Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-17October 17, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 497 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ Virginia, was held on October 17, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 .~ McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Patri¢ia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald EJ Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), and Peter T. Way. Ab sent: Mr. F. R. Bowie. Officers Present: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney George R St. John, and Director of Planning and Community Development, James R. Donnelly. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P. M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisl Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of All'egiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. _ Lindstrom, to approve the consent agenda and to accept the item of information. Roll was called the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie. Item No. 4.1. Handicapped Discrimination Grievance Procedures. It was noted in memor from Robert W. Tucker, Jr, dated October 12, 1984, that these grievance procedures are required meet federal Revenue Sharing Handicapped Discrimination Regulations. The regulations state thal all governments receiving more than $25,000 in revenue sharing funds must adopt a grievance ~ procedure to provide for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging handicapped discrimination (other than complaints concerning employment or post-secondary educational insti- tutions.) 'REVENUE SHARING HANDICAPPED REGULATIONS GRIEVANCE GUIDELINES The County of Albemarle, Virginia, advises .the public, employees and job applicants that it does not discriminate on the basis of handicapped status in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. If an employee of the County believes that he/she has been discriminated against on the basis of handicap, he/she shall follow the grievance procedures outlined in the Albemarle County Employees' Handbook. If a citizen or job applicant believes that he/she has been discriminated against on the basis of handicap, the following grievance procedures will be followed: STEP t - APPEAL TO DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE If an individual wishes to file a grievance with the County, it must be done .doin~writing, within thirty days of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance. The grievance and the expected remedy should be addressed to the appropriate Deputy County Executive. (See Form A) Within ten days of receipt of the written grievance, the Deputy County Executive will hold a meeting with the grievant to review the grievance and to attempt to come to a mutual resolution on the issue of complaint. STEP 2 - APPEAL TO COUNTY EXECUTIVE If a satisfactory resolution is not reached within fifteen days of the first meeting with the Deputy County Executive, the individual may submit the grievance to the County Executive. The County Executive will meet with the grievant within three working days or indicate i.f an extension is necessary. Such extension shall not exceed three working days except by mutual agreement. The County Executive shall render a written reply to the grievance within three working days following the second step meeting. STEP 3 -' APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS If the reply, from the County Executive is not acceptable to the grievant, he/she may submit the grievance to the Board of Supervisors to be heard at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A request for a grievance hearing by the Board of Supervisors must be submitted in writing to the County Executive's Office within ten working days of the County Executive's final reply in Step 2. (See Form B) The County Executive will schedule the hearing with the Clerk'of the Board. Along with the grievant's request for a hearing, the County Executive will also submit Grievance Form A, and Determination of Grievability Form C, for the Board's review prior to the hearing. Copies of all the forms (Form A, B and C) will be retained in the County's Revenue Sharing File. '498 October 17,1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Item No. 4.2. Monthly Building Activity Report ~for September 1984, as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-62. Ethel G. Martin (owner) to locate a.single-wide mobile home 9~.32 acres zoned RA. Property on east side of Route 601 about 4/10 mile south of intersection with Route 665. Tax Map 29, Parcel 45, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress October 2 and October 9, 1984) Mr.~ Donnelly presented the following staff report: ~ "Request: Mobile Home. ~ . Acreage: 93.32 (Approximately 67 acres excluding Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority acquisition/easement). Zoning: RA, Rural Areas. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 45, is located on the northeast side of Route 601 approximately 0.4 mile south of Route 665. Character of the Area: This property has been separated into three areas by Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's acquisition/easement for the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir. An older two story dwelling with no bath exists On the property adjacent to Route 601. Staff Comment: Mrs. Martin has stated that she suffers from arthritis and can no longer climb stairs in the existing house. A mobile home on the site would provide one-story living area with bathroom facilities. The mobile home has been set on the property to the rear of the house and skirting partially installed. While the mobile home would be clearly visible from Route 601, staff does. not believe it would be highly visible to the objecting property owners (i.e. - 500 feet and 2,000+ feet distance). Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Compliance with 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Screening from Route 601 to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Donnelly said that on October 16, 1984, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to ~ecommend approval of SP-84~62 with the two conditions. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mrs. Martin's son, Earl Martin, represented her bef¢ ;he Board, explaining that Mrs. Martin is 79 years old and living in an old, poorly built house. Mr. Martin said the house has' on!y one electrical outlet, no hot water and that the water pipes frequently freeze in the winter. Mr Fisher asked how far the mobile home would be placed from the existing house, and was to by Mr. Martin that it will be located about 35 feet behind the house. Mr. Fisher then asked if house would be left as it was or if it might be rented after Mrs. Martin moves. Mr. Martin repl that he did not think the property is rentable; it will be left undisturbed. The mobile home, h said, will be located about ninety feet from the road. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was close Mrs. Cooke made a motion to approve SP-84-62 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr Way seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he may have a conflict of interest and so will not vote. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. Sa. CPA-84-6. To amend the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 to recommend low density residential as opposed to industrial usage in an area commonly known as the Woolen Mills ~he area under consideration is bounded by the C&O Railway on the south, the Rivanna River on t~ north and east and the City of Charlottesville on the west. (Deferred from August !, 1984.) Mr. Donnelly restated the staff report that was given at the August 1 meeting. He noted th~ the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 12, 1984, unanimously voted to recommend adoptio~ of this amendment. Because this Comprehensive Plan amendment and the next zoning request are ti directly together, Mr. Fisher asked that the staff report be given at this time. )n )n ?e _d ;he .ed d 499 October 17, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-21. Margaret & Michael Van Yahres, et al. to rezone four parcels totaling 2.741 acres from LI to R-4, and one parcel of 0.3 acres from LI to R-15, with a proffer. Property located on East Market Street adjacent to the City'Limits and west of Rivanna River. Tax Map 78, Parcel 21-B, Parcel 21-A, Parcel 21-C; Tax Map 77-A, Parcel 77, Parcel 78, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 2 and October 9, 1984.) Mr. Donnelly presented the staff report, as follows: "The petition is to rezone several peoperties from LI, Light Industrial to Residential districts as follows: Owner Tax Ma~/Parcel Acreage Existing Use Proposed Use Proposed Zoning Voisnet 77(A)-77 0.961 duplex same R-4 Orrick 77(A)-78 0.8 duplex same R-4 Yackso 78-21C 0.3 3 apt. units 4 apt. units R-15 PROFFER Leathers 78-21A 0.3 single-family same R-4 Van Yahres, 78-21B 0.68 vacant duplex R-4 Lawrence History: A Comprehensive Plan amendment proposing low-density residential (1/4 dwelling unit per acre) for this area is pending before the Board of Supervisors. Average density under these rezoning requests is 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Initial rezoning petition (ZMA-84-17) would not have made existing uses conforming nor permitted proposed ones. Staff Comment: The proffer attached to the Yackso petition would permit an additional unit apartment unit only if adequate off-street pa~king were provided for all units (See following). While Mrs. Van Yahres has indicated adequate area exists to accommodate off-street parking for conversion of an industrial building to a duplex, (Tax Map 78, Parcel 2lB), clarification through proffer would be appropriate. Regarding jurisdiction of the Leathers property, staff recom- mends that the County assume jurisdiction placing burden on the City to demonstrate otherwise. If the City in fact has jurisdiction, then the County action .to rezone is moot. (Mrs. Van Yahres states in a letter dated September 4, 1984, that there is a discrepancy in the tax maps in the county offices. The tax map in the Planning Department shows all of Parcel 21-A, Tax Map 78, to be in the City, whereas the tax map in the Real Estate Department shows part of this parcel to be located in the County. Mr. Leathers pays County taxes because his house is located on this parcel in the County portion.) Should clarification of the Van Yahres request be provided, staff recommends approval of this petition." The following proffer was attached to the staff report: "September 4, 1984 1419 Chesapeake St. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Bob Tucker County of Albemarle Chariotteville, VA Dear Mr. Tucker: We proffer that under the R-15 zoning our building will remain with 3 apartments until we are able to acquire the land to provide the proper amount of off-street parking for 4 apartments. Sincerely Yours, (SIGNED) Joseph Yackso" Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2, 1984, unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZMA-84-21, with the additional proffer by Francis Lawrence and Edith Catlin Lawrence that "use of Parcel 2lB for a duplex is contingent upon adequate off-street parking." During the preSentation of the staff report Mr. Donnelly suggested that the County Attorney and the City attorney get together and determine whether the Leathers property (Tax Map 78, Parcel 2lA) is legally located in the City or County. Mr. Fisher remarked that the total land area involved in this request is only a little over three acres. He then opened the public hearing. Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres made the petitioners' presentation, telling the Board that this area adjacent to the old Woolen Mills has always been residential in character. The houses, she said, are historical in nature and of significant architectural value. The land does not lend itself to intense use, because it is bounded by the Rivanna River, the C & 0 Railroad, and steep hillsides. She said that much of the land is in the flood plain as well. '500 October 17~' lq84 (Regular Night Meet%~g_) Mr. Roger Spencer, a resident in the Woolen Mills area, said the problem in the area is parking. He said that what the rezoning proposal will do is allow the old power plant to be converted into a duplex. He described the area, saying'both sides of ~the building front on steep inclines where it is unlikely that parking could be provided off-street, especially in inclement weather. Parking space in the area is already limited and due to the crowding on the street, it presents a potential hazard to emergency vehicles. Mr. Spencer said he had brought his neighbor, a Mr. Marshall, aged 80 years, 'whose wife had been ill and the rescue squad could not even get into the area to get her. He asked where parking will be provided for both residents of the proposed duplex and their visitors. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Spencer if his concern was whether or not off-street parking can be assured and Mr. Spencer replied that it is his concern. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Donnelly how the question of off-street parking will be handled. Mr. Donnelly replied that the proffer given on October 2, 1984, before the Planning Commission states that'adequate off- street parking will be provided before any apartments are added. A site plan for this change must be submitted and will not be approved without such parking. Providing the parking is the developers' problem. Mr. Spencer remarked that the railroad company owns land right up to the building on one side and on the other side it is a steep drop to the street. Mr. Spencer said that he is in favor of upgrading the building, but that he was also concerned for his neighbors. Mr. Fisher remarked that the Board is only trying to decide whether the area should be zoned industrial or residential. If the decision is to rezone the properties for residential use, the owner involved will have to prove that parking could be made available. There being no other persons present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt Mr. Donneliy had addressed the problem of parking and that it was not really a matter before the Boardtonight; he added that he feels the rezoning is appropriate°Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt CPA-84-6 to amend the Comprehensive Plan on Map 9 of the Urban Area Land Use Plan to show low-densitY residential on those parcels listed above. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. The roll was called that the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Following the vote on CPA-84-6, Mr. Fisher asked for a further motion. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ZMA-84-21 as recommended by the Planning CommissioJ, to wit: To rezone four parcels totaling 2.741 acres from LI Light Industrial, .to R-4 Residential, and one parcel of 0.3 acres from LI Light InduStrial to R-15 Residential as follows: Parcel 77, Tax Map 77A - Voisnet - rezoned to R-4 ~::~,;~:~:::~ii~ ](~ ~i~:~: ~,~'~::~ ~i~ Parcel 78, Tax Map 77A - 0rrick - rezoned to R-2 Parcel 2lA, Tax Map 78 - Leathers - rezoned to R-4 Parcel 2lB, Tax Map 78 - Van Yahres/Lawrence - rezoned to R-4 with proffer from Francis Lawrence and Edith Catlin Lawrence to wit: "Use of Parcel 2lB for a duplex is contingent upon adequate off-street parking." Parcel 21C, Tax Map 78 - Yackso - rezoned to R-15 with proffer reading: "We proffer that under the R-I5 zoning, our building will remain with three apartments until we are able to acquire the land to provide the proper amount of off-street parking for four apartments." Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion~ which carried by the following recorded Vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-84-58. Daniel D. Shifflett. TO locate a country store, gift shop with three gasoline.pumps, and an apartment unit on 21.044 acres zoned RA. Property on west side of Route 810 south of Route 811. Tax Map 40, Parcel 12, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 2 and on October 9, 1984.) Mr. Henley informed Mr. Fisher that he wished to abstain on this issue because he owned property adjacent to the parcel under discussion. He left the Board table at 7:58 P.M. Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: "Request: Acr'e'age.: 'Zoning: 'L'o'c'at'ion: Country store, gift shop (with three gas pumps) and a dwelling unit (apartment). (Section 10.2.2.22). 21.44'acres. RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 40, Parcel 12, is' located on the west side of Route 810 approximately one-quarter mile south of its intersection with Route 811. White Hall Magisterial District. 501 October t7~ 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Character of the Area: The property is presently developed, in part, with a vacant, (two years) agricultural storage building. Adjacent land use includes single-family residences and agricultural and pasture land. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: Rural Area I, located about 1 1/2 miles from the Crozet Community boundary. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to remodel the existing storage building in a manner which would accommodate a country store on the first floor (approximately 4,500 square feet); a gift shop of similar size on the second floor; and an apartment on the third floor. The apartment would be occupied by Mr. Shifflett who plans to reside on the property. The applicant also proposes the location of three gasoline pumps and a storage tank on the property, the location of which has not been determined at this time. STAFF COMMENT: Comments received from the Fire Prevention Officer indicate extensive building code requirements will have to be met concerning fire separation between the third floor apartment and mercantile sections of the building. There are also stringent requirements concerning the location of the gasoline tank and pumps relative to separations from the building and property lines. The Watershed Management Official has noted that this site is located in the drainage area of Beaver Creek Reservoir, the water supply impoundment for Crozet. Development of the site should incorporate Best Management Practices. The Runoff Control Ordinance may be applicable. While written comments from the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation have not been received, staff did visit the property with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation representatives and were informed that a sight distance easement to the north would be necessary, and off- street parking requirements should be located to the north of the building due to sight distance constraints to the south. Staff has reviewed this proposal for consistency with the criteria for issuance of a Special Use Permit (Section 31.2.41): 1--A country store combined with a gift shop (total square footage approx- imately 9,000) would be a substantial change in the character and intensity of use in the area. The maximum allowable size in the Zoning Ordinance for a country store is 4,000 square feet. 2--The use is not in compliance with Zoning regulations for the area and ~out~require a variance from front yard setback requirements. ' 3--The Rural Areas District is designed to preserve the agricultural character of the area while at the same time accommodating development on land which is of marginal utility for agricultural purposes. Development which is permitted should occur in locations and at scales compatible with the physical characteristics of the land. Roadside strip development is to be discouraged. The applicant's proposal does not meet the above intent of the district in regard to scale of development and in particular with the intent to discourage strip development. 4--The Comprehensive Plan standards recommend the concentration and clustering of commercial uses in an effort to minimize traffic hazards and adverse visual impacts. Further, the Comprehensive Plan recommends the location of commercial uses in an agricultural area which support or are a part of the agricultural economy. The proposed use does not meet the intent of the above Plan strategies or standards. Staff recommends denial of the Special Use Permit. However, should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve the Special Use Permit, staff recommends the followihg conditions of approval: t; Site plan approval; ~ 2; ~E~e Official and Building Official approval; 3. No outdoor storage or display; 4. The size of the country store must comply with the definition found in the Zoning Ordinance; 5. Operating hours are to be from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., six days per week." Mr. Donnelly said that on October 2, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended denial of SP-84-58. The public hearing was opened and the applicant Mr. Daniel D. Shifflett, presented his plans to the Board, saying that the building is an old one and that he intends to renovate it. Mr. Shifflett said the lot offers sufficient parking area and added that he cannot change the size of the existing building. He said that even though the building is large, he included the total square footage in his request because he might need it at some point. Mr. Shifflett said the building, a former packing shed, is a fire hazard at present. He said the only people stopping at his store would be the cars already passing this point. Mr. Shifflett said he feels the building should be repaired or torn down, and he is proposing to repair it because it is a good building. Mr. Herbert McAllister, Buck Mountain Road in Crozet, told the Board that he had worked in the building in question when he was six years old, and that now he is 53. He said the building, in the forty, even year interim, has gone downhill, and he feels Mr. Shifflett can make something of it other than an eyesore. Mr. McAilister added that Mr. Shifflett is willing to go by the rules and take care of the building. Also, this land does not drain toward Beaver Creek Reservoir. Mr. Warner D. Chapman, representing adjacent property owners Arthur and Christine Baker, then addressed the board. He summarized a letter the Bakers had written to Mr. Ronald Keeler expressing their displeasure with Mr. Shifflett's proposal. Mr. Chapman said the Bakers feel the the area is agricultural and residential, and if the special use is permitted, this will be the only commercial use between Crozet and White Hall. Mr. Chapman said the Bakers are concerned about strip development and the traffic problem -- 502 ~ctober 17, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) limited sight distance and two dangerous curves in the area where the