 29
North is to have controlled access to the roadway, etc.." Mrs. Thomas said
she will withdraw her comment.
Mrs. Humphris referred to page 73, and the paragraph which begins "The
volume of the South Rivanna Reservoir .... " She suggested adding the words
"gallons per day" after the figure of 877,800.
Mrs. Thomas referred to the Table on page 73, and suggested that the
title be "Demand/Safe Yield/Total Safe Yield with addition of Buck Mountain
and Chris Greene Lake." That clarifies the meaning of the third column in the
table.
Mrs. Thomas referred to page 62 dealing with Crozet. The seventh bullet
states "Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Study as a guide for future
development of the area." She said it is a weak statement and suggested that
the language be strengthened beyond the word "consider". Mr. Benish said the
Planning Commission had directed staff to tone down the language where staff
had used very positive language and more flexible statements. If the Board
wants to direct staff to use positive statements as pertains to studies which
have been completed, that can be done. There are other places in the plan
where the word "consider" was added. Mr. Marshall said he would rather be
flexible. Mr. Benish said staff would change the ones the Board specifically
requests be changed.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned page 73, next to last paragraph in reference to
the Black and Veatch analysis, and said she thought the final conclusion of
the 1995 study was that adding flashboards is not a feasible project. Mrs.
Thomas said it would have cost $28.0 million and only have added 1.0 million
gallons per day. Mrs. Humphris said she understood that because it involved
land acquisition, condemnation, and other problems for the finished product,
the consultants determined that adding flashboards was no longer feasible.
Mr. Bowerman said that was his understanding also. Mr. Tucker said that is
correct. Mr. Benish said he thinks it is just the terminology used by staff.
"Feasible" probably should be "financially feasible". Mr. Tucker said the
flashboards are feasible, but not financially because of the other problems
they would create.
Mrs. Humphris noted that "Green" in the first sentence of the last
paragraph should be "Greene".
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~55
(Page 24)
Mrs. Thomas noted that on page 74'there is a strategy reading "Utiliza-
tion of Chris Greene Lake as a water supply source. She said Chris Greene
needs to be protected also, and that is stated in another place, but maybe it
should be in this section also. Mrs. Humphris said there is a good statement
elsewhere in the document about the need to protect Chris Greene if it is used
as a water supply. The statement may be valuable enough to be redundant.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned page 78 and said that in the next to the last
paragraph the word "Greene" was left out.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned page 80, and said that in the second sentence of
the unlined part the word "alleviate" should be "alleviated".
Mrs. Thomas said that page 120 goes into the Transportation and Facili-
ties Management Plan. She did not think there were to be any changes in this
section because it had just been adopted in 1993. It includes language which
are "fightin' words" in her part of the County, words such as "have an
aggressive program to extend the life of the Ivy Landfill." Mrs. Thomas said
she cannot in conscience vote for a plan that includes those words. Is the
Board adopting those words if they adopt what has been presented by staff
today?
Mr. Benish said for convenience sake, staff has kept the major goals and
objectives in the Land Use Plan so that someone reading the plan will see what
is in the Community Facilities Plan. The full plan has not been reviewed
because it was just recently adopted.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks it should just state that "The County should
utilize a combination of solid waste activities discussed in this section."
Omit the phase that refers to extending the life of the Ivy Landfill. That is
shown on page 101 as the first recommendation. Mr. Marshall asked if the
words are taken out if that will be construed to mean that the County is going
in the opposite direction. Mrs. Thomas said previous comprehensive plans had
not talked about extending the life of the Ivy Landfill. They always talked
about finding alternatives because the Landfill only had approximately ten
years of life left. That statement kept moving so that ten-year period of
time kept moving. This language was new when the Community Facilities Plan
was adopted. She believes that just removing the words "develop an aggressive
program to extend the life of the Ivy Landfill by .... "is possible to drop
without doing other than returning to what was County policy before 1993.
That would leave the language "The County should utilize a combination of
solid waste management activities discussed in this section. The section
talks about household hazardous waste, solid waste disposal methods, and so
forth. Mrs. Thomas said she does not believe she is proposing anything
outlandish.
Mr. Martin said this section was just adopted in 1993, and he is
concerned that even though it may not have been policy, that to change it now
might underline it and magnify it, and all of a sudden it would be taken as a
change. Mrs. Thomas said the Solid Waste Management section could be with-
drawn until there is a report from the Solid Waste Task Force. That is two
and one-half pages of the plan. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks that would be a
reasonable thing to do, since the Board most likely will be making changes.
She asked that the Solid Waste Management section be left out at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg said it might be better to leave that section in the plan for
information, and include a statement that the section is under study by the
Task Force.
Mrs. Humphris said that brings the Board to the "Land Use Map Revisions"
page. Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to apologize to the applicant and to the
Board and to the public for oversimplifying an issue which was discussed at
the Board's day meeting in May. The issue was removal of the Planning
Commission recommendation for Regional Service at the Sperry site on Route 29
North. He requested that this matter be brought back because the specifics of
the proposal were not something the Board had access to in May. He thought if
the Board had access to those facts, the Board could make a more informed
decision rather than one that made in the absence of that information.
Mr. Bowerman said that subsequent to suggesting that the applicant come
back, he would like for the applicant to make his presentation on the items
which he feels are pertinent. Mr. Bowerman said he has discussed the matter
with the City, some of the neighborhoods, some public interest groups, some
developers, and a lot of telephone calls which makes this issue much larger
and more complicated than he had first thought. In order to determine if the
land use map should be changed for the Sperry property, he thinks it is
necessary that input from the public be taken. He thinks the Board might want
to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning request at the same
time so all of the facts can be available and the public can have an opportu-
nity to speak. He knows the public is uncomfortable that they cannot speak
today. He is uncomfortable because he oversimplified the issue before the
Board. At this time, he would like for the applicant to have an opportunity
to speak concerning traffic generation which was the major issue the Board
discussed in May. The development of 475,000 square feet created a level of
traffic that gave the Board great concern. The Board elected in May to remove
the designation recommended by the Planning Commission and put the property
back into Light Industrial.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) O00156
(Page 25)
Mrs. Humphris said when this request was made, she had told Mr. Fred
Payne that all the Board could allow today was five minutes for the presenta-
tion.
Mr. Richard Cabot said he is With Faison Associates. The project they
would like to fully present to the Board is a shopping center to go in the
southwest corner of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. He had three points to make.
1) They urge the Board to change the designation of the subject property from
Light Industrial to Regional Service so they can have an opportunity to
present the plan and its justification; 2) The project which was originally
announced in the newspapers has been significantly reduced in size; and 3)
This project will not generate any significant amount of additional traffic in
the Route 29 area. The designation of the property is appropriate as in-fill
development as was suggested by the Planning Staff and the Planning Commis-
sion. In the scheme of properties in the Route 29 area, this property needs
to be developed to make it a worthwhile piece of property. Regional service
is the only appropriate designation. There is no industrial use for the
property. It has been marketed for industrial, and nobody wants to purchase
the property. It has terrible topography. Out of the 82 acres, less than 50
percent of it is sought to be changed into Regional Service. The rest will
remain in industrial.
Mr. Cabot said the newspapers announced a project of 455,000 square
feet. There has been discussion since then, and the size of the project has
been reduced well below that amount down to 330,000 square feet. The size and
scale of the project have been reduced, its configuration, as well as buffer
zones have been created to the residential community, plus other changes.
These changes answer some of the concerns raised about traffic.
Mr. Cabot said that as a practical matter, this development will not add
any substantial amount of traffic to the community. From a common sense
approach, Route 29 is the regional shopping environment for a five county
area. Everybody who shops on Route 29 is already there. Everybody in the
Charlottesville metropolitan area shops the Route 29 corridor. Whether Faison
opens a shopping center or not, everybody will still shop on Route 29 for
their various needs. People from the wider region have their shopping
patterns established coming to Route 29, and there is no one living 20 miles
away who will start shopping here because of this development. The traffic is
here already, and will only come into this shopping center versus some other
shopping center. People who live to the east, south or west of this site, in
order to shop the Route 29 area must come through the intersection of Hydrau-
lic Road and Route 29, so they are not changing any of that.