building is located. Mr. Chapman said the Bakers fear that the additional vehicles pulling onto the road will present a hazard, and there is also a danger that vehicles will park along the road in the area. The Bakers, he said, are worried that the gas pumps would be impractical or illegal. They also do not want to have the view from their house marred by the parking facilities for a store, ruining the aesthetics that made them buy the property in the first place. In addition, Mr. Chapman said the Bakers feel the store would not be in keeping with the area, even though they appreciate Mr. Shifflett's intentions to use the handsome building. Mr. Chapman said the zoning category, as it is, is something people rely on and the Bakers wish it to remain as RA. Mr. Stuart Carwile, adjacent property owner to the north, told the Board that it had several factors to consider in the matter: 1. There is no need for such a facility in this area. Within five miles there are two grocery stores in White Hall, three stores and four establishments selling gas in Crozet; 2. The people who live along Route 810 between Crozet and White Hall, and in close proximity to the packing shed, are strongly opposed to the store. They do not see the need. There is a lot of non-local traffic along Route 810 that has access to facilities in White Hall and Crozet; 3. A special use permit for the store would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which is designed to promote clustering of commercial facilities; 4. This building is a large one, bigger than Crozet Foods, Crozet Hardware and many other local stores. Mr. Carwile said a store in this location would be totally out- of-keeping with the neighborhood; 5. School buses travel the road , which is treacherous in winter. Vehicles approaching the store would have very little time to stop and accidents along the road would increase in numbers. Thus stating his reasons, Mr. Carwile urged the Board to follow ~the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the staff and to deny the petition. Mr. Chris Rembold, whose home is located 400 yards south of the site, told the Board that he agrees with his neighbors that the store is inappropriate in a rural neighborhood. Mr. Shifflett asked and was granted permission to speak again. He told the Board that while Route 810 is curvy, Mr. Carwile has 'four tenant houses and he probably does not have ten feet~ of sight distance from his driveway. Mr. Shifflett said that contrary to the remarks-that people do not want a store in the area, he had a petition signed by 183 people who support the store. Mr. Shifflett said most suggested putting a nightclub in the building, but he was trying to put something quiet there. Mr. Carwile suggested that the Board examine the petition, because he suspected that the signatures were not of people who live on Route 810 but are of Mr. Shifflett's fellow employees at Acme and people who live on the Mechum's River road. There being no further public comment the hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said that even though he is certain Mr. Shifflett feels that any good use should be encouraged, the Board has struggled hard to preserve consistent uses of the land. He is concerned about a business approaching 10,000 square feet of floor space on Route 810. The maximum area allowable by the Zoning Ordinance, he said, is 4,000 square feet, and this proposed store is considerably larger than anything contemplated for such a use. Mr. Lindstrom said he is familiar with the building and he feels the use is inapproPriate. He then made motion that SP-84-58 be denied. Mr. Way asked Mr. Shifflett where he intended to place the gas pumps. Mr. Shifflett replied that he would put them Wherever he was told to put them. Mr. Lindstrom continued his explanation of his motion saying that the store would be located in a spot that is conspicuously removed from similar uses and that the store would stick out like a sore thumb in an agricultural area. The idea, he said, is tantamount to spot zoning. Gas pumps provide an increase in traffic and the store would not serve an emergent need. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, saying that while she can appreciate the applicant's desire to use the building, the use is not really needed in this area and is inappropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Roll was called at this time and the motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. Z~~, NAYS: Mr. Way. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ABSTAIN: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-84-65. M. Clifton McClure, et al, Trustees - Mechunk Creek Stables Land Trust. To locate a private road to cross a stream with multiple culverts and associated landfill serving ten large acreage tracts. Property consists of 284.31 acres and is located on southside of Route 648 northwest of C&O railroad. Tax Map 81, Parcel llA (part), Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 2 and October 9, 1984.) Mr. Lindstrom requested that he be allowed to abstain since his firm has a peripheral involvement in the matter. He left the room at 8:26 p.m. Mr. Henley returned to the meeting. Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: 503 October 17~ 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) "Request: Stream crossing (30.3.5.2.1(2)) Acreage: 284.31 acres. Zoning: RA, Rural Areas. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 81, Parcel llA, part, is located on the south side of Route 648, east of Route 22 near Keswick. Rivanna Magisterial District. Character of Area: Large acreages and scattered single-family dwell- ings along Route 648. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant currently has pending a prelim- inary subdivision plat called Rugby Farms consisting of ten lots ranging in size from 21 to 46 acres served by a private road. The private road will depart from the existing entrance road to Mechunk Creek Stables and will traverse the one hundred year flood plain of a tributary stream which flows into Mechunk Creek. This special use permit must be approved before the subdivision may be processed. The proposed stream crossing will consist of multiple culverts and associated landfill. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has not received comments from the County Engineer as of this writing. This stream is not large enough for canoeing. The County Engineer's review should ensure that the culverts will not increase flooding up- stream. Staff has no other concerns and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in flood plain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies." Mr. Donneliy said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2, 1984, unanimously recommended approval subject to the two conditions in the staff's report. Mr. Fisher asked after the staff report was presented if any effort had'been made to tie this request to the existing preliminary subdivision plat so that the stream crossing would only serve the proposed ten lots. His concern was that such a structure might not be adequate for a larger subdivision. Mr. Donnelly replied that he was not sure whether the Planning Commission had taken that into consideration. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Roudabush was present to represent the applicant. He said Mr. John Greene of his office and Mr. Kincannon were also present to answer questions. He told Mr. Fisher that if there had been any way to proffer the number of lots on a special permit request, he feels that would have been done. He does not see any way to divide Rugby Farms into more than ten lots. He added that the stream bisects the farm into distinct sections, so any additional stream crossings for further development would require an additional permit. He stated that the owner has seen the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and he has no problem with the conditions. Mr. Roudabush said he feels the County Corps of Engineers, State Water Control Board and other agencies will have an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Fisher asked the width of the bridge and was told by Mr. Roudabush that it has a 50-foot easement and the roadway will be whatever is required by County ordinances, with 18 feet of pavement and adequate shoulders, possibly 40-50 feet in length at the toe of the slope. Mr. Fisher then asked how much fill will be required. Mr. Roudabush said the road has not been completely designed, but he estimated that it would be about ten feet. Mr. Roudabush added that the pipes can be designed to prevent backup from a ten or one hundred year flood. Multiple pipes can probably be installed to help avoid a high fill. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he did not object to the proposal, but feels that if the approval is for a ten-lot subdivision, that fact should be noted in the record so it will be known that that is the intent. Mr. Way then offered motion to approve SP-84-65 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley said he would second the motion, and he would have no problem including a condition that approval be for the ten lot subdivision mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Way accepted that amendment to his original motion. Approval is conditional on the following: 1 - County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in the flood plain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 2 - Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies; 3 - Use is intended for 10 lots subject to preliminary subdivision plat of Rugby Farms. Roll was called and the motion passed with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at this time. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-84-66. Suzanne J. Staton. To locate a culvert to cross a stream on 3.854 acres. Property on east side of Route 601 south~of Barracks Road. Tax Map 60, Parcel 4L (part), Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 2 and October 9, 1984.) 504 ~Ctober 17~ 1984 (Regular Night Meeting] Mr. Donnelly delivered the following staff report: "Request: Stream crossing (30.3.5.3.1.2) Acreage: To serve 3.85 acre lot. Zoni'ng: RA, Rural Areas. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, parcel 4L (part) is located on. the east side of Route 601 (TwentY-one Curves) about 0.3 mile south of Barracks Road (Route 654). Character of Area: A seven,acre tract was recently divided into two lots. The Staton property (Parcel H-iA) is using temporary access across the Tenney property (H-lB) for house construction purposes. Direct access to Route 601 from the Staton property requires crossing the flood plain of a branch of Ivy Creek. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant proposes that the stream crossing consist~of two 60- inch culverts. At least three other stream crossings exist in the area including Route 601 about 500-600 feet upstream of 'the proposed Staton crossing. The Route 601 crossing consists of one 30-inch culvert. At this writing, plans for the crossing are under review by the County Engineer, therefore, comments regarding physical effects of the stream crossing should be viewed as preliminary: ~. 1. !