Mr. Cabot mentioned a computer simulation of the Route 29/Hydraulic Road
intersection, showing how the traffic will operate in 1998. He turned the
presentation over to Mr. Terry Miller of Wells Associates, their Traffic
Engineer. Mrs. Humphris reminded the applicants that they had already used
five minutes and has not yet gotten to what they came to present. Mr. Miller
then explained the computer simulation model. He said they would be glad to
give this simulation to VDOT. It uses standard ITE transportation parameters
as to timing and spacing.
Mrs. Humphris thanked the applicants for the presentation and said the
matter is back before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he had heard from enough people to feel that if the
Board is going to seriously consider this change in use at this location, the
Board has to have a full-scale hearing. If the Board is going to do that,
time should be allowed so the applicant can make a fair case as to what they
want to accomplish. The Board needs input from the public as to their
concerns, and how those concerns can be addressed. The best way to do that
would be to do it as a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning change as
the Board has done at other times when there is a large map before the Board.
Let the request be scheduled when possible, and hear it at that time.
Mr. Marshall said he does not know who the Board is dealing with. First
there was Sperry, and Sperry was owned by Tenneco. Tenneco sold the business
to another company, and sold this property for $1.1 million to another
investor whose name he does know, and now that investor wants to sell it to
Mr. Faison for $10.0 million. Mr. Payne said that Mr. Stroud is present and
can answer that question. Mr. Marshall said it looks like somebody is going
to make $9.0 million on the Board's decision. Mr. Joe Stroud said he was with
Sperry Marine since 1993 when investors led by the former Secretary of the
Navy purchased Sperry Marine from Newport News which was a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Tenneco. Recently one of Sperry's larger competitors acquired
the business from that group. The land sale was already pending to Faison.
Mr. Marshall asked who owns the land now. Mr. Stroud said Sperry-Marine
owns the land right now. Mr. Marshall asked who Sperry-Marine is at this
time. Mr. Stroud said Sperry-Marine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Litton
Industries. Mr. Marshall asked if Litton owns Sperry and also owns this piece
of land. Mr. Stroud said that is correct. Mr. Marshall asked if there were
other investors involved. Mr. Stroud said the former shareholders of Sperry
will get the proceeds from the land sale at some point. Litton Industries has
no use for the land, but there is no easy way to pull the land out and leave
it behind and just sell the business, so it was felt best to leave the land
with Sperry Marine. Mr. Payne said that Faison is the contract purchaser.
Mr. Marshall said he understands that, but wonders who Faison is purchasing it
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000157
(Page 26)
from. Mr. Stroud said Faison has a contract with Sperry Marine, Inc. to
purchase the property. Mr. Payne said Sperry was acquired by Litton. Mr.
Stroud said that was the stock of Sperry, so it just has a different share-
holder. The company itself still owns the property. The proceeds would go to
Sperry Marine.
Mrs. Humphris asked how Planning staff is prepared to proceed so the
Board will have some idea of a schedule. Mr. Bowerman asked how much staff
time would be needed for a formal review of all the nuances of this applica-
tion for a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning so it is one package
that can be dealt with at one time. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be put into
the regular schedule, and based on the information provided by the applicant
and reviewed by VDOT, staff has already done a lot of work on the land use
aspects of it, so staff would be picking up from there as to additional
information provided. He cannot put a definite time limit on it. Most likely
it will take three to four months to get it to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Bowerman if he is inviting the applicant to make an
application for a comprehensive plan amendment, or is it his intention to
initiate the amendment. Mr. Bowerman said it would be up to the applicant to
do it. He has concluded that to separate the two makes it difficult to deal
with the issues involved. Also, at the CPA level, because of the stage the
plan is in, it does not allow input from the public at this time. He would
like to look at the issue as a total package.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes this is a decision the Board needs to
make, and then the applicant can choose to follow what the Board suggests.
Mr. Bowerman said he wanted this brought back to the Board because he felt the
Board had insufficient information when it took action in May on the Compre-
hensive Plan change. It seems that the most productive use of the applicant's
and the Board's time is to do it concurrently. He suggests that no change be
made at this time, but leave open the possibility of the applicant making a
request for a Comprehensive Plan change, and a rezoning done of the site in
the same application.
Mrs. Humphris said the decision to be made by this Board today is
nothing more than to decide to stay with the decision made in May, and the
applicant has the full value of the suggestions which have been made today.
Other than that, she does not believe there is any action for the Board to
take. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board will need to direct staff to accept the
Comprehensive Plan amendment because there is no application schedule for such
petitions at this time (it was suspended during work on the overall Comprehen-
sive Plan amendments). It is possible that land use changes may be recommend-
ed that do not fit the zoning proposal of the applicant. Staff needs to deal
with land use and the need for that particular use in that location, and
normally a comprehensive plan amendment addresses how the land use fits.
Staff will also need to address the transportation recommendations in the plan
at this time, such as the plan standard that crossovers should be 1300 feet
separated. Staff already knows that the rezoning is for less than that.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board just responds to a request for an amend-
ment, if it limits the Board to just looking at their area. Mr. Cilimberg
said the amendment process is not focused just on the immediate site, but also
on the relationship of the site to the general area. In this case, staff
already has the analysis which was done when it made a recommendation to the
Planning Commission, and the applicant subsequently asked the Commission to
modify that recommendation.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said when a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and a rezoning run in tandem, the staff member writing the rezoning
report has to assume that the comprehensive plan amendment will be adopted as
written. Also, there is a schedule for planned developments and large re-
zonings, and staff has been able to hold to that schedule. When the issues
involved are transportation issues, the staff has no control over when other
agencies involved furnish their replies; for instance, it took 10 months to
complete the transportation issues involved with the UREF petition. Mr.
Keeler said he wants to be sure staff is not pressured to move ahead with the
petition before all of the traffic issues are resolved.
Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks staff will have to take a logical approach
to the request from a review standpoint in terms of whether staff follows the
request exactly or anything different than what the applicant requests. When
there is a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning going at the same time
it can become complicated. Staff often does the amendment before the rezoning
because that establishes the land use.'
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman if it would not be better to deal with
the comprehensive plan amendment separately. Mr. Bowerman said he wants
whatever develops there to be the best thing for the community. It seems to
him that they should be one and the same. He does not object to however the
other Board members wants to proceed. He just wants to get all of the
information at the appropriate time so the Board can make an intelligent
decision, the public can have input into that decision, and so the Board can
do the right thing.
Mr. Martin said in his opinion, the Board should take some responsibili-
ty for "putting the cart before the horse." The problem is that now that the
cart is in front of the horse, how to get it behind the horse again without
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000158
(Page 27)
the horse remembering that it was back there. He said he has no suggeStions.
If the Board has that meeting there will be a lot of discussion on the
proposed plan by the applicant as well as the public. The Board will,
however, have more information than when it decided to change the Planning
Commission's recommendation and go back with the Light Industrial.
Mrs. Humphris said she questions whether the Planning Commission's
recommendation for Regional Service is appropriate for this site. In her
mind, this is what the Board should be analyzing and deciding first after
input from everybody. She is concerned that the influence of a specific plan
will overcome the thinking of the Board members as to what is appropriate for
that spot, no matter whose plan it is.
Mr. Martin said he knows what Mr. Bowerman has said and why he is saying
it, but he does not know what to do. Mr. Bowerman asked what the Planning
Commission originally recommended. Mr. Cilimberg said it was for Regional
Service with some Transitional area. It was a larger regional service area
than the staff had recommended. Mr. Benish said in the book furnished to the
Board is the staff's recommendation. It was for Regional Service so as to
provide more variety to use that area for in-fill, but the area was smaller.
The request went to the Planning Commission and subsequently they requested
that the Transitional designation be changed in order to allow a higher level
of commercial than that designation permitted. The Commission felt it would
be better not to make changes to the new Transitional designation, but to show
a larger area for Regional Services, and put in a caveat stating the County's
concerns should that area be developed. Mr. Cilimberg said the main change
the Commission made was to enlarge the Regional Service area. They did not
change any of the transportation standards. They did add language about
protecting Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Marshall said if there were a request for a shopping center before
the Board, he does not believe he would support the request. He does not
think another shopping center of this size is needed in the community,
particularly not at that location. If the applicant wants to proceed, that is
fine with him.
Mrs. Thomas said she agrees with Mr. Marshall. She said the Board can
hear a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, but she does not think it
should run concurrently with the zoning application. This area is the densest
area in the County. It is the area where the most apartments are located, and
there are things that should be done with the area that take advantage of and
create a center for that area. The Board really needs to decide if it wants
to bring traffic from other areas onto Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Bowerman said what he is hearing from everybody is that a full-scale
study of the intersection should be done and a determination made as to what
part of the area should be retail, residential, etc. Mr. Marshall asked why
that should be the burden of the taxpayers of Albemarle County. He said to
leave the area as is, and let the applicant bring in the traffic studies, etc.
Mr. Bowerman said that is what he is talking about, but it puts the whole
issue of the table.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Thomas that the
comprehensive plan amendment and the rezoning should be totally separate.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the Planning Commission made their determination
that Regional Service was appropriate in the absence of a specific applica-
tion. Mr. Benish said the Commission had a letter from the applicant express-
ing an interest in developing a shopping center area that would drift into the
Transitional area that staff had looked at originally. The information
provided to the Commission was an indication that they would address the
concerns the Commission had through a rezoning process, but that they were
looking at a scale of development that would require a Regional Service
designation. Staff's recommendation was focused more on in-fill, considering
the highest and best use for the baseball field between the car wash and the
corner of Commonwealth Drive. What evolved was a notion of something larger,
and the Commission was willing to provide flexibility on the map in order to
take it to the next step. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission did not have any
actual plan before them.
Mr. Martin said he did not believe the Board would come to a consensus
today. The Board has already taken action on this previously and unless
someone makes a motion on which the Board can act, he thinks the Board needs
to move on.
Mrs. Humphris asked if any member wished to make a motion. Mr. Bowerman
said based on what he has heard, he does not believe a motion would pass. He
feels the applicant needs to talk with staff and determine the best way to
proceed.
Mr. Davis said he understands there is a rezoning application that has
been filed and deferred at the applicant's request. In order for the appli-
cant to file a comprehensive plan amendment, the County would have to estab-
lish a timeframe for .applicant-initiated amendments because there is no such
timeframe at this time. Mr. Cilimberg said all requests for comprehensive
plan amendments were suspended for the public at the beginning of Comprehen-
sive Plan review process. That would need to be initiated in some form. Mr.
Benish said if that is done, the next date would be the second Tuesday in
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) O00159
(Page 28) ~ i
September. Mr. Bowerman said if the apPlicant wishes to proceed, he would
rather that they start with a comprehensive plan amendment as long as staff
can accommodate the request. Mr. Perkins said he can support that suggestion.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board is opening this up to everyone who wishes
to initiate an amendment. Mr. Bowerman said "no", because the Board has been
taking them on a case-by-case basis. When the Board has taken a comprehensive
plan amendment out of phase in the past, it has been with full knowledge of
what the full plan was. A lot of work went into those to provide the Board
with enough information to determine whether it wanted to change the Compre-
hensive Plan. That is why he suggested that the two applications should
probably go together. He cannot prejudge the outcome, but that is the pattern
the Board has fallen into where there are major concerns the Board has for the
community.
Mrs. Thomas said she feels that has led the Board into making some
mistakes such as on the Jefferson National Bank. She feels it is a poor way
to plan. To have a very specific application limits the Board's ability to
look at what would be the best use of that land, and the best designation in
the Comprehensive Plan, however, she will agree to the applicant filing a
comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Bowerman said if that is the best he can
get in terms of the way to proceed, that is what he will recommend the Board
do.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman to direct staff to accept an
application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Faison and to schedule
same for review at the appropriate time. He said the staff report should
contain enough information to vote the amendment either up or down. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Marshall said he will have to support the motion in order to be
consistent with what he has done in the past.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a lot of information that will have to be
looked at that will be specific. Some of that is already a part of the
rezoning application which has previously been filed by the applicant, and
some will be reflective of the change being considered now.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the Board needs to do now. Mr. Benish said
there are some further corrections to be made to the draft, and he wished to
know if the Board wanted to see another copy before taking a final vote. (Mr.
Marshall left the room at 12:08 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris said she thought the
items mentioned today were very simple, so she thinks the Board is prepared to
tell staff to go ahead.
Mo%ion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas to approve the revisions to the
Land Use Plan - Development Area Profiles, Utilities, Transportation and Land
Use Map Revisions, as presented, along with the changes discussed today, and
recognizing that Solid Waste Management will be subject to revision, and that
there are no expanded growth areas.
Mr. Perkins asked to bring up one more item. The Planning Commission
discussed the Route 240/250 connector road (page 62) several times. He cannot
see that the road will ever be built, not knowing who would pay for it. If
ever a road were put through, he thinks it should be a residential road and '
not a truck road. The industrial area at Con-Agra can be served by Route 240
and Route 250. He does not see the purpose of the recommendation, and he does
not think the County has the money to pay for it.
Mr. Benish said he believes that recommendation is a mistake. He went
over this with the Board previously so the members would know that the
Commission had recommended that it be a two-lane residential road, and not a
truck route. He thinks staff picked up old language, and he will be sure that
it is corrected.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
(Note: Mr. Marshall returned to the room at 12:09 p.m.)
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
- NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation: Legislative proposals to forward to
the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) for inclusion in its 1997 Legisla-
tive Program.
Mr. Tucker said VACo has requested that proposals for the 1997 General
Assembly Session be submitted to them by June 14 in order to be considered by
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) O00~.GO
(Page 29)
their eight steering committees this summer. VAc0 has forwarded a document
listing all of the legislation passed in the 1996 session, as well as a list
of all carry-over bills. Staff has no recommendations for legislation that
would effect the entire state, which is what VACo is requesting. If the Board
wishes to identify any legislative priorities, staff will prepare summaries
for discussion at the June 12 meeting.
Mrs. Thomas said House Bill 1513 requires that water and sewer connec-
tion fees bear a substantial relation to allocable costs, and it sounds rather
innocent. In this community, the Albemarle County Service Authority, has a
carefully worked out way of assessing costs to new connections. This bill
could tie the County up for years in court. She thinks that Bill Brent is
working on that, but maybe this Board could reemphasize that point.
Mrs. Thomas said she was at a meeting yesterday on geographical informa-
tion systems (GIS), It was noted that House Bill 1007 is a proposal to set up
a state-wide GIS using mostly private money, and a state authority. It is a
way to get something the state needs, and she thinks the County might also
find it useful without putting an enormous amount of state money into it.
Mrs. Humphris noted that Mrs. Thomas is now chairing the VACo Finance
Steering Committee, Mr. Tucker is serving on the Planning, Public Works and
Natural Resources Steering Committee, and she still serves on the Health and
Human Services Steering Committee, so Albemarle County is well represented.
There were no suggestions for legislation to be forwarded to VACo at
this time.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel Matters, Legal
Matters and Property Disposition.
At 12:17 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Marshall 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 concerning appointments to boards
and commissions and an administrative review; under subsection (3) to consider
acquisition of property for public use and the disposition of an interest in a
specific public property; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and
specific legal matters relating to an insurance contract.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Executive Session. At 2:00 p.m., the Board
reconvened into open session. Hotion 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 Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-95-04. The University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation. Petition to rezone approx 525 ac from RA, PD-IP, R-1 and LI to
PD-IP. The property is located S of the North Fork Rivanna River between Rt
29 & Rt 606. TM32, P's 4B,6,6A, 19,19C. Rivanna Dist. The site (in the
Community of Hollymead) is recommended for Industrial Service by the Compre-
hensive Plan. This request also includes the following special use permits:
SP-95-40, Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical;
SP-95-41, Supporting commercial uses;
SP-95-42, Hotels, motels, inns. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 25 and April 1, 1996.)