~The~]~ream]is~not normally canoeable in this area. The stream crossing would not interfere with public use. 2. The Watershed Management Official, for environmental reasons, has recommended continuation of the use of the existing Tenney entrance to serve both lots. Careful construction in accordance with Best Management Practices could minimize erosion and stream degradation; 3. Due to other crossings in the area, staff opinion is that the proposed Staton crossing would not change the character of the area or establish unwise precedent; 4. Due to the proximity and relative constriction of other stream crossings, the Staton crossing would likely not adversely affect flooding in the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1.~Co~n~S~n$~eer approval of bridge and construction activity in the flood plain in accordance with Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the State Water Control Board; 3. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2, 1984, unanimously recommended approval of SP-84-66 with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Donnelly said that since the Planning Commission meeting, written comments have been received from the County Engineer, recommending that two additional conditions be placed on any approval of this permit: 1) The portions of the driveway and fill slopes that are subject to being over- topped by the ten-year storm are to be paved and stabilized to prevent washouts as approved by the County Engineer. 2) County Engineer approval of revisions to the driveway profile, the culvert slope, and inlet and outlet erosion control protection. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are other lots on this same road which might require stream crossings if developed. Mr. Donnelly said there are two or three that might have the same requirements. Mr. Fisher asked if there is other access to this property that does not require a stream crossing. Mr. Donnelly pointed out on a map the location of the existing entrance. At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Boyd, architect for Ms. Staton, was present in her behalf. Mr. Boyd noted that Ms. Staton had purchased the property from Mr. Tenney who has owned the land since the early 1960's. Mr. Tenney had put in a road (referred to as the existing entrance) and dug a well. About two years ago, Mr. Tenney had a subdivision platted, but never did get the subdivision approved. He did, however, apply to the Highway Department for an entrance permit, which was approved. When Mr. Tenney sold the property to Ms. Staton, the Highway Department would not reissue a permit for the existing entrance because they are now requiring 200 feet of sight distance. The existing entrance is only 120 feet from the edge of the property and in order to obtain this sight distance, it would require that a very steep bank on Ms. Staton's property, Mr. Tenney's property and also on the next property owner's land, be cut back. Environmentally, that is not good Planning. Mr. Boyd said Ms. Staton has chosen to apply for a special use permit for a stra~m~'~a~ ~ing ~hat the new entrance location chosen will make a much safer entrance off of the very curvy Route 601. Ms. Staton and Mr. Tenney have agreed, by deed, to share this new entrance. The present culvert under the state highway is just three feet in diameter, and the proposal is for two pipes of fi~e feet each in diameter. Mr. Boyd said he is aware of the Board's concerns about the Rivanna watershed and about building in flood areas, but given the peculiarities of this site, this is felt to be the best solution for an entrance to the two properties. There being no other public comment for or against the petition, Mr. Fisher declared the hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he can see why this stream crossing is being proposed. The problem was created when the subdivision was approved, but he does not see any other solution at this time. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to apporve SP-84-66 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the two conditions listed in the County Engineer's 505 October 17, 1984~: (Regular Night Meeting) report. Mrs. Cooke asked if this bridge (.stream crossing).will be used jointly by Ms. Staton and Mr. Tenney. Mr. Boyd said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom felt it might be appropriate to incorporate a condition concerning the existing entrance. Mr. Fisher suggested the wording: "The entrance presently serving the property will be closed at the time the bridge is completed and the road improvements accepted by proper authorities." The motion in its amended form was then seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie. (Note: The complete list of conditions read as follows:) 1) 2) 3) 6) County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in the flood plain in accordance with Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, and the State Water Control Board; Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies; Portions of the driveway and fill slopes that are subject to being overtopped by the ten-year storm are to be paved and stabilized to prevent washouts as approved by the County Engineer; County Engineer Approval of revisions to the driveway profile, the culvert slope, and inlet and outlet erosion control protection; The entrance presently serving the property be closed at the time the bridge is completed and the road improvements accepted by the proper authorities Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Agreement between County and J.B.L. Construction Company, Inc., re: The Windham/Jarman Gap Road Drainage Channel. Mr. Tucker said this is just one of sixteen projects approved by the Board as the Urban Drainage Improvements Plan; these projects were made a part of the Comprehensive Plan. This project is located between Route 240 and High