Mr. Keeler said the Board and Planning Commission held a joint public
hearing on this rezoning request in April. All materials since that meeting,
including the Commission's recommendation, have been forward to the Board.
The Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, took the following action:
ZMA-95-04 University of Virqinia Real Estate Foundation -
The motion to approve the rezOning and accept the apPli-
cant's proffers failed by a vote of 3-4.
II.
Should the Board choose to approve ZMA-95-04, the Planning
Commission has offered the following recommendations regard-
ing the accompanying special use permits.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
III.
O00 LG .
SP-95-40 Laboratories - Recommended approval subject
to the following c6nd£~i0h~:
compliance with Section 4.14 Performance Stan-
dards of the Zoning Ordinance;
Building location shall not be less than thirty
(30) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to
adjoining properties not located within the
development.
$P-95-41 Supportinq Commercial Uses - Recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
In addition to proffered limitation not to ex-
ceed five (5%) percent of total floor area,
commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) of
total floor area at any time during phased de-
velopment.
$P-95-42 Hotels, motels, inns - Recommended approval
subject to the following conditions:
Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be
permitted. Such hotel, motel, inn shall not
exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2e
Conference facilities (other than those as may
be provided by individual occupants) shall not
be required to locate internal to nor on the
same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total
gross floor area of lodging and conference fa-
cilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet.
The planned development provisions permit the Board's action
to "include specific modifications of PD [Planned Develop-
ment] or general regulations as provided in Section 8.5.4 as
recommended by the commission." (section 8.5.5). In this
case, the Planning Commission recommends the following
modifications:
Uses and treatment of "open space" shall be as defined
in and governed by the proffers of this petition.
Since "open space" is not required for a Planned
Development - Industrial Park and provision of open
space is voluntary by the applicant, the open space
areas shall not be governed by Section 4.7 of the
zoning ordinance.
be
SO long as this zoning petition remains in force,
SP-95-40, SP-95-41, and SP-95-42 shall not be subject
to abandonment under Section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning
ordinance. Nothing contained in the foregoing state-
ment shall preclude the Board form revocation of any
special use permit for wilful noncompliance as set
forth in Section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance.
Ce
As to special use permit approval as may be required
under proffer 4.4, such review and any conditions
imposed thereunder shall be limited solely to issuance
of water usage.
de
The terms General Office, Light Industrial and Flex
Industrial as set forth in UREF, Volume 1, Part IX
shall, in addition to zoning ordinance definitions,
guide the Zoning Administrator in use determinations.
In the event of definitional conflict between the
zoning ordinance and UREF descriptions, UREF descrip-
tions shall apply. In such case in which more than
fifty (50%) percent of the floor area for a Flex
Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire
floor area shall be deemed to be General Office. In
such case in which less than fifty (50%) percent of
the floor are for a Flex IndUstrial use is devoted to
office use, the entire floor!area shall be deemed to
be Light Industrial. This provision shall apply only
for determination of compliance to the development
schedule for determination of maximum square footage
by type of use. This provision shall not apply to
calculation of parking requirements or other require-
ments of the zoning ordinance, nor to any requirements
of the Uniform Statewide Building Code nor to any
other ordinance or regulation related to type of usage
of buildings and structures.
While not included in its action, staff advised the Planning
Commission that the letter of December 19, 1995 from UREF to
the Lake Acres residents should be incorporated as a part of
000:162
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
the official record to. acknoWledge that certain proffers are
reflective of the content of that letter.
Mr. Keeler said should the Board choose to approve ZMA-95-04, the County
Attorney has reworked the Commission's actions into the form of a resolution.
The only comment that staff has in that regard is that there were some
recommendations from the Commission that were postured as being modifications
of the Zoning regulations which are authorized under the Planned Development
provisions. These are not actual modifications, but are more clarifications
to guide future staff, particularly the Zoning Administrator, in terms of
making interpretations of the action.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission also adopted a resolution of intent to
amend the Zoning Ordinance that would apply to some industrial and commercial
zoned uses.
Mr. Marshall said he does not have any further comments. He has not
changed position on this rezoning. He then offered motion to adopt the
proposed Resolution to Approve ZMA-95-04, University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. Marshall said he feels the County has gotten all the proffers it is
going to get from the University. He thinks this is the best deal the County
is going to get. His understanding from representatives of the University is
that they are not willing to make any more concessions and that they will
develop the 2.5 million square feet in the southern part of that park, if the
Board does not approve the request. Mr. Marshall said he would prefer the
Board proceed with this proffered plan.
Mr. Martin said Board members have read all the minutes of the Commis-
sion meetings and discussed this request many times. At this time, he does
not think there is any reason to go over the pros and the cons any further.
He personally has considered all the pros and cons, and after reviewing them
all, he is leaning more towards support of the proposal. In his opinion,
several years ago, the University began working seriously with staff trying to
incorporate their expectations. Using the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, he thinks the University did a good job. Throughout the process
additional proffers have been negotiated. He thinks it would be an injustice
to deny the University after their good faith effort throughout the process
and given the rules, regulations and expectations they have met. He strongly
supports this rezoning request.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the impact of this project on the community
has always been the issue. She agrees that there is an amazing level of
agreement at this time, but there still remains a large concern, and that is
not bad treatment on the part of the County. This process started with a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment with a great deal of concerns expressed by the
community, but the Board said it would deal with the concerns during the
rezoning. She is not sure that was the right thing. She thinks the Board may
have treated the University unfairly at that point in some ways, but it did
make a listing of things it wanted addressed in the rezoning application.
Some issues were dealt with more thoroughly than others. Since the Board
cannot condition a rezoning, it has to wait for proffers to be developed by
the applicant. This is an artificial-kind of situation, but she can see why
it may have led the University to feel they had given and given and still the
Board was asking for more. It is because the Board could never sit down and
have the kind of direct conversation about what its concerns were and the best
way to address them. It seems to her the remaining major concern is the
sudden impact on the County's infrastructure. A large influx of children can
ruin a couple of school years. Everybody is concerned about roads, police and
the budget. The Board does not want to have a sudden increase in these
demands. The University has taken some steps to deal with these issues by
having a phasing proposal, but it does not realistically provide any limita-
tions. The University has been advised that it cannot impose any real limita-
tion or no one will come.
Mrs. Thomas said there is a regular in Boulder, Colorado which has
limitations of the sort that no one here is even dreaming of and that city is
so popular that they have filled up all of their applications until the year
1999. There is a lot the County can learn from the development of the Boulder
park. She feels the Board owes that to the community. The University may not
always own that property. This is a rezoning that goes with the property,
therefore, the issue is not about a level of trust of a particularly entity.
She thinks the Board should defer this rezoning so that it can discuss how to
reach a mutually agreed upon goal which is to get a handle on how the Univer-
sity can develop an attractive park and have the clients that are important to
the health community, but also not knowing when there may be a large influx of
people to the community when there is no way they can be dealt with responsi-
blyo
Mr. Marshall said he has some information about the park in Boulder
which does not exactly agree with Mrs. Thomas comments. Mrs. Thomas said she
talked to the planner who is in charge of nonresidential development. Mr.
Marshall said he talked to a person who manages a principal process management
and relocation consultant firm in Boulder. The last paragraph of the letter
from this person states: "It is useful to comment on a situation in Boulder,
Colorado that directly affects my clients and is similar to actions being
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~6~
(Page 32)
considered by Albemarle County. Boulder is a town with many of the same
attributes as Albemarle County. It has a major university, attractive
setting, proximity to a large metropolitan area and a highly educated work
force. A few years ago Boulder implemented growth restrictions which are now
adversely affecting local companies by restricting their ability to grow.
Recently the Planning Board termed the decision to implement commercial growth
restrictions a major mistake and a major headache to implement."
Mrs. Thomas said commercial growth was put on hold because the City
Council wanted to be able to respond to more requests than they are able to
respond. Mr. Marshall said there are businesses that cannot grow and are
thinking about moving. Mrs. Thomas said their allotment system is not one
that she thinks anyone here would want, but the system affects existing
businesses in the same way it affects people who are moving into the area.
Albemarle's Comprehensive Plan clearly supports expansion of existing busi-
nesses. She is not saying Albemarle County should do what the City of Boulder
did because she thinks they made some major mistakes. The reason that
situation is relevant is because the question was raised that if there was a
plan limiting development, would companies be willing to come to the area. It
almost has to be a hypothetical question except Boulder has done it and so far
exceeded their allotments, companies are waiting in line.
Mr. Marshall continued with the letter which states: "Based on more
than 20 years experience in the relocation industry, he can confirm that a key
decision-making factor for companies is whether or not a site will allow it to
grow comfortable over time. As such, any regulations that would lend uncer-
tainty to the ability to grow will significantly diminish a site's attractive-
ness." Mr. Marshall said he thinks the University is trying to keep that open
so they do not loose a good company. He does not want to put a company in the
position of having to come back to this Board, if it needs to expand due to
growth.
Mrs. Thomas said she has never been in favor of anything that requires a
company to come back before the Board unless it has a very large addition.
She thinks a limit like 150,000 square feet would still protect the community
from a company bringing in its entire Chicago operation when they began as a
two-person office. She does not agree with putting stringent limitations on a
company to keep it from growing.
Mr. Martin said he does not see this as a pro community versus a pro
business decision. Most of the people he knows are in favor of the park and
are in favor of what it will do. In his opinion there comes a time when a
decision has to be made, and not defer the issue any longer.
Mrs. Humphris said the key in Mr. Marshall's comments was "grow comfort-
ably over time". She thinks that is the key to this whole issue. She
supports the North Fork Research Park. She wants it to succeed; however, the
hang up she has is the problem with the cumulative number of square footage
which presents the possibility of a sudden and large burst of growth in this
community that our infrastructure and Capital Improvements Plan are not able
to absorb. She thinks businesses and the public, in general, agree this is
something we would not like to happen because then it would "kill the goose
that laid the golden egg". She is hearing from the University that such a
thing absolutely would not happen. She is saying that County government,
because they have taken an oath to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, has an obligation to this community to insure that does not happen.
Given all the public input and information, she wonders why this Board cannot
make some agreement to insure the future of Albemarle County which is what
this vote will do. This vote will determine the direction of Albemarle County
for many years because it is a major decision.
Mrs. Thomas said there is no reason why a deferral should not be
possible to allow the County and the University to work together on something
that is so close to being right. This has not been like any other issue.
Everybody has put in a great deal of time and effort, and she does not think a
final decision has to be made today. Mr. Martin said there comes a point
where things have gotten as close as they can get and that is not necessarily
bad. This may not be the time, but waiting some more could cause everything
to fall apart.
Mr. Marshall said the University is a local entity. He would rather put
his trust in the University than in someone else. He thinks it is time to
make a decision rather than continuously putting it off. He knows the
University will go ahead and develop the park if this Board does not approve
the rezoning. The Board has an opportunity to allow the park to be developed
in the best way for the community. He wants good jobs and affordable housing
in this community, and we are not going to get them if there is not somebody
locally who cares and makes it happen. The elected officials cannot do it all
and the Board needs to put its trust in other people. He would prefer to
trust the University with this plan rather than have it go in another direc-
tion. He thinks this Board has talked about this issue long enough.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it has been a legitimate part of the mission
of the University to try to augment some of their educational services with
something like they anticipate doing in the North Fork Park. Two examples are
Motion Control and MicroAir which are synergiStic to the Engineering School
and to the hospital. Although he thinks many of the concerns that have been
expressed are genuine, he does not think the park is likely to attract the
000'164
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
kind of industry that does not fit in with the community. He thinks the
University has made a great effort to deal with the concerns expressed by this
Board, the general public and special interest groups to try to reach some
mutually agreeable standards by which the community could operate. In his
opinion the action taken by the Commission could have a bad affect on this
type of project. The Commission's action could drive away some of the firms
that would be the most appropriate to come here for fear of some of the hoops
they have to go through. He believes most firms have more than one location
in mind when they are looking to go somewhere. He thinks there are self-
limiting factors on the size of an organization that the University wants to
attract to this location. He thinks the Board could continue to talk about
this issue for months. He would agree to a deferral if he thought in another
week or two an agreement regarding limitations could be met, but he does not
believe there would be any more movement. He agrees it is time to decide this
issue and move forward. If he thought the zoning text amendment could add
something positive to this discussion, he would support it. He does not think
the zoning text amendment can accomplish what people want it to do. He wishes
the Board had more details of what is and is not acceptable to the University.
Mr. Bowerman said his company has some business dealings with the University
in its intramural department for equipment. He received an opinion from the
Commonwealth's Attorney that this is not a conflict of interest even though it
is in excess of $10,000. He believes he can keep the two items separate and
that the dealings do not influence his opinion on the application that is
before the Board. He will vote on the issue.
Mr. Perkins said the issue for him is that the University can do a lot
with the original 225 acres. The Board has 75 percent of what it is asking.
It makes sense to him, although he would like to see more phasing in on the
whole project, to move forward.
Mrs. Thomas said if this motion had failed or tied, it was her intent to
move for reconsideration and then move for deferral. Her "no" vote was to
have a deferral because she thinks the Board and University could have worked
out something everyone could have been proud of. We are so close.
There being no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ZMA-95-04
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
Whereas, in accordance with Section 15.1~431 of the Code of
Virginia and Section 33 of the Albemarle County Zoning OrdinanCe,
a public hearing was advertised, adjoining property owners noti-
fied, and a hearing scheduled on ZMA 95-04, University of Virginia
Real Estate Foundation, to consider the rezoning of approximately
525 acres from RA, PD-IP, R-I, and LI to PD-IP, as more particu-
larly identified in the zoning application; and
Whereas, this application and the attached proffers are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, good zoning practices, and
supported by the reasons set forth in the. staff report.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby approves ZMA 95-04 with
proffers, such proffers being dated March 21, 1996 and being
attached hereto and made a part of this approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that included within this approval
is the approval of the following special use permits with the
stated conditions:
(A)
SP-95-40 Laboratories, conditioned upon:
1. Compliance with Section 4.14 Performance Stan-
dards of the Zoning Ordinance;
(B)
2. Building location shall not be less than thirty
(30) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to
adjoining properties not located within the
development.
SP-95-41 Supportinq Commercial Uses, conditioned upon:
In addition to proffered limitation not to ex-
ceed five (5%) percent of total floor area,
commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) per-
cent of total floor area at any time during
phased development.
(c)
SP-95-42 Hotels, Motels, Inns, conditioned upon:
Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be
permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall not
exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
000 65
2e
conference 'f~6~i~ies (other than those as may
be provided by individual occupants) shall not
be required to locate internal to nor on the
same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total
gross floor area of lodging and conference fa-
cilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet.
The time limit to commence the above special uses shall be
extended for so long as the application plan for ZMA-95-04 remains
valid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there are no modifications
pursuant to § 8.5.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, but
the following findings are stated for purposes of clarification:
Uses and treatment of ,open space" shall be as
defined in and governed by the proffers. Since
Iopen space' is not required for a Planned De-
velopment - Industrial Park and provision of
open space is voluntarily proffered by the ap-
plicant, the open space areas shall not be gov-
erned by Section 4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The approval of the special use permits with the
extended time for commencing the uses shall not
preclude the Board from revoking any special use
permit for wilful noncompliance as set forth in
Section 31.2.4.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
The terms General Office, Light Industrial and
Flex Industrial as set forth in UREF, Volume 1,
Part IX of the zoning application shall, in
addition to Zoning Ordinance definitions, guide
the Zoning Administrator in use determinations.
In the event of definitional conflict between
the Zoning Ordinance and UREF descriptions, UREF
descriptions shall apply. In such case in which
more that fifty (50%) percent of the floor area
for a Flex Industrial use is developed to office
use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be
General Office. In such case in which less than
fifty (50%) percent of the floor area for a Flex
Industrial use is devoted to office use, the
entire floor area shall be deemed to be Light
Industrial. This provision shall apply only for
determination of maximum square footage by type
of use. This provision shall not apply to cal-
culation of parking requirements or other re-
quirements of the Zoning Ordinance, nor to any
requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building
Code nor to any other ordinance or regulation
related to type of usage of buildings and struc-
tures.
Agenda Item No. 16. Request to amend the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority to include water and sewer service for the
North Fork Business Park (deferred from February 21, 1996). (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1996.)
Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to amend the
service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include
water and sewer service to the North Fork Business Park. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to reappoint William A. Finley, Jr.,
and Joseph T. Henley, III, to the Piedmont Community College Board of Direc-
tors for new four year terms beginning July 1, 1996, with said terms to expire
on June 30, 2000.
Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. Thomas to appoint Mr. John C. Lowry to the
Industrial Development Authority as the Samuel Miller District representative,
with said term to expire on January 19, 2000.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, to reappoint Thelma E. Whiting and
Blanche R. Steppe to a new term on the Children and Youth Commission, with
said term to expire on July 1, 1999.
Mro Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motions
carried by the following recorded vote:
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) ~ 000' 66
(Page 35)
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerma~, 'Mrsl Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Non-Agenda. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was necessary for the Board to act
on the zoning text amendment that was adopted by the Planning commiSsion
knowing it does not apply to the University's research park. It would apply
to any other development in the County. If the Board feels that would be an
appropriate action to take, he thinks the Commission should be encouraged to
pursue the amendment, but if not, he does not think a lot of time or research
should be spent on it.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has not investigated what other parcels would
fall under the possible zoning text amendment based on the proffers they have
made. It is hard for staff to say how many parcels the amendment would apply
towards.
Mr. Davis said the amendment would most likely apply to all properties
unless there are proffers attached to the properties where there have been
substantial off-site improvements proffered that were not substantially
necessitated by that rezoning. He does not believe there are a great deal of
those properties in the County.
Mr. Martin suggested the Board allow the amendment to proceed and staff
identify what parcels it would apply. Mr. Bowerman then suggested staff go
forward and do an analysis and return a report to the Board. Mrs. Thomas said
she thinks it is worth pursuing. Mr. Bowerman said if it can legally be
applied and equitable in its application then it should be done.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the comment in the Planning Commission minutes
about "comments fading in and out on the tape". She finds it frustrating to
not be able to get the Commission's comments because of the recording. She
asked that the recording system be checked again.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a letter from Dr. DiCroce, Chairman of
the Board of Directors of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development. On behalf the directors, Dr. DiCroce is inviting a representa-
tive from the Board of Supervisors or a staff designee to attend their next
board meeting on Friday, June 28, 1996, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in the
PVCC Board Room. The intent in extending this invitation is to provide the
Board of Supervisors with the opportunity to observe firsthand the Partnership
at work. The Partnership is in its early formative stages and they are
interested in establishing a mutually beneficial relationship with Albemarle
County. The representative will be provided with an agenda and supporting
materials in advance of the meeting. It was the consensus of the Board that
Mrs. Mumphris attend the meeting and report back to this Board.
Given the time, Mrs. Humphris suggested the Board go back into Executive
Session to complete the unfinished personnel matter.
Mr. Marshall said he had to leave the meeting at 3:45 p.m., due to a
prior commitment.
At 2:55 p.m%, Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into Executive
Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsec-
tion (1) to discuss personnel matters concerning an administrative review.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. 4:00 p.m. - Recess and Reconvene in Room 235 for a
Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission.
At 4:04 p,m., the Board reconvened into open session.
members were present except Mr. Marshall.)
(All Board
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 Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman; Mrs~ HUmphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Planning Commission members present at this time were: Mr. A. Bruce
Dotson, Mr. William W. Finley, Ms. Jacquelyn Huckle, Ms. Hilda Lee-Washington,
Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein, Mr. William J. Nitchmann and Mr. David A. Tice.
At 4:05 p.m., Mr. Nitchmann, Chairman of the Planning Commission, called
the Commission to order.
Item 19(1). Presentation from Mike Collins, Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission, re: Regional Development Build-out.
Mr. Collins said to his knowledge this kind of project has hardly been
done anywhere else in the country, particularly in a rural urbanized area.
This is a unique project. Also present was Mr. John Potter, co-authOr of the
project.
Mr. Collins said the project is entitled, "Build-out Analysis of the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District. It began in 1993 and they hope to have
all phases of it done by the end of this year. Mr. Collins said build-out is
a methodology which portrays the potential pattern and quantity of residential
development based on existing land use plans and ordinances. The conclusion
of the study is that current policies/laws in concept with market/landscape
allow a "rural" to "suburban" region-wide shift in residential development
pattern/quantity from what we now experience. He then began his slide presen-
tation (copy on file in the Clerk's office) which encompassed the goal of the
project, uses of build-out, methodology, findings and implications.
Mr. Benish'pointed out that in trying to estimate the buildout for the
growth areas, the staff did not look at the ranges that the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use designations could achieve; staff used an example of what they had
experienced in existing development which was about 2.4 dwelling units per
acre.
Mrs. Humphris asked that the Board and Commission receive a copy of Mr.
Collins' presentation. Mr. Collins said he intends to provide the Board and
Commission with a report including the regional maps and locality maps,
hopefully by the end of the month.
Agenda Item No. 19(2). Work Session: Comprehensive Plan - Rural Areas.
Mr. Benish said the staff has provided Board members and Commissioners
with a staff report that reflects some trend information concerning develop-
ment in the rural areas. They provided mostly building activity based on
building permits activity and signing of subdivision plats. Staff is under
some time constraints so they would like to focus on the development rights
issue at this time. During the review of the Land Use Plan, the Commission,
and now the Board, with the adoption of the Land Use Plan, re-endorsed the
Growth Management Policy which was already in the plan, and focused develop-
ment in designated development areas and discouraged development in growth
areas. Staff assumed that for the rural areas review that was still the
intent of the Board to have a rural areas district which essentially discour'
aged residential development, significant commercial development and industri-
al development in that location.
To highlight some of the findings, the population of the rural areas
consist of approximately 54 percent of the County's total population and 52
percent of its total dwelling units. The rural areas make up about 92 percent
of the County's land area, the development areas make up about eight percent.
In terms of the residential activity, staff looked at the last 14 years of
activity (1981 to 1994). Staff then broke this up into two periods, an eight
year period up to the adoption of the last Comprehensive Plan (1981 to 1988)
and the six years since that date (1989 to 1994). In terms of construction
activity, as measured through building permits, 42 percent of new dwelling
units were located in the rural areas. That was a 14 year trend. The average
number of new dwelling units over that period was 327. Looking at the period
from 1981 to 1988, there was a much more significant amount of development in
the rural areas, 51 percent on average with 362 new dwelling units per year.
From 1989 to 1994, they has been a significant decrease in those trends to the
point of averaging 32 percent of new dwellings units occurring in the rural
areas and 281 new dwelling units per year.
The numbers indicate positive trends in the rural areas in terms of a
declining total number of dwelling units per year, and a declining rural areas
percentage share of all new residential development in the County. The number
of dwellings built each year in the rural areas (recently 281 dwellings per
year) and the percentage share (32 percent) may, however, still be considered
as significant. That is one of the fundamental questions staff would like to
hear input on from the Board and Commission.
Mr. Tice said another thing not reflected in the decrease in dwelling
units in the rural areas is there may have been an increase in activities in
adjoining counties. Mr. Benish said that was the case.
000 65
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)~
(Page 37)
Mr. Benish said staff believes the ability to maintain or improve on
these trends will be dependen~ in large part on the ability to encourage or
capture development in designated development areas and, therefore, discourage
residential development in the rural areas. It is unknown whether these
trends will continue to show a decline in the number of new dwellings built in
the rural areas, whether they will stabilize or whether they will reverse and
show an increase. Arguments can be made for each scenario. It is difficult
for staff to predict where they see the trends going in the future. Referring
to Mr. Collins' presentation, the buildout information would indicate that the
capacity is there for continued residential development in the rural areas.
Looking at subdivision activity, using the 14 year trends, about 45
percent of new lots were created in the rural areas, averaging 244 new lots
per year over that period. From 1981 to 1988, 52 percent of the new lots were
created in the rural areas, averaging about 260 new lots over that period.
From 1989 to 1994, the number of new lots created in the rural areas decreased
to 37 percent; the average new lots created over that period decreased to 224.
The average lot sizes have increased slightly in the last six years from 9.0
acres to 11.2 acres. Mrs. Thomas asked where this increase is taking place.
Mr. Benish said over the six year period staff has seen it in two primary
areas. The areas are south, primarily Neighborhood 4 (Mill Creek, Reynovia,
Mill Creek South) and the Hollymead area with Forest Lakes and Forest Lakes
South. However, there have been a number of apartment developments in all the
urban areas (Wilton in Neighborhood 3, Rio Hills in Neighborhood 2, in-fill in
West Gate in Neighborhood 1). Although the County does not tend to get a lot
of apartment developments in lumps of 200 to 400, when they are built, they do
increase the numbers. Other examples are Glenmore, Highlands at Mechum River
and Crozet Crossing. The increase is spread around, but Hollymead and
Neighborhood 4 are the primary areas. Recently staff have seen increases in
rural development in Rural Area 2 in the northeastern quadrant and around
Crozet in the North Garden area.
Mr. Benish said between the period of 1988 to 1994, 50 percent of the
new lots created were less than five acres; 24 percent of the new lots were
between five and ten acres; 26 percent were greater than ten acres; and 14
percent were 21 acres or greater. The majority of subdivision activity is in
lots of less than ten acres in size.
Mr. Cilimberg felt it was important to note that the last time the
Comprehensive Plan was under review, there was discussion regarding trends in
the rural area. One of the concerns was the fairly large number of rural lots
that were being requested for residential purposes. There was a desire to see
residential lot development occur closer to the two to four acre size, rather
than 15 and 31 acre residential lots.
Mr. Benish said regarding subdivision activity, staff is seeing a
positive trend in the percentages of distribution between development areas
and rural areas. The ability to maintain or improve on these trends will be
dependent on the ability to encourage/capture development in designated
development areas. Seventy-four percent of the new lots are less than ten
acres in size of which most of these can be considered residential lots. The
remaining 26 percent could potentially be serving open space, agricultural or
forestry purposes to some extent. Fourteen percent of total new lots fall
into the 21 acre or greater lot size which is considered in the current
Comprehensive Plan to be "sufficient size to support some agricultural uses."
However, it is also recognized that some 21 acre lots are being utilized for
strictly residential purposes which is contrary to the purpose of protecting
the viability of agricultural and forestal activities.
Mr. Benish said staff would like to focus on the questions provided in
the staff report. The staff is looking for guidance from the Board and
Commission on how to undertake the rural areas portion of the plan. The
questions staff wants discussion and responses to are: l) Do recent rural
area development trends numbers indicate a positive change, or are they still
of concern? 2) Is the estimated number of potential lots acceptable or
unacceptable in the rural areas district? 3) If unacceptable, should discus-
sion occur regarding reducing the number of small lot development rights in
the rural areas? 4) If unacceptable, should discussion occur regarding
increasing the minimum 21 acre parcel size, for example, to 42 acres as
recommended by the Mountain Protection Committee? Should such a change be
considered County-wide, or should it be considered only in the targeted
resource areas, such as the mountain areas? Mr. Benish said it is those
questions staff needs to get a handle on to move forward in its review of the
rural areas.
Mr. Dotson said the one thing that struck him the most in Mr. Collins
presentation was the feel and change in character of the rural areas from the
open space to a sort of large lot suburban area. The character is of concern
to him.
Mrs. Humphris said she is afraid these development trend numbers are
temporary and depending on what the developers are trying to do, the trends
could start to go back in the other direction. She does think the estimated
number of potential lots in the rural areas district is unacceptable. She
thinks the Board and Commission should discuss reducing the number of small
lot development rights. She knows that will not be a popular discussion with
a lot of people, but we are talking about the future of this County. She also
(Page 38)
thinks the Board and commiSS:~!°h~:sh°U~dd:~scuss increasing the minimum 21 acre
Mrs. Thomas said one of the driving factors in the prior Comprehensive
Plan was the importance of agricultural pursuits and that preserving agricul-
ture goes hand-in-hand with preserving the rural character of the County. She
has attended a number of meetings and have come away depressed abOUt the
possibility for having real agricultural pursuits most of the time. She
thinks it is worth a discussion on whether the County will Continue to empha-
size agriculture. She likes the idea of possibility turning barns or tenant
houses into apartments as a way t° keep the farm families' income sufficient
so they will stay on the farm. That is something the County went away from
ten years ago, but maybe we should revisit it. She doeS not have any answers,
but does feel the Board needs to take that aspect seriously, if it is going to
try to maintain the rural aspects of the County.
Mr. Martin said he thinks if the Board is seriously going to discuss 40+
acre lots, at the Same time it needs to~ diScuSS h°w' the county is going to
provide affordable housing· The Board also needS to think aboUt family
divisions because there needs to be some way to make exceptions· It is impor-
tant especially.when families have lived On their property for generations.
Sometimes it looks like this County is moving towards everybody either living
on a one-half acre lot or 40 acres. People should be able to live on two:or
three acres. He understands why the County has these goals, but he feels
strongly that the average person could make a decision to live on a five acre
parcel. Mrs. Humphris said that is one of the reasons that affordable housing
should be a main ingredient in any study.
Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him that to the same extent the Board may
want to increase development in the urbanarea, it Sh0'~daiS0~'C~fi~id~
reducing the number of lots in the rural area. If the Board continues to
adjust rural area development rights and continues to add to the groWth areas~
then it is increasing the total population in dwelling units in the County.
If the Board had a general philosophy, it could take into account low-and-
moderate cost housing as part of this equation. For example, if over the next
20 years, the Board wanted to add 15,000 dwelling units to the urban area,
somehow it should remove 15,000 dwelling units from the rural area and
accommodate low-and-moderate cost housing within that mix in the urbanarea,
with incentives. That gives the Board a philosophy which is looking at the
total development in the County and also trying to take a look at where the
Board wants it to occur. The Board then has to look at things like what
agricultural pursuits the County Can viabiy'en~°u~age in the rural areas and
which ones it cannot encourage. It is all part of a mix, but right now there
is no relationship between rural areas and groWth areas in terms of lot
divisions. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Bowerman was advocating transfer of
development rights. Mr· BoWerman said that is 0he °f the implicati°ns'
Mr. Finley asked what would be feasible to do on a 40 acre lot; who
would buy it and what is the overall benefit to the County to have a 40 acre
lot. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know that there is a benefit other than
preservation of open space. He does nOt think that having a larger lot size
which chews up more of the rural areas in lots is necessarily the answer. He
is trying to look at this in terms of a policy that can be applied county-wide
and makes sense to the County's ultimate aims. Mr. Finley then asked who can
afford to provide open space for the groWth areas. Mr. Bowerman said some of
the open space is going to have to be provided in the urban area with public
expenditure. Ms. Huckle said she thinks there is quite a bit of agricultural
that can be done on a 40 aCre'iot. Mr~ Fifii'ey asked about incentives to those
who are going to break Up their holdings in 40 acre lots for the purpose of
open space. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks those are issues that need to be
addressed. It is important to have some s°rt of transferrable development
right that has a value. The development right would be moved from Where the
County does not want it t0 °Ccur to whete the COUnty does want it to occur and
the value accrues to the Owner. Mr. Benish said ~here is an area in the staff
report which covers purchase and transfer °f deVel°pment rights; one Which the
County is not allowed to use and the other which the County could consider.
Mr. Dotson said one of his concerns is that if development is allowed to
spread next door to a landowner, taxes CoUld possibly drive that landowner of
his property. If a person is looking to buy land, the larger the lot, the
more expensive it would be. He has a lot of sympathy for family attachment to
land where families have lived on certain property for generations.
Mr. Martin commented that affordable housing is one thing and moderate
housing is something else.
Mr. Perkins said despite the best efforts of the County to encourage
development in its growth areas fragmentation of the rural lands continues at
an unacceptable rate. He believes it is time to change the County's land use
policies and land taxation methods. He believes the County should start a
program to encourage and perhaps guarantee that some°f its most productive
agricultural and forestal lands will remain in agricultural and forestal
production and not be devei0Ped~ There ~ight Come a time when the People in
the County may have to produce what they eat. This program would eliminate
property taxes on parcels of land and even pay landowners a yearly fee not to
develop their property. Landowners would give perpetual easements on the
property, but would keep their existing development rights that could be sold
in the future if transfer development rights are approved. As long as houses
'- 000 .?0
June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
can be built, the financial pressure is too great to keep the owner from
selling to someone who is willing to pay the price. Perhaps the County has to
get the legislation to do this, but he thinks the Board should establish a
goal of perhaps 75,000 to 100,000 acres of open land with no taxes. Even with
land use taxation it is still a burden for someone who has a large farm to pay
taxes that are minimum. They certainly cannot afford to pay taxes on what the
property is actually worth. When a landowner sells crop from the land,
cattle, hay, corn, timber, etc., he pays income taxes on what he makes, so it
is really double taxation. Mr. Finley said maybe part of the incentive would
be a requirement that the landowner engage in productive agriculture should
such a program be instituted.
Mr. Nitchmann said he finds it is interesting that the Mountain Protec-
tion Ordinance speaks to 42 acres, and these boards are already talking about
40 acres. He asked why not use another number. Agriculture has gone through
an immense change in the last 20 years. Most of the farmers are not really
farmers. Next to retail, the agricultural industry is the second lowest paid
industry in the United States. It would be interesting to know what percent-
age of farms are truly making a living off the farm without having any other
source of income. He was not involved in the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, but he
has gotten a lot of comments from people in the rural areas that they did not
know about these changes. He thinks that before the staff go much further
with this process, it notify individually every person in the County by
registered letter that something is going to occur to their property so that
they have an opportunity to have a voice. The County needs to get these
people into the discussion process early in the process and not at the end.
He agrees the County should look at something like sale of division rights.
He does not know if the County will ever have affordable housing in terms of
what he thinks as affordable which is that everybody who has a job is able to
afford to own a house. He thinks there is little chance of that happening
because outside forces pay large sums of money for property which increases
taxes on the little neighbors and the low income person cannot afford to buy
land. He would like to see in-fill in some of the areas that would make the
areas a little more accessible to the lower income and possibly do something
to offer those persons some way of increasing their position on the economic
scale so they can afford their own home.
Mr. Tucker said most of these comments seem to be taxation and financial
issues, not so much land use. He thinks possible an income tax should be
pursued. Mr. Loewenstein said the County also needs to look at the potential
fiscal impacts of any changes in the tax structure.
Ms. Huckle said some people have benefitted from being part-time
farmers. She does not know what the statistics are, but in her neighborhood
there are many people who work a regular job and then farm or rent out their
farm. These people must feel they get some income from this or they would not
continue. She does not think that should be ignored.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes someone would had to been under a rock
to not know what was going on in 1980 during the review of the Zoning Ordi-
nance. The public hearings overflowed and it was "the topic" for a long time.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks there needs to be a work sessions where
individuals will be able to give a significant contribution and engage in an
on-going discussion, not the usual work session.
Mr. Benish said based on what the Commission has heard from the Board,
it is at their discretion as to whether staff should move forward productively
in considering the issues regarding the rural areas. In his opinion there
seems to be resounding consensus to at least consider different ways to
approach permitting development and possibly ways of allocating how that
development takes place.
Ms. Huckle said she would like to see more discussion on rural preserva-
tion development. Other Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Dotson said he would like direction from the Board in terms of how
the Commission should be allocating its energies.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks working on the in-fill issue and making the
designated growth areas develop the way the Board hopes they will is crucially
tied to preserving the rural areas. She thinks it is essential to have
attractive growth area standards more so than in the rural areas.
Mr. Benish said from a staff's perspective the priority is to work on an
in-fill development policy and then move towards making the development areas
work. As a second priority, and integral to all of this, is the rural areas.
He does not envision staff working on all of this at the same time.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board needs to be working on the rural
areas in conjunction with the growth areas in terms of expansion that we know
needs to take place. In terms of the growth area and how to make it more
livable, that needs to have neighborhood input and not so much staff deciding
what constitutes an excellent growth area. He thinks the important issue
right now is to get the land use plan put together in terms of what the Board
is going to do in the rural areas.
June 5, 1996 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 40) .... ~'~ ...............
Mr. Nitchmann said h~'~g~e~s~t~'Mr. Martin. The question keeps coming
up what are we doing about the land that is currently available. He asked
what is the County really doing to make the land currently in the growth areas
more readily developable. He thinks that is where affordable housing issues
will come into play because the infrastructure is already in place. He thinks
it is a good idea to talk to some of the homeowner associations to get some
ideas from them about what they feel is good for growth area expansions near
their subdivisions. At the same time, the Commission has some responsibility
of the impact of the growth areas on the entrance corridors and the City of
Charlottesville.
Mr. Finley said another issue is water supply. He thinks someone should
be taking a look at the James River as the ultimate water supply. Mrs.
Humphris commented that back in the early 1970's the price tag that was put on
a pipe line to the James River was approximately $60.0 million.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is probably three elements to completing the
land use plan. The first element is rural development in the rural areas.
The next element is how land use is going to develop and how the staff might
achieve the in-fill concepts. The last element is how the criteria for
expansion of the growth areas is going to occur. He does not think the staff
can deal effectively with more than one element at a time given everything
else it must deal with. The staff wants to know what is the highest priority
so as to devote attention to that issue and then move to the second and third
issue. During the discussion this morning, the Board was interested in trying
to get the criteria for expansion determined. The Board decided to leave the
boundaries as they are, but said it wanted to get back as soon as possible to
how the boundaries are to be expanded. Mr. Martin said he thought the Board
said that in relationship to the rural areas. He thinks the Board's vote this
morning would have been different if the part about waiting to discuss growth
expansion along with the rural areas was taken out.
Mrs. Thomas said in her opinion in-fill and expansion of growth areas
asks the same question. They both ask how we can get denser development so
that there are true neighborhoods instead of suburbs. Suburbs are not going
to age well, do not have a center, or anything that makes a person identify
with them. She thinks the first issue is dealing with the criteria for what
is going to make a denser urban-type development possible and attractive. Mr.
Martin said that is not what he thought the Board was voting on. He does not
think the location of the growth areas is an important issue, because the
Board already knows the location of the water and sewer. The question is how
much, whether south, north, or both, and that is tied integrally to what the
Board does in the rural areas.
Mr. Perkins said the Board needs to know how much inventory the County
has of vacant lots in the existing growth areas, because if there is not
sufficient inventory, something will need to be done about it. Mr. Cilimberg
said the land use report reflected an analysis that the staff went through
with the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he is still not comfortable the Commission has done
everything it can with the in-fill issue. He thinks the Commission needs to
say this is the maximum that the County is willing to do which will provide
"x" number of home sites. The Commission can then indicate how much more
additional growth area is needed based upon projections of population groWth,
etc. He thinks it would be good, if the developers knew these were the rules.
He does not think the Commission has thought about how to could make other
lots developable. Mr. Nitchmann said, for example, a 25 degree slope is the
perfect slope to have a house coming into the basement. Those are the types
of things the Commission needs to look at, if it wants to save some of the
lands outside of the urban ring.
Mr. Cilimberg said his understanding from the Board's meeting this
morning was the need to go ahead and address the criteria for how the growth
areas are to develop. The staff is in the process of putting emphasis on that
area. The question of how to expand the growth areas does have a relationship
with how the rural areas are going to develop which may be the next step. Mr.
Benish said those expansion areas, based on the Commission recommendations, is
going to take some time to research and will be a long drawn out process. In
summary staff will proceed with the study of an in-fill development policy,
then evaluate concurrently expansion of the growth areas and the rural areas.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. At 6:20 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.