Street in Crozet and has been designated to take drainage and stormwater from Windham Place and Crozet Foods and the lots that drain toward High Street. The project is being engineered in two phases. Phase I will be basically installation of pipe to handle water runoff. Improvement of the road and culvert pipe at Jarman Gap Road will be required at the time the channelization improvement is made. This project is being coordinated with the Highway Department because it will make the actual improvement under Jarman Gap Road. The County Engineer said the channel is not the type you would normally think of because it will meander in an attempt to keep trees in the area. There has been some concern expressed about flooding which occurs at the location of the Crozet Women's Club building. Mr. Tucker said he thinks that problem will be solved when Phase II of this project is completed in the spring of 1985. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to ratify the sig- nature of the Deputy County Executive on the following contract document. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie. (Note: The Contract, as signed, is set out below.) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 19th day of September, 1984, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereinafter called "OWNER" and J.B.L. Construction Company, Inc. doing business as a corporation, hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WITNESSETH: mentioned: That for and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter 1) The CONTRACTOR will commence and complete the contstruction of the Wind- ham/Jarman Gap Road Drainage Channel. 2) The CONTRACTOR will furnish all of the material, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other services necessary for the construction of the PROJECT described herein. 3) The CONTRACTOR will commence the work required by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS within ten (i0) calendar days after the date of the NOTICE TO PROCEED and will complete the same within 60 calendar days unless the period for completion is extended otherwise by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 4.) The CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all of the WORK described in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and comply with the terms therein for the sum of $16,925.00-or as shown in the BID schedule. 5) The term "CONTRACT DOCUMENTS" means and includes the following: (A) INVITATION FOR BIDS (C) BID BOND 50S October 17, 1984 ~Regular Night. Meeting) (D) AGREEMENT (E) GENERAL CONDITIONS (T) SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS PERFORMANCE BOND NOTICE OF AWARD NOTICE TO PROCEED CHANGE ORDER DRAWINGS prepared by County of Albemarle, Virginia numbered 1 through 1 and dated Revision Date: Sept. 13, 1984. (L) SPECIFICATIONS prepared or issued by Office of the C6un~:y Engineer, County of Albemarle, Virginia, dated August, 1984. (M) ADDENDA: NONE ISSUED. 6) The OWNER will pay to the CONTRACTOR in the manner and at such times as set forth in the General Conditions such amounts as required by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 7) This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns." Agenda Item No. 10a. Appointment to Airport Authority. Mr. Tucker said he had prepared a resolution to appoint Mr. George C Prill and Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., to the Airport Authority, Mr. Tucker said this action is in line with the legislation adopted by the General Assembly this year. Mr. Lindstrom made a motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the resolution of appointment which follows. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie. WHEREAS, the 1984 General Assembly through acts of legislation hays created the ChartottesviileAA~~.i~A~port~ii~Authority;~d WHEREAS, this legislation specifies that the City Manager or his duly appointed deputy as named by the City Council, and the County Executive or his deputy as appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and one member of the Airport Commission as appointed jointly by the City Council of Charlottesville, and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, shall constitute the Airport Authority; NOW, THEREFORE BE iT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby appoint Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive of Albemarle County, and Mr. George C. Prill, Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Commission to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority. Mr. Fisher said that now that the motion has been adopted, he would like to make a statement. This is not a democratic way to run the government. To create a new authority with powers to borrow funds, and not to have had any discussion of the question by the icitizens, or not to have held even one public hearing on the question, is something he certainly did not concur with. Mr. Fisher said he will probably have further comments about this matter in future years. Agenda Item No. ~1. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher thanked the Planning Staff for the timely minutes of Planning Commission meetings, He said that these mintutes have been very helpful to him in reviewing matters coming before the Board of Supervisors.. Mr. Fisher also introduced Mrs. Janet Hanks as new assistant in the Board's office. Agenda Item No. 12. At 9:06 P.M., Mr. Way offered motion to adjourn until November 7, 1984, at 3:30 P.M. in Meeting Rooms 5 & 6. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion which passed by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: !ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie.